Coinstelegram

Coinbase在2026年第二季度錄得3.59億美元淨虧損，這是其連續第三個季度出現虧損。由於這家加密貨幣交易所已經連續第三個季度未能達到華爾街的營收預期，消息發佈後其股價在盤後交易中下跌約5%。
然而，埋藏在一則在紙面上看起來很嚴峻的頭條之下的是一場商業轉型——首席執行官布萊恩·阿姆斯特朗（Brian Armstrong）認爲，這場轉型從根本上改變了Coinbase到底是一傢什麼樣的公司。
錯過的數字
Coinbase公佈的本季度總營收爲12.2億美元，比上一季度下降14%，也遠低於華爾街分析師此前預計的12.9億美元。3590萬美元的淨虧損折算爲每股虧損1.36美元——相比之下，Coinbase在一年前同一季度報告的爲14.3億美元利潤，折算爲每股5.14美元，出現了巨大反轉。

POST-EVENT HIGHLIGHTS: Finnovex South Africa 2026 Concludes with Remarkable Success
Theme: Driving African Fintech Leadership Innovation, Inclusion & Regulatory Evolution
Date: July 21, 2026
Venue: Johannesburg Marriott Hotel, Melrose Arch, South Africa
Website: https://sa.finnovex.com/
Johannesburg, South Africa — Finnovex South Africa 2026 concluded on a high note, delivering a resounding success and firmly establishing itself as one of the most powerful and outcome-driven financial services gatherings on the continent.
Organised by Exibex Group, the summit brought together an influential community of 400+ senior decision-makers, 40+ renowned speakers, and 10+ strategic sponsors, creating a dynamic ecosystem of banks, fintech innovators, regulators, and technology leaders all under one roof.
Far more than a traditional conference, Finnovex South Africa 2026 became a catalyst for real conversations and real outcomes. It was a space where ideas were not just discussed—but challenged, refined, and transformed into actionable strategies shaping the future of Africa’s financial landscape.
From the very first interaction to the closing networking session, the energy throughout the day reflected a shared urgency: to accelerate innovation, strengthen resilience, and unlock inclusive growth at scale.
The summit delivered a power-packed agenda featuring visionary keynotes, high-impact CXO panels, strategic fireside conversations, and deep-dive discussions—each designed to move beyond theory and focus on execution, scalability, and measurable impact.
What truly set this edition apart was the quality of dialogue and level of engagement. With a highly curated audience of senior leaders, every session translated into meaningful insights, strategic alignment, and tangible business value.
Finnovex South Africa 2026 was not just well attended—it was deeply felt, actively participated in, and widely recognised as a defining moment for Africa’s financial services ecosystem.
Key Highlights — A Day of Strategy, Innovation & Leadership
The summit opened with a networking breakfast and structured icebreaker session, setting the tone for meaningful engagement and peer collaboration.
Opening remarks by Lindi Choma (African Bank) highlighted South Africa’s critical role in powering Africa’s financial transformation, setting a strong strategic direction for the day.
Visionary Keynotes That Set the Agenda
The summit featured powerful keynote sessions that explored the intersection of AI, innovation, and financial inclusion:
Dr. Thabiso Njongwe (Absa Group) delivered a compelling keynote on “Own the Intelligence”, emphasising how AI is reshaping inclusion and decision-making across financial ecosystems.
Naresh Bhanotra (Infosys Finacle) explored the transition from traditional banking models to composable, platform-driven architectures.
Dido wa Kalonji (FNB Eswatini) highlighted the importance of early adoption of emerging technologies to unlock exponential growth.
Punki Modise (Absa Group) spoke on building future-ready institutions beyond technology.
Premal Dave (Azilen Technologies) introduced a forward-looking perspective on voice-led banking and the future of human-machine interaction.
Grant Kelly (Nedbank) delivered a powerful keynote on financial inclusion and social responsibility, emphasising the role of banking in driving equitable growth.

CXO Panel — Intelligence at the Core
Moderated by Lindi Choma (African Bank), this high-impact panel brought together industry leaders including:
Dido wa Kalonji (FNB Eswatini), Nkateko Mabunda (Nedbank CIB), and Ricardo Smith (Absa Group).
The discussion explored how AI, data, and advanced technologies are reshaping financial services, with a focus on scalability, resilience, and sustainable growth.
Payments & Ecosystem Transformation Take Centre Stage
Leader’s Confab Panel — Rebuilding the Payments Ecosystem
Moderated by Tryphine Zulu (Rand Mutual), the session featured leaders from Absa, Nedbank, African Bank, DBSA, Tether, and Kyriba.
The panel unpacked the future of payments infrastructure, liquidity optimisation, and cross-border innovation, highlighting Africa’s unique opportunity to lead in real-time and inclusive payment systems.
Fireside Chat — Transformation at Scale
A compelling fireside conversation between Khomotso Molabe (Standard Bank Group) and John Barber (Infosys Finacle) explored large-scale banking transformation in the age of AI, sharing real-world insights on modernisation, agility, and enterprise-wide change.
Power Panel — Digital Banking Rewired
One of the most engaging sessions of the day, this panel was moderated by Chuma Qwalela (Rand Mutual) and featured leaders from: Nedbank, Old Mutual, Standard Bank, Hollard, and FNB.
The discussion focused on how financial institutions can drive growth through customer-centric strategies, operational excellence, and digital innovation, redefining the
future of banking across Africa.
Powered by Industry Leaders Driving Innovation
Finnovex South Africa 2026 was made possible with the support of leading organisations shaping the financial ecosystem:
Lead Sponsor: Infosys Finacle
Silver Sponsor: Azilen Technologies
Bronze Sponsors: Kyriba, Tether
Networking Sponsor: SASWORK
These partners played a pivotal role in driving innovation, enabling collaboration, and shaping meaningful industry conversations.
A Platform for Impact, Collaboration & Growth
From AI-driven banking to payments transformation and financial inclusion, the summit delivered practical insights and actionable strategies that will influence the next phase of Africa’s financial evolution.
The event concluded with Chair’s Closing Reflections, followed by a vibrant Networking Extravaganza, reinforcing connections and fostering future collaborations.
Looking Ahead — Finnovex Africa
As Finnovex South Africa 2026 comes to a close, one message resonates clearly:
This was not just a conference — it was a strategic convergence of ideas, leadership, and execution.
The conversations initiated here will continue to shape boardroom strategies, innovation roadmaps, and financial ecosystems across Africa and beyond.
To our speakers, partners, sponsors, and delegates:
Thank you for being part of this journey and for shaping the future of finance in Africa.

About Finnovex
Finnovex is a globally recognised platform dedicated to transforming the financial services landscape.
Through its presence across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, Finnovex brings together regulators, innovators, technology leaders, and financial institutions to reimagine the future of banking and financial ecosystems.
Each Finnovex chapter is more than an event — it is a platform for collaboration, innovation, and impact.
For sponsorship, speaking opportunities, and upcoming events, visit: https://sa.finnovex.com/
For enquiries: info@exibex.com

Coinbase報告稱，2026年第二季度淨虧損3.59億美元，這是其連續第三個季度虧損。由於這家加密貨幣交易所連續第三次未達到華爾街的營收預期，股價在盤後交易中下跌約5%。
然而，在一則在紙面上看起來很沉重的頭條背後，隱藏着首席執行官Brian Armstrong所稱的、已從根本上改變Coinbase到底是怎樣一家公司的一項業務轉型。
未達預期的數據
Coinbase本季度總營收爲12.2億美元，較上一季度下降14%，並且遠低於華爾街分析師此前預計的12.9億美元。本季度淨虧損3.59億美元折算爲每股虧損1.36美元——相比之下，這與去年同一季度Coinbase錄得的14.3億美元利潤（每股5.14美元）形成了巨大反差。

歐洲首屈一指的外匯、加密與金融科技盛會——Wiki Finance Expo Cyprus 2026將於今年11月來到利馬索爾！
利馬索爾，塞浦路斯——請在日曆上標記Wiki Finance Expo Cyprus 2026：活動將於2026年11月6日舉行，地點在享負盛名的Parklane（豪華精選度假酒店&水療中心）。作爲歐洲外匯與金融科技服務行業最具影響力的聚會之一，本次活動預計將迎來來自30多個國家的5000多名專業人士、50+位傑出演講嘉賓以及50+家參展商。

歐洲頂級外匯、加密與金融科技盛會——Wiki Finance Expo Cyprus 2026將於本年11月來到利馬索爾！
利馬索爾，塞浦路斯——請在日曆上標記Wiki Finance Expo Cyprus 2026：活動將於2026年11月6日舉行，地點在享有盛譽的Parklane（麗思卡爾頓精選度假酒店及水療中心）。作爲歐洲外匯與金融科技服務行業最具影響力的聚會之一，本次活動預計將迎來來自30多個國家的超過5,000名專業人士、50位以上傑出演講嘉賓以及50家以上參展商。

參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫將自己定位爲《CLARITY法案》的最直言不諱的反對者；該法案是加密行業推動的、用於聯邦市場結構立法的核心提案。她的反對聲音很響、論點也很具體，並且多次威脅要打斷該法案的推進勢頭。但她的批評者——其中許多人來自加密行業本身——認爲，她的動機並不像她那套民粹主義的說辭所呈現的那樣純粹。下面是關於這場爭鬥雙方，哪些內容是確實可以覈實的。
沃倫實際上在說什麼

參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫已將自己定位爲《澄清法案》（CLARITY Act）在參議院中最大聲、最直言的反對者——這是加密行業推動的、旨在聯邦層面制定市場結構立法的核心舉措。她的反對聲音很大、很具體，並且多次揚言要打斷該法案的推進勢頭。但她的批評者——其中許多人來自加密行業內部——認爲她的動機並不像其民粹主義言辭所暗示的那樣純粹。下面是關於這場對抗中雙方說法，哪些是確實可覈查的內容。
沃倫究竟在辯什麼

Why Successful Traders Treat Trading Like a Business
Forex trading often appears simple from the outside. Open an account, place trades, and try to profit from market movements. Yet the reality is very different. Many traders lose money not because they lack access to information, but because they approach trading emotionally rather than professionally.
Successful traders tend to operate with a different mindset. Instead of treating trading like a hobby or a shortcut to quick money, they approach it like a business built on structure, discipline, planning, and risk management.
The Mindset Shift That Changes Everything
One of the biggest differences between inexperienced traders and consistent performers is perspective. New traders often focus almost entirely on short-term profits, while experienced traders focus on process and sustainability.
Thinking like a business owner encourages more rational decision-making. Rather than reacting emotionally to every market move, disciplined traders follow systems, evaluate performance, and think in terms of long-term growth.
This mindset can reduce impulsive trading, improve consistency, and create a more stable approach to risk.
Planning Before Entering a Trade
Businesses rarely operate without a plan, and trading should be no different. Every trade should have a defined purpose before execution.
A structured trading plan typically includes:
Entry conditions
Exit targets
Risk limits
Position sizing
Market conditions for participation
Without a plan, traders often rely on emotion or guesswork. With one, trading becomes more systematic and measurable.
Why Risk Management Matters
Risk is unavoidable in both business and trading. The goal is not to eliminate risk entirely, but to manage it responsibly.
Professional traders understand that protecting capital is often more important than chasing aggressive returns, especially when trading with a high-leverage forex broker in highly volatile market conditions. Many successful traders limit the amount of capital risked on a single trade in order to withstand periods of market volatility.
Strong risk management can help traders:
preserve capital,
reduce emotional pressure,
and remain active through losing periods.
In trading, survival is often what creates long-term opportunity.
Tracking Performance Improves Decision-Making
Most businesses measure performance carefully, and traders can benefit from doing the same. Maintaining a trading journal allows traders to review decisions, identify recurring mistakes, and evaluate which strategies perform best over time.
Recording trade outcomes, risk levels, and emotional patterns can provide valuable insight into behavior and consistency. Over time, this creates a more data-driven approach to improvement.
Consistency Often Matters More Than Quick Wins
Many new traders enter the market hoping for rapid profits, but trading success is usually built gradually. Consistent decision-making and disciplined execution tend to produce more sustainable results than high-risk attempts at quick gains.
Like any business, long-term performance is often shaped by steady execution rather than isolated successes.
Emotional Control Remains Essential
Emotional decision-making is one of the most common challenges in trading. Fear, greed, and frustration can lead to impulsive behavior, including overtrading or abandoning a strategy prematurely.
Structured routines and clearly defined rules can help traders reduce emotional reactions and maintain greater consistency during volatile market conditions.
Continuous Learning Is Part of the Process
Financial markets continue to evolve as economic conditions, technology, and investor behavior change over time. As a result, successful traders often treat learning as an ongoing process.
This may include:
reviewing market trends,
testing strategies,
studying risk management,
and adapting to changing market environments.
Improvement in trading is usually gradual rather than immediate.
Final Thoughts
Trading is rarely as simple as it appears online. While opportunities exist, long-term success often depends less on chasing quick profits and more on discipline, structure, and consistency.
Approaching trading like a business can help traders develop clearer processes, manage risk more effectively, and make decisions with a longer-term perspective. Over time, that mindset may create a more stable foundation for growth and performance.

Why Successful Traders Treat Trading Like a Business
Forex trading often appears simple from the outside. Open an account, place trades, and try to profit from market movements. Yet the reality is very different. Many traders lose money not because they lack access to information, but because they approach trading emotionally rather than professionally.
Successful traders tend to operate with a different mindset. Instead of treating trading like a hobby or a shortcut to quick money, they approach it like a business built on structure, discipline, planning, and risk management.
The Mindset Shift That Changes Everything
One of the biggest differences between inexperienced traders and consistent performers is perspective. New traders often focus almost entirely on short-term profits, while experienced traders focus on process and sustainability.
Thinking like a business owner encourages more rational decision-making. Rather than reacting emotionally to every market move, disciplined traders follow systems, evaluate performance, and think in terms of long-term growth.
This mindset can reduce impulsive trading, improve consistency, and create a more stable approach to risk.
Planning Before Entering a Trade
Businesses rarely operate without a plan, and trading should be no different. Every trade should have a defined purpose before execution.
A structured trading plan typically includes:
Entry conditions
Exit targets
Risk limits
Position sizing
Market conditions for participation
Without a plan, traders often rely on emotion or guesswork. With one, trading becomes more systematic and measurable.
Why Risk Management Matters
Risk is unavoidable in both business and trading. The goal is not to eliminate risk entirely, but to manage it responsibly.
Professional traders understand that protecting capital is often more important than chasing aggressive returns, especially when trading with a high-leverage forex broker in highly volatile market conditions. Many successful traders limit the amount of capital risked on a single trade in order to withstand periods of market volatility.
Strong risk management can help traders:
preserve capital,
reduce emotional pressure,
and remain active through losing periods.
In trading, survival is often what creates long-term opportunity.
Tracking Performance Improves Decision-Making
Most businesses measure performance carefully, and traders can benefit from doing the same. Maintaining a trading journal allows traders to review decisions, identify recurring mistakes, and evaluate which strategies perform best over time.
Recording trade outcomes, risk levels, and emotional patterns can provide valuable insight into behavior and consistency. Over time, this creates a more data-driven approach to improvement.
Consistency Often Matters More Than Quick Wins
Many new traders enter the market hoping for rapid profits, but trading success is usually built gradually. Consistent decision-making and disciplined execution tend to produce more sustainable results than high-risk attempts at quick gains.
Like any business, long-term performance is often shaped by steady execution rather than isolated successes.
Emotional Control Remains Essential
Emotional decision-making is one of the most common challenges in trading. Fear, greed, and frustration can lead to impulsive behavior, including overtrading or abandoning a strategy prematurely.
Structured routines and clearly defined rules can help traders reduce emotional reactions and maintain greater consistency during volatile market conditions.
Continuous Learning Is Part of the Process
Financial markets continue to evolve as economic conditions, technology, and investor behavior change over time. As a result, successful traders often treat learning as an ongoing process.
This may include:
reviewing market trends,
testing strategies,
studying risk management,
and adapting to changing market environments.
Improvement in trading is usually gradual rather than immediate.
Final Thoughts
Trading is rarely as simple as it appears online. While opportunities exist, long-term success often depends less on chasing quick profits and more on discipline, structure, and consistency.
Approaching trading like a business can help traders develop clearer processes, manage risk more effectively, and make decisions with a longer-term perspective. Over time, that mindset may create a more stable foundation for growth and performance.

俄羅斯聯邦安全局（FSB）週三宣佈，它已正式以協助恐怖活動爲由對Telegram創始人帕維爾·杜羅夫提出指控，並將其列入國際通緝名單。這標誌着克里姆林宮與這家通訊平臺及其直言不諱的創始人之間持續多年的衝突，出現了迄今爲止最嚴重的升級。
指控
根據FSB的官方聲明，杜羅夫因在俄羅斯刑法第205.1條第1.1款下協助恐怖活動而被刑事調查——該指控可能面臨8至15年的監禁，或無期徒刑。

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) announced Wednesday that it has formally charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorist activity and placed him on an international wanted list, marking the most serious escalation yet in the Kremlin’s years-long conflict with the messaging platform and its outspoken founder.
The Charges
According to the FSB’s official statement, Durov is under criminal investigation for facilitating terrorist activity under Part 1.1 of Article 205.1 of Russia’s Criminal Code — a charge that carries a potential sentence ranging from 8 to 15 years in prison, or life imprisonment.
The security service accused Telegram’s administration of refusing to remove “numerous channels, chats and bots” that Russian authorities claim are “actively used by Ukrainian intelligence agencies, terrorist, and extremist organizations to prepare and coordinate acts of sabotage and terrorism, mass murder, and cyberfraud” within Russia — activity the agency says has resulted in “numerous human casualties,” including women and children, along with financial damages the FSB valued in the billions of dollars.
Among the specific platforms cited by the FSB was a popular Telegram-based dating chatbot called “Leonardo DaVinci” (Леонардо Дайвинчик). According to the agency, Ukrainian security services allegedly used the chatbot to lure and recruit Russian citizens into sabotage and terrorist activities. The FSB stated that since July 2025, its officers, working alongside the Interior Ministry and Investigative Committee, detained 46 Russian nationals between the ages of 12 and 22 across 16 regions, alleging that after what it described as “psychological processing” and threats of criminal prosecution, these individuals were drawn into illegal activity. The agency added that the dating service was added to Russia’s official registry of banned websites, maintained by media regulator Roskomnadzor, in December 2025.
International Wanted Status
The FSB confirmed that Durov has been placed on an international wanted list, though as of publication, no corresponding entry had yet appeared in Interpol’s public database — Russian authorities indicated the formal process remains “in progress.” According to Russian media reports citing court sources, Moscow’s Lefortovsky District Court is expected to issue an in-absentia two-month arrest order against Durov at the investigator’s request in the coming days. Under Russian legal procedure, only after that pretrial detention measure is formally issued can law enforcement agencies in other countries be officially engaged in the search.
Legal analysts have noted that while life imprisonment represents the maximum possible penalty under the charged statute, it remains too early in proceedings to assess how prosecutors might pursue sentencing given Durov’s residence outside Russian jurisdiction.
Telegram’s Response
Telegram’s official account on X responded to the charges by posting an old photograph of Durov making an obscene gesture, though neither Durov nor Telegram’s corporate communications team issued a formal statement addressing the specific allegations at the time of publication.
A Long-Running Conflict
Wednesday’s charges represent the culmination of tensions that first became public in February 2026, when Russian state media outlets Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Komsomolskaya Pravda reported that Russian investigators had opened a case against Durov related to terrorism facilitation. At the time, those outlets claimed that more than 153,000 crimes had been committed using Telegram since 2022. Durov himself confirmed in April 2026 that a summons had been sent to his old address in St. Petersburg, calling him in for questioning as a criminal suspect.
The dispute traces back further still. Russian authorities have repeatedly demanded that Telegram hand over user data, and the platform was blocked entirely in Russia between 2018 and 2020 before restrictions were quietly lifted without public explanation. Roskomnadzor began throttling Telegram again starting in the summer of 2025, citing a rise in fraud conducted through the platform. By February 2026, authorities had intensified these restrictions further, citing Telegram’s continued noncompliance with Russian law — a characterization Durov rejected at the time, stating that “Telegram stands for freedom of speech and privacy.”
Part of a Broader Pattern
The charges against Durov arrive amid a sustained, multi-year Kremlin campaign to bring internet platforms operating in Russia under tighter state control — an effort that has intensified significantly since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russian authorities have banned or severely restricted numerous major platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and X, throttled YouTube, and blocked encrypted messaging services such as Signal and Viber.
Telegram itself has occupied a uniquely complicated position within this landscape: despite ongoing government pressure and restrictions, it remains one of the most widely used communication platforms in both Russia and Ukraine, valued by users on both sides of the conflict for features resistant to state surveillance.
About Durov
Durov, 41, was born in Russia and began his technology career there, founding the social network VKontakte before launching Telegram in 2013. He later relocated abroad and currently holds dual citizenship in France and the United Arab Emirates. Telegram’s corporate headquarters are based in Dubai, where Durov also resides.
What Comes Next
The immediate next procedural step will be the anticipated in-absentia arrest order from Moscow’s Lefortovsky court, which would formally activate international law enforcement cooperation mechanisms for pursuing the case beyond Russian borders. Given Durov’s residence in a jurisdiction without an extradition treaty with Russia, the practical impact of the international wanted list designation on his ability to travel and conduct business remains uncertain, though the charges add substantial legal and reputational pressure on both Durov personally and Telegram as a platform operating at the center of an increasingly contentious global debate over encrypted communications, content moderation, and state security claims.

The U.S. Senate has once again pushed back consideration of the CLARITY Act, the crypto industry’s most closely watched piece of pending legislation, as lawmakers redirect floor time toward a Russia sanctions package and a backlog of federal nominations ahead of the chamber’s August reces, CoinDesk reports.
The delay narrows an already tight window for passage this year and has prompted prediction markets to sharply lower the odds of the bill becoming law in 2026.
Why the Senate Changed Course
Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed that the chamber would not reach a floor vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act before its summer recess, which begins around August 7-8. Instead, the Senate’s immediate priorities are a package of roughly 74 federal nominations and a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill that imposes penalties on Russian leadership along with tariffs targeting the country’s trading partners.
The sanctions legislation carries additional symbolic weight: it has been formally dedicated to the late Senator Lindsey Graham, who championed the bill before his death earlier this month. Graham’s funeral proceedings occupied significant floor time and senator attention during the week, further compressing an already crowded legislative calendar.
Under Senate procedural rules, the chamber can typically advance only one major contested bill at a time through the cloture process — the mechanism used to limit debate and move legislation toward a final vote. With nominations and the Russia sanctions bill now occupying that slot, the CLARITY Act has effectively been pushed to the back of the queue, with Thune indicating the earliest realistic window for action would be the final days before recess, if at all.
Not Just a Scheduling Problem
While Senate leadership has framed the delay primarily as a matter of limited floor time, unresolved policy disputes continue to complicate the bill’s path even when it does reach the floor. Chief among these is a provision that would restrict senior U.S. government officials — including the president — from holding financial stakes in or actively promoting cryptocurrency projects while in office.
This ethics provision has become a central point of contention between the bill’s supporters and Democratic critics, some of whom have specifically linked the language to concerns about the current administration’s crypto-related business activities. Democrats opposed to the bill highlighted these concerns publicly this week, arguing that the legislation does not go far enough to prevent conflicts of interest at the highest levels of government.
Banking industry opposition has added another layer of complexity. Financial institutions have raised specific concerns about provisions governing stablecoin yield structures, with lobbying pressure reportedly intensifying around how the bill would treat passive rewards tied to stablecoin holdings.
What the Bill Would Actually Do
The CLARITY Act, formally titled the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, aims to establish the first comprehensive federal framework dividing regulatory authority over digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under the proposed structure, the SEC would retain oversight of digital assets classified as “investment contract assets” — tokens functioning similarly to traditional securities — while the CFTC would assume authority over “digital commodities” operating on decentralized, utility-focused blockchain networks.
The bill also establishes a regulatory framework specifically for stablecoins, including provisions addressing limitations on yield and passive holding rewards — the exact area currently drawing banking industry pushback. Republican lawmakers recently released updated bill text merging separate frameworks previously developed by the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees into a single unified proposal, reflecting ongoing efforts to bridge jurisdictional differences within the chamber.
Market Confidence Declining
Prediction markets have responded to the repeated delays with declining confidence in the bill’s prospects. Polymarket odds for CLARITY Act passage in 2026 fell to roughly 33% as of late July, down sharply from levels above 80% earlier in the year, according to trading data on the platform. More than $2.5 million has been wagered on the outcome, reflecting substantial market interest in the bill’s fate.
Despite the eroding odds, the legislation retains backing from major financial institutions, including BlackRock, Fidelity, Goldman Sachs, Charles Schwab, and Grayscale — a coalition signaling continued institutional interest in regulatory clarity for digital asset markets, even as the political path forward grows more uncertain.
The Narrowing Calendar
Even if the Senate manages to advance the CLARITY Act before recess, the bill’s path to becoming law remains lengthy. Passage would require the legislation to clear the Senate, return to the House of Representatives for another vote given changes made during Senate negotiations, and ultimately reach President Trump’s desk for signature.
Should the bill fail to advance before the August recess, its next viable window would open when Congress reconvenes in September for what is expected to be a brief session, with floor time further constrained by upcoming government funding deadlines and defense authorization legislation. Complicating matters further, a lame-duck congressional session will follow November’s midterm elections, introducing additional political uncertainty that could either create fresh momentum or further stall negotiations depending on election outcomes.
What Comes Next If CLARITY Stalls
Industry analysts note that if the CLARITY Act fails to advance in 2026, alternative paths toward regulatory clarity remain in motion. The previously enacted GENIUS Act, which addresses stablecoin regulation specifically, continues to provide a partial framework. Separately, the SEC and CFTC have continued incremental regulatory actions independent of new legislation — including an SEC roundtable scheduled for September examining the shift toward 24-hour trading in U.S. equity markets, and a CFTC decision to extend the public comment period on proposed rules for continuous, round-the-clock futures trading.
Additionally, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce recently issued guidance on crypto vaults and lending strategies, reiterating that moving activity onto blockchain infrastructure does not, by itself, remove that activity from the scope of existing federal securities law — a signal that regulators intend to continue applying existing frameworks even as comprehensive legislation remains pending.
The Bottom Line
The CLARITY Act’s repeated delays reflect both the practical constraints of a crowded Senate calendar and deeper unresolved disagreements over government ethics provisions and stablecoin regulation. With the August recess approaching and prediction markets now pricing in significant doubt about 2026 passage, the crypto industry’s push for comprehensive federal market structure legislation faces its most uncertain stretch yet, with the ultimate outcome likely to hinge on how quickly lawmakers can resolve outstanding disputes once Congress reconvenes in September.

據 CoinDesk 報道，美國參議院再次推遲對《CLARITY 法案》的審議——這項正待通過的立法是加密行業最受密切關注的內容——原因是立法者將議程時間轉向一攬子對俄製裁方案，以及在該機構8月休會前處理聯邦提名積壓事務。
延遲進一步縮小了今年通過的緊張窗口，並促使預測市場大幅下調該法案在2026年成爲法律的可能性。
爲何參議院改變了方向

How the Digital Asset Exchange Market Is Changing: What Users Expect From a Modern Service
For a long time, communication from digital asset exchange services centered on two parameters: the rate and transaction speed. For today’s user, that is no longer enough. The decision increasingly depends on how clearly a service explains its conditions, how the request execution process is organized, and whether the user can get clarification during the operation.
This logic is working less and less well today. The digital asset audience has moved far beyond traders and crypto enthusiasts, and exchanging assets is often tied not to a trading strategy but to a practical task: receiving funds in the needed currency or picking up cash in a specific city. As a result, the rate has become one part of a broader evaluation, alongside how clear the conditions are and whether support is available.
User behavior research points to a similar picture. A survey by the UK regulator FCA found that when choosing a crypto exchange platform, 50% of respondents prioritized ease of use, 39% prioritized the service’s reputation, 34% prioritized security, and only 30% prioritized the cost of the operation. The research covers the UK market specifically, but the trend is broader: financial terms remain significant, but they are weighed alongside reliability and the quality of the overall process.
Why user expectations are shifting
Several factors explain this shift.
First, digital assets are no longer a tool used only by a narrow circle of professional market participants. According to the Global Crypto Adoption Index, a significant share of the population in dozens of countries now uses digital assets, and the majority of that activity comes from retail users of centralized services.
Second, for most of these users, conversion itself is not the goal but an intermediate step. What matters is the outcome, not the exchange as such.
Third, every operation is individual: the direction, currency, city, and method of receiving funds differ from case to case, so a “one click, one result” scenario does not always fit.
Finally, any lack of clarity about conditions at the start raises the risk of delay. The less a user understands about what happens after a request is created, the higher the chance of a misunderstanding.
All of this is gradually changing the criteria used to evaluate a digital asset exchange service, including the conversion of digital assets into fiat currency. The rate remains important, but it is no longer the only, or even the primary, factor in the choice.
Transparency of conditions as a baseline requirement
The first thing users expect today is the ability to understand the terms of an operation before it begins.
Before starting an operation, a user should understand at least four things: the amount they are sending, the amount they expect to receive, whether fees are included in the calculation, and at what stage the rate is locked in. The service should also separately explain whether the request’s parameters can change before it is confirmed.
It is equally important to disclose upfront whether an operation may require data verification, proof of the source of funds, or additional approval. This does not mean every request’s conditions can be determined automatically. The service’s task is to explain honestly which parameters are preliminary, which are fixed after confirmation, and under what circumstances additional steps may be required.
Transparency is not a marketing promise. It is the ability to evaluate the conditions before the user begins the operation. This is what distinguishes a service that can be trusted with a significant amount from an interface that merely executes a technical conversion.
A clear request creation process
The second element of the user experience is the request creation form itself.
A good interface answers simple questions: what the user is giving up, what they are receiving, where they want to receive the funds, what amount they plan to exchange, and what happens after the request is submitted. This sounds obvious, but this is exactly the stage where a significant share of users get lost in technical details they should never have needed to understand in the first place.
Creating a request should not require a deep understanding of how blockchain infrastructure works or how network fees are formed. These processes should stay under the hood of the service rather than becoming an obstacle for a user who simply needs to exchange an asset.
Choosing the exchange direction becomes part of the service
The third element is flexibility in choosing the direction of the exchange.
Different users arrive with different goals. Some need cash in a chosen city, others need fiat funds on a card or account, and others need the reverse operation, converting fiat into an asset. Some choose the receiving currency based on where they plan to use the funds.
A modern service does not force the user into a single scenario. Instead, it lets them build a request around their specific situation: choosing the exchange direction, the currency and method of receiving funds, and, where needed, the city where the operation takes place. This is a fundamental difference from a model that fits the user into a limited set of standard operations.
Why support still matters
Even the clearest interface does not always answer every question a user might have, and that is normal.
Support is especially useful when someone is carrying out this kind of operation for the first time: they may need to confirm the sequence of steps, a direction tied to a specific city where funds will be received, or clarify how their request differs from a typical scenario. Being able to reach out and get an answer during the operation reduces the uncertainty that could otherwise lead to a mistake.
It is important not to overstate the role of support. Its availability does not guarantee that every question will be resolved or that every request will be completed under all circumstances. Support does not replace a clear interface, but it complements it wherever a user needs clarification on the terms of a specific exchange operation.
001k.exchange as an example of a specialized exchange service
Specialized digital asset exchange services use this same logic. One example is 001k.exchange, a service operating since 2019 with more than 20,000 clients to date. Here, the user first determines which asset they are giving up and what they plan to receive, then selects an available direction and, if needed, the city where the operation will take place.
In this model, the service is not responsible for ongoing asset management but for supporting the exchange operation itself, from the moment the user decides on the exchange direction through to completion. This is an example of a process running from request creation to completed exchange, in which a specialized digital asset exchange service builds its work around the outcome of a specific operation rather than around ongoing product use.
Before creating a request, it makes sense to check the available direction, current conditions, and the sequence of the operation directly on the service’s page.
A checklist for a modern exchange service
Before creating a request to exchange digital assets, it is worth checking a few things, regardless of which service is chosen:
Is the exchange direction clearly indicated?
Can the main conditions of the operation be seen in advance?
Is the final sequence of steps clear?
Is the needed method or city for receiving funds available?
Is there a channel for clarifying details?
Is it explained what happens after the request is submitted?
Are the service’s rules available for review?
Does the user understand what data and actions may be required from them?
These criteria apply to any digital asset exchange service, regardless of the specific brand.
Conclusion
The digital asset exchange market is moving from a purely transactional model toward a service-based one, where the rate sits alongside a second question: how clearly the entire process is organized.
Competition increasingly depends on a service’s ability to show the main conditions in advance, explain the moment the rate is locked in, allow the user to choose the direction they need, and ensure communication is available through to the completion of the operation.
It is precisely this combination of criteria that turns digital asset exchange from a technical transaction into a full financial service.

How the Digital Asset Exchange Market Is Changing: What Users Expect From a Modern Service
For a long time, communication from digital asset exchange services centered on two parameters: the rate and transaction speed. For today’s user, that is no longer enough. The decision increasingly depends on how clearly a service explains its conditions, how the request execution process is organized, and whether the user can get clarification during the operation.
This logic is working less and less well today. The digital asset audience has moved far beyond traders and crypto enthusiasts, and exchanging assets is often tied not to a trading strategy but to a practical task: receiving funds in the needed currency or picking up cash in a specific city. As a result, the rate has become one part of a broader evaluation, alongside how clear the conditions are and whether support is available.
User behavior research points to a similar picture. A survey by the UK regulator FCA found that when choosing a crypto exchange platform, 50% of respondents prioritized ease of use, 39% prioritized the service’s reputation, 34% prioritized security, and only 30% prioritized the cost of the operation. The research covers the UK market specifically, but the trend is broader: financial terms remain significant, but they are weighed alongside reliability and the quality of the overall process.
Why user expectations are shifting
Several factors explain this shift.
First, digital assets are no longer a tool used only by a narrow circle of professional market participants. According to the Global Crypto Adoption Index, a significant share of the population in dozens of countries now uses digital assets, and the majority of that activity comes from retail users of centralized services.
Second, for most of these users, conversion itself is not the goal but an intermediate step. What matters is the outcome, not the exchange as such.
Third, every operation is individual: the direction, currency, city, and method of receiving funds differ from case to case, so a “one click, one result” scenario does not always fit.
Finally, any lack of clarity about conditions at the start raises the risk of delay. The less a user understands about what happens after a request is created, the higher the chance of a misunderstanding.
All of this is gradually changing the criteria used to evaluate a digital asset exchange service, including the conversion of digital assets into fiat currency. The rate remains important, but it is no longer the only, or even the primary, factor in the choice.
Transparency of conditions as a baseline requirement
The first thing users expect today is the ability to understand the terms of an operation before it begins.
Before starting an operation, a user should understand at least four things: the amount they are sending, the amount they expect to receive, whether fees are included in the calculation, and at what stage the rate is locked in. The service should also separately explain whether the request’s parameters can change before it is confirmed.
It is equally important to disclose upfront whether an operation may require data verification, proof of the source of funds, or additional approval. This does not mean every request’s conditions can be determined automatically. The service’s task is to explain honestly which parameters are preliminary, which are fixed after confirmation, and under what circumstances additional steps may be required.
Transparency is not a marketing promise. It is the ability to evaluate the conditions before the user begins the operation. This is what distinguishes a service that can be trusted with a significant amount from an interface that merely executes a technical conversion.
A clear request creation process
The second element of the user experience is the request creation form itself.
A good interface answers simple questions: what the user is giving up, what they are receiving, where they want to receive the funds, what amount they plan to exchange, and what happens after the request is submitted. This sounds obvious, but this is exactly the stage where a significant share of users get lost in technical details they should never have needed to understand in the first place.
Creating a request should not require a deep understanding of how blockchain infrastructure works or how network fees are formed. These processes should stay under the hood of the service rather than becoming an obstacle for a user who simply needs to exchange an asset.
Choosing the exchange direction becomes part of the service
The third element is flexibility in choosing the direction of the exchange.
Different users arrive with different goals. Some need cash in a chosen city, others need fiat funds on a card or account, and others need the reverse operation, converting fiat into an asset. Some choose the receiving currency based on where they plan to use the funds.
A modern service does not force the user into a single scenario. Instead, it lets them build a request around their specific situation: choosing the exchange direction, the currency and method of receiving funds, and, where needed, the city where the operation takes place. This is a fundamental difference from a model that fits the user into a limited set of standard operations.
Why support still matters
Even the clearest interface does not always answer every question a user might have, and that is normal.
Support is especially useful when someone is carrying out this kind of operation for the first time: they may need to confirm the sequence of steps, a direction tied to a specific city where funds will be received, or clarify how their request differs from a typical scenario. Being able to reach out and get an answer during the operation reduces the uncertainty that could otherwise lead to a mistake.
It is important not to overstate the role of support. Its availability does not guarantee that every question will be resolved or that every request will be completed under all circumstances. Support does not replace a clear interface, but it complements it wherever a user needs clarification on the terms of a specific exchange operation.
001k.exchange as an example of a specialized exchange service
Specialized digital asset exchange services use this same logic. One example is 001k.exchange, a service operating since 2019 with more than 20,000 clients to date. Here, the user first determines which asset they are giving up and what they plan to receive, then selects an available direction and, if needed, the city where the operation will take place.
In this model, the service is not responsible for ongoing asset management but for supporting the exchange operation itself, from the moment the user decides on the exchange direction through to completion. This is an example of a process running from request creation to completed exchange, in which a specialized digital asset exchange service builds its work around the outcome of a specific operation rather than around ongoing product use.
Before creating a request, it makes sense to check the available direction, current conditions, and the sequence of the operation directly on the service’s page.
A checklist for a modern exchange service
Before creating a request to exchange digital assets, it is worth checking a few things, regardless of which service is chosen:
Is the exchange direction clearly indicated?
Can the main conditions of the operation be seen in advance?
Is the final sequence of steps clear?
Is the needed method or city for receiving funds available?
Is there a channel for clarifying details?
Is it explained what happens after the request is submitted?
Are the service’s rules available for review?
Does the user understand what data and actions may be required from them?
These criteria apply to any digital asset exchange service, regardless of the specific brand.
Conclusion
The digital asset exchange market is moving from a purely transactional model toward a service-based one, where the rate sits alongside a second question: how clearly the entire process is organized.
Competition increasingly depends on a service’s ability to show the main conditions in advance, explain the moment the rate is locked in, allow the user to choose the direction they need, and ensure communication is available through to the completion of the operation.
It is precisely this combination of criteria that turns digital asset exchange from a technical transaction into a full financial service.

BitMart, a mid-tier cryptocurrency exchange that has operated for nine years, announced on July 26, 2026, that it will begin an orderly wind-down of its trading platform, joining a rapidly growing list of centralized exchanges exiting the market.
The announcement triggered an immediate and severe selloff in the exchange’s native BMX token, which crashed between 55% and 70% depending on the exchange tracked, extending a decline that had already erased roughly 70% of the token’s value over the preceding year.
The Shutdown Timeline
BitMart outlined a phased closure process spanning more than six months. The first restrictions took effect at 01:30 UTC on July 26, when the exchange suspended new user registrations, blocked both cryptocurrency and fiat deposits, and stopped accepting new spot trading orders. Futures accounts were simultaneously shifted into reduce-only mode, meaning traders can only decrease or close existing positions rather than open new ones. Copy trading, grid trading bots, and API-based automated trading services also began winding down at this stage.
The second major deadline arrives August 26, 2026, at 01:00 UTC, when all spot, futures, and other trading services will be fully discontinued. Any futures positions still open at that point may be closed by BitMart using its existing pricing mechanisms, with further details promised in a subsequent announcement. The exchange has urged users to close all positions before this deadline and submit withdrawal requests by 05:00 UTC the same day to avoid delays.
The platform’s operations will formally terminate at 15:59 UTC on January 31, 2027 — the final date by which users must complete fund withdrawals. BitMart has indicated that limited account access will remain available after the trading halt specifically to allow customers to review transaction records and process outstanding withdrawals.
No Clear Reason Given
In its official notice, BitMart offered only a vague explanation for the closure:
“After a careful evaluation of the Company’s operating conditions, market environment, and future strategic direction, BitMart has made the difficult decision to commence an orderly wind-down of its trading platform operations. We deeply regret having to make this decision.”
The company did not specify which particular factor — financial, competitive, or regulatory — ultimately drove the decision, and has not responded publicly to requests for further comment.
Notably absent from the announcement was any mention of insolvency, a security breach, or regulatory enforcement action — an omission that analysts have flagged as significant. The absence suggests this is a case of a mid-tier exchange’s underlying business model becoming financially unsustainable rather than the result of any acute crisis or wrongdoing.
Market Reaction: BMX in Freefall
The market response to the shutdown news was immediate and severe. BMX, BitMart’s native exchange token, fell to approximately $0.08 per token, a drop of roughly 58% to 70% depending on the measurement window and data source, reducing the token’s total market capitalization to approximately $27 million. The crash extended a longer downtrend: BMX had already lost close to 70% of its value over the preceding twelve months prior to the shutdown announcement.
The token’s collapse reflects its structural dependency on BitMart’s ongoing operations — BMX’s core utility centered on trading fee discounts and platform-specific benefits, both of which become worthless once the exchange ceases matching orders and shutting down its product suite. Ironically, daily trading volume on BitMart spiked by more than 50% following the announcement, surpassing $1.6 billion, as users rushed to close positions and exit the platform — nearly half of that volume concentrated in the BTC/USDT trading pair.
Withdrawal Concerns Mount
Despite BitMart’s assurances that withdrawals remain available, on-chain data has raised concerns about processing capacity. Reports indicate that in a recent 24-hour period, only 58 wallets successfully completed withdrawals from the platform, totaling just $805,000 — a strikingly small figure given the exchange’s stated user base of approximately 9 million accounts. Some reports have also noted stretches of several consecutive hours during which no withdrawal requests were processed at all.
BitMart has warned users that withdrawal requests may be subject to extended manual review processes, including identity verification (KYC), source-of-funds checks, Travel Rule compliance procedures, and sanctions screening — steps that could meaningfully delay fund recovery as the shutdown deadline approaches. The exchange has also cautioned users about a heightened risk of scammers exploiting the wind-down period, explicitly stating it will never charge an “expedited withdrawal fee” or request passwords, two-factor authentication codes, private keys, or wallet recovery phrases.
A History Marked by Controversy
BitMart’s closure arrives against the backdrop of a troubled operational history. In December 2021, the exchange suffered a major security breach in which hackers drained approximately $196 million from its hot wallets — one of the largest exchange hacks of that period. While BitMart pledged to reimburse affected users at the time, the incident inflicted lasting reputational damage, and reports of withdrawal delays have resurfaced as recently as May 2026, further eroding user confidence. The exchange has also faced persistent criticism over the absence of verifiable proof-of-reserves reporting, a transparency standard that has become increasingly important to users following previous industry collapses.
Part of a Broader Exchange Exodus
BitMart’s shutdown is not an isolated event. It follows the closure of AscendEX, which ceased operations on July 1, 2026, and arrives just three days after BitMEX — the pioneering derivatives exchange co-founded by Arthur Hayes — announced its own permanent closure effective September 23, 2026. According to industry analysts tracking the trend, more than 30 crypto projects, including exchanges, Layer 1 and Layer 2 blockchains, and DeFi protocols, have shut down in 2026 alone.
Market observers point to intensifying competitive pressure from decentralized exchange platforms, escalating regulatory compliance costs across multiple jurisdictions, and the sheer operational expense of running a centralized exchange — which can reportedly cost the largest platforms tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars monthly — as key drivers behind this wave of consolidation.
What Users Should Do Now
For BitMart users, the practical guidance is straightforward but time-sensitive: complete identity verification if not already done, close open positions well ahead of the August 26 trading halt, and submit withdrawal requests as early as possible rather than waiting until the final deadline.
Given the reported processing bottlenecks and the extended review procedures BitMart has flagged, users who delay risk becoming entangled in a lengthy claims process as the January 2027 final shutdown date approaches.

BitMart 是一家運營了九年的中型加密貨幣交易所。該交易所於 2026 年 7 月 26 日宣佈，將有序停止其交易平臺運營，加入一份迅速增長的中心化交易所退出市場的名單中。
該公告引發了該交易所原生 BMX 代幣的立即且大幅的拋售，跌幅在不同追蹤平臺上介於 55% 至 70% 之間，並將下跌行情延續下去——在此前一年裏，該代幣的價值已大約蒸發了 70%。

美國外匯交易：黃金時代是否正在回歸，給美國交易者帶來機會？
引言
超過二十年來，美國外匯交易者面臨著前所未有的障礙：外匯經紀商的可用名額有限，即便他們在全球最大金融市場之一中進行交易。
然而，美國外匯交易版圖正在演變。多種因素正推動業界人士所稱的、迎向美國外匯交易者的新「黃金時代」。其中包括：
市場波動加劇
快速的技術進步

美國外匯交易：對美國交易員而言，「黃金時代」是否正在回歸？
簡介
超過兩十年來，美國外匯交易員面臨一個前所未有的障礙：外匯經紀商的供給有限，儘管他們在世界上最大的金融市場之一運作。
然而，美國外匯交易版圖正在演變。多種因素正在推動業界人士所稱的、為美國外匯交易員帶來一個新的「黃金時代」。其中包括：
市場波動加劇
快速的科技進步

BitMEX——這家在前一天就宣布永久關閉的加密貨幣衍生品交易所——如今正面臨一宗集體訴訟，指控該平台透過操縱被迫清算制度系統性地竊取客戶比特幣。
該訴狀在美國紐約南區聯邦地方法院提出，指控 BitMEX 的內部交易桌在伺服器中斷期間利用特權存取，從那些無法對其持倉進行辯護的用戶手中扣押抵押品——鑑於該訴訟在 BitMEX 確認正在收尾運營的同一天送達，這一時間點引起了關注。