Crypto Breaking

The International Monetary Fund has issued one of its most direct endorsements yet of tokenization’s potential to reshape traditional finance, arguing that moving assets, settlement, and recordkeeping onto shared ledgers could dramatically shorten today’s typically multi-day settlement cycles.
In a blog post published Thursday, Tobias Adrian—financial counselor and director of the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Markets Department—stated that tokenization should be viewed as more than a niche crypto concept. He also cautioned that the same shift that could improve efficiency may move critical financial risk away from familiar intermediaries and toward the underlying infrastructure, including smart contracts, distributed ledgers, and the service providers that operate them.
Key takeaways
The IMF argues tokenization can streamline settlement and recordkeeping by using shared ledgers, potentially reducing multi-day processes to near-instant transactions.
Adrian warns that tokenization changes the location of risk, with vulnerabilities potentially shifting from banks and brokers to blockchain and infrastructure layers.
The IMF highlights a regulatory gap: without common standards and coordinated oversight, tokenized markets could fragment across incompatible platforms.
Market institutions are already preparing for tokenized finance, with major players reportedly working on tokenized deposit infrastructure.
U.S. regulators are moving to apply existing securities rules to tokenized assets while discussing potential experimental pathways.
Why the IMF’s stance matters for tokenized markets
The IMF’s position is notable because it frames tokenization as an architectural change to how financial markets function, not simply a technological upgrade. Adrian’s central claim is structural: when the same system handles asset representation, transfers, settlement, and recordkeeping, the industry can reduce operational handoffs that currently add time and friction.
That “compressed settlement” argument is a key reason tokenization attracts attention from both technology teams and incumbent financial institutions. In practical terms, shorter settlement windows can support faster settlement finality, reduce certain operational dependencies, and improve liquidity dynamics by making transfers easier to complete.
Risk migration and the standards problem
Alongside the efficiency thesis, Adrian introduced a counterweight: tokenization may shift where systemic risk lives. In traditional setups, intermediaries play a dominant role in managing settlement and operational dependencies. With tokenized infrastructure, Adrian argued that risks can move toward the underlying technology stack—smart contracts, distributed ledger mechanics, and the organizations providing related services.
He further warned that if regulators and industry participants do not establish common standards and coordinate regulation, tokenized markets could splinter. Fragmentation across incompatible platforms would not just create inconvenience; it could also introduce new forms of systemic risk by increasing complexity and reducing transparency around how assets move and settle in different ecosystems.
This is where the IMF’s message goes beyond general technology optimism. Tokenization can only deliver its promise if networks interoperate safely and if the governance, compliance expectations, and operational controls are consistent enough to support market-wide confidence.
Institutional momentum: tokenized deposits and broader research
The IMF’s comments arrive as traditional finance accelerates its own tokenization programs. Earlier coverage from The Clearing House—a payments and banking group whose owners include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Barclays—has been reported as planning a tokenized deposit network in early 2027. The reported goal is to keep deposits within the regulated banking system while enabling faster, programmable payment flows.
The IMF’s thinking also aligns with research highlighted by the report’s surrounding context. According to PwC research, tokenization could address long-running inefficiencies in traditional finance, including payment settlement and the transfer of asset ownership. In addition, a May report from Moody’s pointed to growing preparations among traditional institutions for a shift toward tokenized finance.
Taken together, these threads suggest tokenization is moving from concept to execution inside mainstream institutions—making the IMF’s emphasis on standards and coordinated regulation more urgent, not less.
Regulators trying to define tokenized finance in real time
A major theme in Adrian’s post is that policymakers have a narrow window to influence how tokenized markets develop. He argued that key design choices—such as what settlement assets are used, how governance works, whether interoperability is supported, and what role central banks should play—will largely determine whether tokenization improves system performance or adds systemic fragility.
In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission has taken steps to clarify how existing securities laws apply to tokenized assets rather than building a completely separate framework. The debate also includes potential mechanisms for supervised experimentation, with Cointelegraph noting that the SEC has signaled it is considering an “innovation exemption” that could allow market participants to test blockchain-based trading platforms for tokenized securities while a broader regulatory approach is developed.
For market participants, this matters because the regulatory path influences product design and compliance strategy. Tokenized markets are not only software deployments; they also require durable interpretations of custody, disclosure, trading conduct, and market structure rules—especially as assets migrate from legacy rails to programmable settlement systems.
As institutions push forward with tokenized network initiatives and regulators work through existing laws and possible pilot pathways, the next phase to watch is whether industry standards and interoperability efforts keep pace—because the IMF’s warning about fragmentation is likely to become the deciding factor between tokenization becoming a mainstream efficiency upgrade or a patchwork of systems with rising operational and systemic risk.
This article was originally published as IMF: Tokenization May Reshape Settlement and Strengthen Stability on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

FBI Director Kash Patel has reportedly failed to disclose a Strategy (MSTR) stock purchase on time under the U.S. STOCK Act, prompting renewed attention to how government officials report crypto-adjacent investments and other financial holdings.
According to a report published Wednesday by the nonpartisan nonprofit news organization NOTUS, Patel “inadvertently omitted” a Strategy investment that was worth up to $250,000. NOTUS says the purchase was made on Nov. 21, 2025, but did not appear in Patel’s December 2025 financial disclosures filed under the STOCK Act.
Key takeaways
NOTUS reports that FBI Director Kash Patel omitted a Strategy (MSTR) purchase from required December 2025 disclosures.
Under the STOCK Act, covered officials generally must disclose reportable trades within 45 days of execution.
Patel later filed an amended report on May 26, stating the Strategy holding was “inadvertently omitted” and that he believes no current conflict exists.
The case feeds into broader congressional criticism of weak penalties for STOCK Act violations.
Capitol Trades data cited by NOTUS also points to other officials reporting Strategy-related holdings late.
What NOTUS says Patel got wrong—and how he corrected it
NOTUS’s report centers on a specific compliance lapse tied to the STOCK Act, a law designed to curb conflicts of interest by requiring timely disclosure of certain financial transactions by members of Congress and other covered officials.
NOTUS says Patel purchased Strategy shares on Nov. 21, 2025. The trade was not included in Patel’s December 2025 disclosure filing, even though the law requires disclosure of financial transactions above a certain threshold within a set window—NOTUS notes that transactions exceeding $1,000 must generally be reported no later than 45 days after execution.
Rather than leaving the omission unaddressed, Patel filed an amended report on May 26, according to NOTUS. The filing described the Strategy holdings as “inadvertently omitted,” and stated that there is “no current conflict exists” involving the investment.
Strategy—formerly known as MicroStrategy—is a U.S.-registered government contractor, a detail that NOTUS highlights as a potential flashpoint for conflict-of-interest concerns when senior officials hold positions in firms with government contracting ties.
Why the STOCK Act debate is resurfacing
Signed in 2012, the STOCK Act has faced repeated scrutiny from lawmakers and watchdog advocates who argue that enforcement and penalties do not meaningfully deter late or incomplete reporting.
NOTUS points to criticisms that first-time violations can result in relatively limited consequences—citing that the law provides for a $200 fine for first offenders. The same criticism notes that these penalties fall well short of the large amounts sometimes at stake in financial disclosures.
In other words, even when omissions are corrected after the fact, critics argue the system may not impose strong enough repercussions to ensure compliance from the start. Patel’s amended filing—paired with the relatively modest penalty structure described by NOTUS—adds another data point to the broader oversight conversation.
Strategy disclosures: not an isolated pattern
Patel’s case appears within a wider pattern of late reporting involving Strategy investments, at least based on the examples NOTUS cites.
NOTUS also references Capitol Trades, a website that tracks politicians’ investment activity. The report says Representative Shri Thanedar “waited” until August 2025 to report a Strategy investment made in June 2024, which Capitol Trades lists as a range between $15,001 and $50,000.
While the underlying details differ by individual and timeframe, the common thread is that Strategy-related holdings can end up reported outside the law’s intended window. For traders, compliance officers, and policy watchers, timing matters because disclosures are meant to reduce the informational advantage that comes from acting on nonpublic knowledge and then reporting after the fact.
Crypto income disclosures in the background
Patel’s reported late correction comes as U.S. political attention to crypto-linked income and reporting remains intense.
The NOTUS report is framed alongside President Donald Trump’s publication of financial records showing his cryptocurrency ventures generated more than $1.4 billion in income in 2025—more than income reported from his real estate businesses, according to a link cited by NOTUS from earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
That reporting has also fueled political disputes about whether crypto activities, including memecoin-related developments and other crypto platforms described in the cited coverage, create conflicts between official duties and private financial interests.
Although Patel’s situation involves the STOCK Act rather than presidential financial disclosure reporting, it sits in the same ecosystem of public accountability questions: who discloses what, when, and whether the disclosure regime is stringent enough to maintain trust.
Going forward, the key question for observers is how strictly oversight bodies evaluate the “inadvertently omitted” explanation in Patel’s amended filing, and whether the broader push for stronger STOCK Act penalties gains momentum. Readers should also watch for further examples of timing-related omissions in high-profile crypto-adjacent holdings, since the credibility of the disclosure system ultimately depends on consistent enforcement—not just post-hoc corrections.
This article was originally published as FBI Director Reveals Strategy Holdings Months After Deadline: Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance has returned to the Philippine market through a regulatory sandbox route, while its European operations face new limits. The exchange gained access through BlockShoals Technologies, which secured approval from the Philippine SEC. However, Binance also restricted some services in several EU countries after MiCA rules fully took effect.
Binance Re-Enters Philippines Through SEC Sandbox
The Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission approved BlockShoals Technologies to test crypto-related services under its regulatory sandbox. The approval allows the company to operate its Stratbox model with selected products for local users. As a result, Binance gains a regulated pathway back into the Philippine market.
The sandbox approval followed an earlier clearance granted in November 2025, after BlockShoals met the remaining compliance requirements. The SEC said the company will operate under a crypto-asset intermediary model. Therefore, Philippine users can access selected services through a global crypto-asset service provider partner.
Binance acts as the global partner in the approved testing framework. BlockShoals will connect its systems with a local virtual-asset service provider partner during a 90-day rollout. After that, the company will continue testing user onboarding and product access under regulatory supervision.
Philippine Crypto Rules Tighten As Binance Returns
The approval comes as the Philippines continues to tighten its crypto market rules. Regulators have moved to strengthen listing standards and restrict assets that raise oversight concerns. Earlier, the country also pushed restrictions on privacy coins under its broader compliance approach.
This background gives Binance’s return a narrow but important regulatory angle. The exchange does not re-enter through a full open-market relaunch. Instead, it enters through a controlled sandbox with defined products, safeguards, and testing limits.
The structure also gives regulators more room to monitor user access and platform activity. It allows the SEC to test how offshore crypto services connect with local rules. Therefore, the Philippine market becomes a measured entry point for Binance in Southeast Asia.
Binance Limits EU Access After MiCA Deadline
While Binance gains room in the Philippines, it faces tighter conditions in Europe. The exchange has suspended new user registration, deposits, and Earn products in several EU markets. These restrictions affect users in Italy, Spain, France, Poland, Belgium, and Sweden.
The changes followed the end of the European Union’s MiCA transition period on July 1. MiCA created a unified licensing framework for crypto-asset service providers across the bloc. However, exchanges must secure authorization in an EU member state to continue full operations.
Binance had planned to seek authorization in Greece, but later withdrew that application before the deadline. The company said it will now pursue licensing in another EU member state. Meanwhile, it continues to work with regulators to restore compliant services across the region.
Withdrawals Remain Open As Binance Adjusts
Binance said affected users can still withdraw and transfer their assets. The exchange also said product access will vary by country, account status, and available services. Therefore, some users may face broader limits than others, depending on local restrictions.
The company has told users to rely on official communication channels for updates. It also said customer support will handle product access and withdrawal-related questions. This approach aims to reduce confusion as service limits take effect across affected markets.
The contrast between the Philippines and Europe shows Binance’s uneven regulatory path. In one market, the exchange gains access through supervised testing and local partnerships. In another, it pulls back while seeking a license under stricter regional crypto rules.
This article was originally published as Binance Re-Enters Philippines As EU MiCA Rules Restrict Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Securitize entered the public market with an onchain push that ties its NYSE debut to tokenized equity. The BlackRock-backed platform tokenized its common stock, SECZ, on Solana and Avalanche as trading began. The move also came as crypto-linked stocks rallied, while Bitcoin recovered to the $62,000 level.
Securitize Brings SECZ Shares Onchain
Securitize launched its tokenized common stock on the same day it listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The company trades under the ticker SECZ after completing its merger process with Cantor Equity Partners II. Therefore, the listing gives the tokenization firm a public-market platform and an onchain equity structure together.
The company made tokenized SECZ available to eligible U.S. users through its regulated platform. It selected Solana and Avalanche for the initial rollout, giving the stock exposure across two major blockchain networks. However, the company said the tokenized version represents the same common stock listed on the NYSE.
https://t.co/HMsa7lHi6c
— Securitize (@Securitize) July 2, 2026
Securitize has long built its business around regulated tokenized assets and issuer-led market infrastructure. The company has supported tokenized funds and real-world asset products across public blockchains. As a result, its own stock tokenization marks a direct test of the model it promotes.
Tokenized Stock Keeps The Same Share Rights
Securitize said the tokenized SECZ does not create a separate share class or change the underlying stock. Instead, tokenization changes the form of ownership while the traditional share remains the same. Therefore, legal limits, transfer rules, and contractual restrictions still apply to the equity.
The company expects the launch to create an onchain shareholder base from its first day as a public firm. It also expects future market tools and utility to develop around the tokenized shares. However, the current rollout focuses on regulated access and direct representation of listed common stock.
The launch adds fresh context to the wider tokenization market, which has gained stronger institutional interest. Asset managers and blockchain firms have moved more bonds, funds, and securities onto digital rails. Consequently, Securitize’s public listing places tokenized equity closer to mainstream market infrastructure.
SECZ Stock Rises As Crypto Market Rebounds
SECZ gained more than 10% during its first trading session, according to TradingView data cited in the report. The stock traded near $12 as broader crypto-linked equities also advanced. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s rebound to around $62,000 helped improve sentiment across the digital asset sector.
The rally followed a stronger session for several companies connected to crypto markets and blockchain infrastructure. Securitize benefited from its public debut and its tokenization announcement on the same day. Moreover, the BlackRock connection added further attention to the company’s market entrance.
The debut also arrived after Cantor Equity Partners II shareholders approved the merger that allowed the listing. That approval cleared the path for Securitize to enter public markets through the transaction. Now, the company has positioned SECZ as both an NYSE-listed stock and a regulated onchain equity product.
This article was originally published as Securitize Tokenizes Secz Stock On Nyse Debut As Shares Jump 10% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ondo Finance says it is moving beyond simple “tokenized ownership” by adding shareholder-style governance tools to its onchain securities. Through a partnership with financial infrastructure provider Broadridge, holders of certain Ondo-issued tokenized stocks and ETFs will be able to participate in proxy voting and receive corporate communications through a Web3-enabled workflow.
The announcement targets a recurring concern in tokenized securities: even when users can buy and hold tokenized shares, it has not always been clear how, or whether, they receive the voting and notice rights that come with traditional direct stock ownership.
Key takeaways
Ondo plans to enable proxy voting and access to corporate communications for holders of more than 250 tokenized securities issued through its platform.
The solution is powered by a Web3-enabled version of Broadridge’s investor communications platform, designed to authenticate via blockchain wallets.
Ondo says the governance features will accompany the launch of its first US custodial tokenized securities, including tokenized products tied to iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) and Micron Technology (MU).
The company frames the rollout as aligned with the US SEC’s third-party custodial framework for tokenized securities.
The move arrives as the tokenized equities market continues expanding, with growing competition among tokenization providers.
Why governance rights matter for tokenized equities
Tokenization has helped reshape parts of capital markets by enabling digital settlement and potentially more flexible access to investment products. But governance—specifically proxy voting and access to corporate materials—is where tokenized products often face scrutiny from investors and market structure observers.
Ondo’s new integration with Broadridge is designed to close that gap. According to the companies, holders can participate in proxy voting and receive corporate communications such as regulatory filings and other shareholder documents, using an interface that connects onchain identity (blockchain wallet authentication) to services traditionally reserved for registered shareholders.
For investors, this matters because governance rights are not merely an administrative feature. They are tied to how shareholders influence corporate decisions, respond to proposals, and receive timely disclosures—elements that can be central to due diligence and long-term ownership strategies.
Broadridge integration brings Web3 wallet authentication to investor communications
Ondo said its implementation uses a Broadridge investor communications platform adapted for Web3 use. The goal is to let users authenticate with blockchain wallets while accessing governance services that typically operate through conventional shareholder channels.
While the market has increasingly focused on execution—how quickly assets can transfer and trade—Ondo’s emphasis is on the “investor experience” layer. By connecting wallet authentication to proxy voting and document delivery, the company is effectively targeting the part of tokenized securities that can otherwise feel incomplete compared with traditional brokerage ownership.
Ondo’s announcement also indicates that the governance capability is expected to scale across a broad set of tokenized instruments—specifically, more than 250 securities issued through Ondo that are covered by the rollout.
Custodial tokenized securities and the SEC’s third-party framework
Ondo said the voting and corporate communications functions will be included with the launch of its first US custodial tokenized securities. The company named tokenized versions of BlackRock’s iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) and Micron Technology (MU) as part of that initial offering.
In its explanation of the regulatory approach, Ondo linked the rollout to the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s third-party custodial framework for tokenized securities. That framework, as discussed in earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, is one of the core regulatory pathways that distinguishes how tokenized securities may be structured and held.
By anchoring governance features to the launch of custodial tokenized products, Ondo is also signaling that it views custody, investor rights, and compliance mechanics as interconnected—not optional add-ons.
Tokenized equities keep growing—competition intensifies
Ondo’s governance push lands as tokenized equities show continued momentum. Foresight Ventures data, cited in Ondo’s recent reporting, indicated the tokenized stocks segment first surpassed $1 billion in March. Ondo later said that the market grew to $1.67 billion and reached nearly 181,000 unique holders, referencing data shared in its own publication.
In addition to Ondo, other firms are expanding their tokenized-stock offerings. Backed Finance, for example, issues tokenized stocks via its xStocks platform and has broadened distribution across multiple crypto exchanges and blockchain networks, according to the article context.
The broader category—tokenized real-world assets—has also attracted attention even during periods of weaker overall crypto sentiment. A recent 21shares report attributed sustained growth in institutional participation to improving infrastructure, while Binance data referenced in the source material said the value of tokenized RWA assets, including stocks, surged nearly 600% over the past year.
Together, these figures help explain why governance integrations are becoming more strategic. As more providers enter the space and assets proliferate, investors will likely demand more complete “shareholder-equivalent” functionality rather than only trading access and settlement speed.
What to watch next for investors
Investors should watch how Ondo and Broadridge operationalize proxy voting and document delivery across supported securities, including how wallet authentication maps to investor eligibility and participation. As tokenized equities continue to scale, governance functionality may become a differentiator as important as liquidity and custody.
This article was originally published as Ondo Adds Tokenized Equities as On-Chain Shareholders Vote on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The idea of prediction markets is centuries old. Informal information markets date back to early 16th-century Italy, where people speculated on who would become the next pope and circulated the odds through handwritten letters. While the technology has changed dramatically, the underlying instinct has not.
People have always looked to collective opinion as a way to understand what may happen next. But as prediction markets expand and attract attention from major technology companies such as Meta, the industry faces a new question: if these platforms are designed to reflect collective intelligence, why are so many markets still shaped by centralized teams?
Rain Trade is taking a different approach to forecasting. Rather than treating market creation as a centralized process, the platform allows anyone to launch public or private prediction markets on any topic, in any language. Users decide what deserves a market, whether it’s the game aired tonight, a political development, or even the outcome of the latest season of Love Island USA, which generated more than $20 million in trading volume on Kalshi during its first two weeks.
The launch coincides with the 2026 FIFA World Cup, during which millions of fans continually debate match outcomes, player performances, and tournament predictions. The launch campaign is backed by former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson, who will serve as the face of Rain Trade’s official rollout.
Roy Shaham, CEO of Rain Protocol, the foundation on which Rain Trade is built, said the platform reflects where prediction markets are heading next: “Users want more than a list of markets chosen for them. They want the freedom to create, participate, and build communities around the events they care about. Rain Trade was designed to give them that control, turning prediction markets into something shaped by users, not just platform operators.”
That user-driven approach is central to Rain Trade’s model. Unlike traditional platforms, where markets are selected by the platform itself, Rain Trade allows users to create and share their own markets. They can keep them public or keep them private and password-protected for a specific community, group, or audience. That flexibility allows prediction markets to be shaped less by major headlines and more by the smaller conversations happening in real-time across online communities and in private chats.
To encourage participation, market creators can earn a share of the trading activity generated by the markets they launch. Whether the markets are formed around the World Cup, entertainment, politics, or in a private group chat, the idea is that the community, not a centralized team, should always be the ones to decide what is worth predicting.
This article was originally published as Rain Trade launches its prediction market platform where anyone can create markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

DeFi lending protocol Aave has expanded its multi-chain footprint by deploying its V3 lending markets on Monad, a layer-1 network designed to run Ethereum-compatible applications. The rollout introduces Aave on Monad with 12 supported assets at launch, aiming to give Monad users an established borrowing venue and to accelerate liquidity formation via incentives.
In its announcement on Thursday, Aave said the initial markets include USDT, USDC, Aave’s GHO stablecoin, USDe, mUSD, AUSD, WETH, cbBTC, wstETH, weETH, syrupUSDC, and sUSDe. It also highlighted that this is Aave’s first deployment with Chainlink Smart Value Recapture enabled from day one, a mechanism that redirects part of the value generated from liquidations back to the protocol.
Key takeaways
Aave V3 is live on Monad with markets for 12 assets, including GHO and multiple stablecoin and wrapped-asset pairs.
Chainlink Smart Value Recapture is enabled from launch, redirecting a portion of liquidation-generated value back to Aave.
Governance materials show Monad’s ecosystem support includes $15 million in incentives over the first 12 months and additional GHO commitments.
A risk assessment cited concerns about early activity on Monad compressing after an initial strong start, with liquidity remaining concentrated in established protocols.
What Aave V3 brings to Monad
The deployment matters for Monad because it moves beyond isolated DeFi activity and adds a battle-tested lending framework with liquidity incentives and a mature stablecoin ecosystem. Aave’s governance proposal notes that Monad is compatible with Ethereum’s application environment, meaning developers can reuse existing Solidity contracts and Ethereum tooling with minimal changes.
Aave also positioned the launch as more than a deployment checklist: it is meant to connect Monad’s users to GHO and to borrowing/lending liquidity designed for sustained market use. In addition to the asset list, Aave underscored the strategic role of Chainlink Smart Value Recapture in its liquidation flows, which can affect how value accrues on the protocol side and how incentives are structured during early adoption.
Incentives to jump-start liquidity—plus a reality check
Aave’s governance documentation indicates that the Monad Foundation committed $15 million in incentives during the first 12 months following activation. The foundation also agreed to acquire and retain 10 million GHO for more than six months, while the Aave DAO committed an additional 500,000 GHO in incentives to support onboarding on Monad.
That funding structure is designed to reduce early friction for borrowers and suppliers, but it does not automatically guarantee long-term utilization. A risk assessment by LlamaRisk pointed to a key uncertainty: while Monad’s mainnet launched on Nov. 24, 2025, network usage reportedly softened after a strong start. As of June 8, LlamaRisk estimated Monad’s total value locked at about $359.5 million, while noting that liquidity remained concentrated in already established protocols.
LlamaRisk backed the Aave deployment with conservative initial parameters, explicitly citing Monad’s short operating history at the time of evaluation. The practical takeaway for investors and traders is that incentive-backed liquidity often looks strong early, but the sustainability of borrow/supply activity will be tested as rewards decline and market participants decide whether to stay without continued subsidization.
Why tokenized assets could make lending more important
The Aave-on-Monad rollout lands as tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) increasingly intersect with DeFi lending strategies. Earlier coverage noted that institutions are looking at ways to bring tokenized assets into DeFi lending markets, and Standard Chartered previously said that tokenized assets entering DeFi could drive deposits into Aave. According to that same earlier reporting, Aave’s deposit base reached roughly $75 billion at its October 2025 peak.
Meanwhile, Centrifuge has discussed bringing tokenized Treasurys, private credit, and AAA-rated collateralized loan obligations to Monad for use across lending, collateral, and secondary-market activity. While the input does not indicate that Centrifuge assets have been integrated into Aave yet, the logic for Monad users is straightforward: if tokenized asset issuers expand into Monad, having an established lending venue such as Aave V3 can lower the barrier for turning those assets into productive borrowing and collateral workflows.
What to watch after the launch
Aave’s deployment gives Monad an immediate, Ethereum-compatible lending destination with a defined set of markets and liquidation value-sharing mechanics. The next signal that will matter most is whether borrowing demand and supply growth persist after early incentives—particularly given LlamaRisk’s observation that activity compressed after Monad’s initial strong start and that liquidity was concentrated in established venues. Readers should watch for changes in utilization across the new Aave markets and for any confirmed integration of tokenized asset products into Aave on Monad as the ecosystem develops.
This article was originally published as Aave Expands to Monad With V3 Lending and GHO Stablecoin on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto traders may still measure progress in candles, but the calendar for 2026 is increasingly being set by protocol teams rather than price action. Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, and Coinbase’s Base network are all moving toward major infrastructure upgrades—while Bitcoin remains largely stuck in debate, with no clear activation path for the most contentious proposals.
According to Tim Sun, a senior researcher at Hong Kong asset manager HashKey Group, earlier rounds of blockchain development tended to prioritize features, speed, and throughput. In 2026, he argues the emphasis is shifting toward reliability, more predictable governance, and the kind of “institutional-grade” infrastructure that can support large-scale financial use cases.
Key takeaways
Ethereum’s “Glamsterdam” is targeting better scalability and usability, with changes aimed at improving performance while reducing operational friction on the network.
Solana’s “Alpenglow” focuses on faster finality through a redesigned consensus component, with an explicit goal of reducing confirmation times and simplifying validator activity.
Base’s “Beryl” hard fork went live after a brief sequencer-related halt, adding a native token standard and shortening withdrawal finality.
Avalanche’s next push is less about a single branded hard fork and more about performance improvements plus expanded appeal to institutional and tokenized-asset issuers.
Bitcoin remains the outlier, with covenant and quantum-resistance proposals still lacking an agreed route to activation.
Ethereum’s Glamsterdam: scalability plus governance design
Ethereum’s Glamsterdam is positioned as the most consequential upgrade on the near-term horizon. Ethereum’s public roadmap says the upgrade is intended to improve scalability, harden the layer-1, and make the network easier to use, with a mainnet launch expected in the second half of 2026. (Ethereum upgrade milestone details are linked by Cointelegraph to Ethereum’s own roadmap updates.)
HashKey’s Tim Sun said Glamsterdam should increase throughput by enabling more transactions to be processed simultaneously and by improving capacity so Ethereum can handle more data at higher rates. He also highlighted an effort to reduce database bloat—changes he expects to make the chain better suited to stablecoin settlement and real-world asset workflows that demand steadier performance.
Holly Atkinson, chief product and technology officer at 1inch, described Glamsterdam as Ethereum’s most significant upgrade since The Merge in September 2022, which moved the network from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. For Atkinson, a central element is enshrined proposer-builder separation (ePBS). She said the current ecosystem still relies heavily on specialized builders and relays, which can concentrate control over transaction ordering and, in turn, amplify risks tied to maximal extractable value (MEV), censorship, and centralization.
ePBS is meant to shift block building and proposing back into the protocol and make the process more transparent and accountable. However, Solana Foundation judge Pavan Kaur—who also runs a compliance engine for digital asset marketing—cautioned that ePBS should be viewed as one step in a larger roadmap rather than a complete solution. In her view, it does not eliminate MEV or fully resolve builder centralization concerns, meaning some behaviors (such as sandwich attacks) could potentially migrate rather than disappear entirely.
Solana’s Alpenglow: accelerating finality and reworking consensus mechanics
Solana’s headline change for 2026 is Alpenglow, a consensus upgrade aimed at reshaping the network’s core agreement process. After an overwhelming governance approval in September 2025, Alpenglow remains under development, with expectations tied to the later 2026 delivery of the Agave 4.1 validator client release.
At the heart of Alpenglow is a redesign intended to speed up how quickly the network reaches finality. Rather than relying on Solana’s existing TowerBFT-based consensus mechanism, the upgrade introduces a new voting component called Votor. The practical implication, as described in coverage of the upgrade, is a major drop in confirmation times—finality targeted at roughly 100–150 milliseconds in optimal conditions, compared with around 12.8 seconds today.
In addition to speed, Alpenglow removes onchain vote transactions, which currently contribute meaningfully to network activity. By streamlining how validators communicate and coordinate on the chain state, the upgrade is intended to make Solana lighter and more efficient when demand rises.
Hadley Stern, board director at DeFi Development Corp, framed the removal of onchain vote transactions as especially important for institutional allocators, saying it can “clean up validator economics” and produce “honest telemetry” that matters when underwriting SOL as a treasury asset. The broader institutional thesis, he implied, is tied to whether Solana’s governance and consensus changes can be integrated with the level of rigor demanded by regulated capital.
Base’s Beryl: post-outage hard fork adds a token standard and shorter exits
Coinbase’s Base network completed its Beryl hard fork on Friday, following a short sequencer-related outage. In that incident, block production stalled for about two hours after an invalid block triggered a temporary consensus failure. Base co-founder Jesse Pollak said user funds were unaffected, while also emphasizing that “a halt is not okay” and that lessons from the episode will be used to further strengthen Base for “global, 24/7 finance.”
Base’s documentation for Beryl says the upgrade introduces a set of changes intended to tighten network performance and reduce friction at the edges. The listed items include a B20 native token standard, a reduction in withdrawal finality from seven days to five, and integration with Reth V2—expected to lower node storage requirements while improving execution efficiency.
Sun characterized Base’s longer-term technical strategy as moving toward a more unified “stack” approach, giving the network more control over how it is built and upgraded. He said this can allow changes to ship more quickly than the earlier Optimism Superchain model. The trade-off, in his view, is the possibility of more fragmented liquidity—since capital that previously moved more easily across a broader ecosystem may become more constrained even as Base deepens integration with Coinbase’s wider user base.
Avalanche and the push for institutional-grade environments
Avalanche’s roadmap direction for 2026 is framed less around a single branded fork and more around broader performance upgrades while courting institutional participants and tokenized asset issuers. Sun pointed to the recent Etna hard fork as a major step: it replaced the earlier subnet model with sovereign Avalanche L1s, cutting the cost of launching a dedicated blockchain by more than 99% and making it easier for institutions to justify their own deployments.
To support that claim, Sun referenced activity he said demonstrates institutional demand. One example cited was Progmat, described as accounting for around 63% of Japan’s national security token market, which migrated more than $2 billion in tokenized assets to a dedicated Avalanche L1. Another example was the Avalanche Payments Collective supported by firms including Franklin Templeton, VanEck, and WisdomTree.
Meanwhile, Atkinson said Avalanche is pursuing two upgrades aimed at making its C-Chain one of the fastest EVM environments. She highlighted “Streaming Asynchronous Execution,” which separates transaction execution from consensus so the chain can run more continuously and scale capacity closer to normal demand. For users, the expected outcome is higher throughput and lower, steadier fees during high-activity periods.
Bitcoin: no scheduled breakthrough, as covenants and quantum-hardening remain unresolved
Bitcoin stands apart from the rest of the field because 2026’s biggest developments are not tied to a clear upgrade timetable. Instead, the focus remains on unresolved disagreements over how programmable Bitcoin should become—and how urgently it should harden against quantum threats.
Bitcoin hasn’t activated a major soft fork since Taproot in 2020, which expanded scripting flexibility and improved privacy. Since then, debate around covenant-related proposals such as OP_CAT, CheckTemplateVerify (CTV), and Lightning-focused ideas like LNHANCE has intensified, but none has an agreed activation route. Researchers are also discussing proposals such as BIP-360 and related ideas meant to ease migration of coins into quantum-resistant spending paths if the quantum threat becomes practical.
Atkinson described Bitcoin as the group’s wildcard: covenant proposals could unlock safer storage and richer scripting, but they remain divisive. Sun said they could improve aspects of self-custody security, fee management, and protocols like Lightning and Ark, potentially allowing institutions to implement programmable custody logic directly at the L1.
On consensus reality, there is broad agreement—according to the linked comparison coverage—that no covenant opcode is on track for activation this year, and that reaching consensus on proposals like OP_CAT or CTV is still some distance away. On the quantum-resistance track, BIP-360’s authors estimate that moving to quantum-resistant addresses and signatures would take years even under optimistic assumptions, making it unlikely that a quantum-resistance upgrade would be implemented before the end of 2026.
Looking ahead, the clearest near-term signal investors and builders should track is not debate, but delivery: Ethereum’s Glamsterdam mainnet timeline, Solana’s Alpenglow readiness alongside Agave 4.1, and whether Base’s post-Beryl stability improvements hold under sustained load. For Bitcoin, the key question is whether any covenant or quantum-hardening proposals can shift from discussion to an actual, shared activation path.
This article was originally published as Major Blockchain Upgrades Still Scheduled for 2026 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Solana Foundation has unveiled a new protocol-level governance framework designed to let validators propose and vote on core changes directly onchain, using stake-weighted voting to reflect community preferences. The initiative, called Solana Governance Proposals (SGPs), aims to make major protocol decisions more transparent and reduce reliance on centralized coordination, while keeping the technical drafting of upgrades separate.
As the Foundation and related documentation explain, an SGP is meant to capture a stake-weighted “directional” choice from the ecosystem—distinct from the detailed technical work typically represented through Solana Improvement Documents (SIMDs). In other words, SGPs are positioned as a governance signal, not a replacement for the engineering process behind protocol features.
Key takeaways
Solana Foundation launched SGPs, a governance standard for proposing and voting on protocol decisions onchain.
Voting is stake-weighted, with voting power tied to delegated SOL.
Validators need at least 15% support from actively staked SOL for a proposal to advance to a formal onchain vote.
Delegators can override validator votes by submitting their own vote on the same proposal.
SGPs and SIMDs are kept separate: SGPs signal community direction; SIMDs handle the technical upgrade details.
How Solana Governance Proposals work
SGPs were introduced through a framework intended to standardize how governance decisions are submitted and ratified for the Solana blockchain. According to the Foundation’s announcement on X [SolanaFndn on X], the process enables validators to submit core protocol proposals and vote on them onchain.
The stake-weighted nature of voting is central to the design. The Foundation’s accompanying GitHub repository [solana-governance-proposals on GitHub] describes SGPs as “stake-weighted directional” decisions that reflect what the community wants, emphasizing that the framework does not focus on the specific engineering detail of how to build a feature.
This separation of governance intent from implementation is a recurring theme in the documentation. It is also one way the Foundation attempts to preserve continuity for technical development: the community can express priority or direction through SGPs, while the actual proposal writing and protocol specification can remain in the SIMD process.
More broadly, stake-weighted governance mechanisms are not unique to Solana. The Foundation noted that similar approaches exist across other major networks, including Polkadot, Cosmos, Cardano, Tezos, and Avalanche.
Thresholds and eligibility for proposals
To qualify for a formal onchain vote, an SGP must first meet a minimum support requirement: endorsements from validators representing at least 15% of actively staked SOL. The Foundation’s framework describes this as a filtering step to reduce the likelihood of low-quality proposals moving forward.
On the validator side, the documentation sets an operational rule for who can open governance proposals. Validators with 100,000 SOL delegated can submit a new governance proposal via SGP. Delegators—SOL holders who stake by delegating to validators—are then able to participate in the governance process through their delegated stake.
The governance model therefore depends on two layers: (1) validator eligibility to bring items into the system, and (2) staking participation that determines how much influence each delegator ultimately has.
Delegators can override validator votes
One of the most notable governance mechanics in the framework is the ability for delegators to override their validator’s position on a specific proposal. The documentation states that if delegators disagree with how their validator has voted, they can override the validator by submitting their own vote on the proposal—effectively changing the outcome based on the delegated stake’s voting preferences.
This feature changes the typical dynamic of validator-led governance. Instead of treating delegation as a fixed vote, delegators are given an explicit path to correct or adjust how influence is applied for each SGP, provided the underlying system supports delegator-submitted voting for that particular decision.
For participants, the practical implication is clear: users who stake SOL should pay attention not only to which validators they delegate to, but also to how their own participation in voting affects each governance item as it appears.
SGPs vs. SIMDs: keeping signals separate from execution
The Foundation explicitly frames governance-level proposals as SGPs while reserving smaller technical work as SIMD-focused efforts. In an articulation shared alongside the launch, the Foundation wrote that “SIMDs should focus on protocol changes, SGPs should be signals from the ecosystem.”
That distinction matters because it aims to prevent governance processes from becoming overly bogged down in engineering minutiae. In many decentralized networks, the challenge is balancing legitimacy and clarity: governance outcomes need to be expressive and understandable to stakeholders, while implementation details must be handled carefully by developers.
At the same time, the separation also leaves readers with an important question: how exactly the ecosystem transitions from a stake-weighted directional signal to a concrete protocol change. The Foundation’s framing suggests SIMDs remain the place where technical execution lives, but watchers will want to track how consistently SGP outcomes influence or map onto subsequent SIMDs over time.
Why Solana’s governance redesign matters now
Solana’s push comes alongside continued efforts to formalize supporting infrastructure for its ecosystem. Earlier in April, the Foundation introduced STRIDE—a security program for evaluating, monitoring, and escalating security across Solana projects—described in a separate announcement as a structured approach for handling security risks across Solana-based protocols [Cointelegraph coverage of STRIDE launch].
While STRIDE addresses security operations, the SGP framework targets governance at the protocol level. Together, they suggest the Foundation is working on multiple layers of the network’s resilience: governance processes for direction and decision-making on one hand, and security evaluation and response tooling on the other.
From an investor and user perspective, governance clarity is not just philosophical. Onchain frameworks can influence how quickly the ecosystem coordinates around upgrades, how disputes are handled, and whether stakeholders feel their preferences are accurately reflected in protocol decisions. With stake-weighted voting and delegator override capabilities, Solana’s new model also increases the likelihood that governance participation will be granular rather than fully outsourced to validators.
As SGPs roll out, readers should watch for whether proposals that meet the 15% threshold proceed smoothly, how often delegators override validator votes, and—most importantly—how consistently successful SGP outcomes translate into corresponding SIMDs and real protocol changes.
This article was originally published as Solana Foundation Introduces Protocol-Level Governance Framework on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Standard Chartered and Circle have announced a new, bank-led workflow for institutional clients to mint and redeem USDC, positioning stablecoin access inside a traditional banking onboarding process. The system is designed to reduce the operational friction of dealing separately with a stablecoin issuer while aligning minting and redemption activities with the bank’s established risk, compliance, and governance controls.
In a press release, Standard Chartered said it will be the first Global Systemically Important Bank (G-SIB) to offer USDC minting and redemption through its own platform. Clients starting with the initial rollout will be able to mint and redeem the US dollar-backed stablecoin without opening additional accounts with Circle, with delivery beginning through the bank’s operations in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). The banks described the effort as an integrated offering that brings together banking, custody, and digital asset services under a single institutional relationship.
Key takeaways
Standard Chartered and Circle are building a workflow that lets institutional clients mint and redeem USDC through a bank-led process.
Standard Chartered says it is the first G-SIB to provide USDC minting and redemption services within its existing banking frameworks.
The initial rollout is planned via Standard Chartered’s DIFC operations, with expansion to other jurisdictions depending on regulatory approval and client demand.
The capability targets institutional needs such as on-chain settlement, treasury management, and liquidity management.
The move reflects intensifying competition over stablecoin distribution, access, and governance as traditional banks deepen involvement in digital asset rails.
A bank channel for USDC minting and redemption
Standard Chartered said its collaboration with Circle embeds USDC access directly into the bank’s institutional offering. Instead of requiring clients to separately manage stablecoin issuance logistics with Circle, minting and redemption can be handled through the bank’s own platform. Standard Chartered framed this as a way to connect stablecoin operations to “banking, custody, and digital asset services” in one integrated setup.
For institutional users, the practical difference is that stablecoin issuance no longer has to be treated as an entirely separate operational track. Bank-led onboarding can also make it easier to map stablecoin activities to existing internal controls—particularly for firms that already depend on banks for custody, compliance, and settlement infrastructure.
Why DIFC first—and what comes next
According to the announcement, the service begins through the Dubai International Financial Centre, reflecting the role that regulated financial hubs often play in digital asset infrastructure rollouts. Standard Chartered also stated it intends to expand the capability to additional markets, but only “depending on regulatory approval and demand from clients.”
That conditional expansion matters for investors and institutional clients because the timeline for stablecoin access typically hinges less on technology than on licensing, regulatory interpretation, and operational approvals in each jurisdiction. Readers should expect further details as new markets are added and as banks refine which client segments and use cases can access the minting and redemption rails.
Institutional use cases now, payment rails later
Standard Chartered and Circle positioned the capability around current institutional workflows. The announcement says it supports on-chain settlement, treasury operations, and liquidity management. These are areas where firms often need predictable operational processes, clear governance boundaries, and connectivity to broader financial operations.
The collaboration also points beyond those immediate use cases. The banks described the system as providing infrastructure that could support payment-related use cases in the future—signaling a longer-term ambition to integrate stablecoin rails with payment and settlement workflows. While the announcement does not specify timelines or concrete payment deployments, the framing is consistent with how stablecoins are increasingly being assessed: not only as standalone tokens, but as components of regulated distribution and settlement stacks.
Stablecoin competition shifts toward distribution and governance
The Standard Chartered–Circle partnership arrives amid heightened attention on who controls stablecoin access and liquidity. Earlier coverage noted that Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire has publicly defended USDC’s network effects while responding to growing competition from new stablecoin entrants such as Open USD (OUSD). In that context, distribution channels and institutional partnerships can become decisive—even when multiple stablecoins are available—because liquidity and redemption pathways influence real-world usability.
Circle’s CEO previously said OUSD works closely with many of the founding members and expects those members to remain “large USDC partners and customers,” underscoring how relationships and access pathways are central to the stablecoin landscape. Standard Chartered’s announcement can be seen as an extension of that same logic: instead of focusing only on issuance, Circle and a major bank are working to embed USDC into an institutional distribution model that emphasizes governance and compliance.
More broadly, the integration trend suggests that traditional banks are not just observers of stablecoin growth. They are moving toward roles that resemble infrastructure providers—setting up onboarding, oversight, custody connections, and controlled minting/redemption access. For market participants, this can change how quickly stablecoin adoption spreads, because regulated, bank-mediated channels may lower barriers for large institutions that previously viewed direct stablecoin interaction as too operationally or compliance-heavy.
What to watch
As Standard Chartered rolls out USDC minting and redemption via DIFC, the key question will be how quickly the bank expands to other jurisdictions and which client segments gain access first. Observers should also watch whether similar integrations accelerate across other major banks, because the stablecoin race may increasingly be won—or slowed—by distribution, governance, and the ability to plug stablecoins into regulated settlement processes.
This article was originally published as Standard Chartered and Circle Launch USDC Minting via Bank Rails on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

SBI Crypto, the cryptocurrency-focused unit of Japan’s SBI financial group, will shut down its Bitcoin mining pool after five years of operations. The company says it will end mining pool services on July 31 and will stop accepting mining shares at the same time, while asking miners to keep directing hashrate to the pool through the cutoff so final payouts can be calculated correctly.
Beyond the operational details, the closure underlines a shift in how SBI wants to position itself in crypto. Instead of concentrating on mining infrastructure, SBI has been expanding its broader strategy across exchanges and stablecoins—an approach that appears to be moving resources away from pool-based services.
Key takeaways
SBI Crypto will stop accepting Bitcoin mining shares and close its mining pool on July 31.
Miners are being told to maintain hashrate on SBI Crypto until the cutoff to ensure accurate final payouts.
SimpleMining data places SBI Crypto’s pool among the largest globally—currently around the 12th position by hashrate.
SBI Crypto has pointed customers toward alternative pools, including Braiins, Luxor, and NeoPool.
The shutdown aligns with SBI’s wider push into trading and stablecoin-related initiatives rather than mining.
End of SBI Crypto’s Bitcoin pool service
In an announcement posted on its site, SBI Crypto confirmed it will terminate its mining pool operations on July 31 and end share submissions at the same time. The company did not cite a specific reason for closing the pool.
In the same update, SBI Crypto emphasized operational continuity for miners. It asked customers to keep submitting hashrate to the pool until the final day so the platform can complete its payout calculations based on end-of-period share data. “We would sincerely appreciate your continued support by mining with us until the final day of operation,” the company wrote.
Where SBI Crypto sits in global pool rankings
SBI Crypto launched its Bitcoin mining pool in March 2021, entering a competitive segment that, at the time, already included major pool operators such as Poolin, F2Pool, and Binance Pool.
According to data tracked by SimpleMining, SBI Crypto currently ranks as the 12th largest Bitcoin mining pool worldwide. The dataset attributes roughly 21.46 exahashes per second (EH/s) of hashrate to SBI Crypto, representing about 2.24% of the network’s total share.
That position is significantly behind the very top pools. SimpleMining data shows Foundry USA controls about 24.49% of total network share, while AntPool sits around 19.05%. Mid-tier and lower-tier pools such as ViaBTC and MARA Pool account for approximately 8.55% and 5.15% of global Bitcoin mining hashrate, respectively.
For miners and operators monitoring pool reliability, rankings like these matter because they can influence factors such as the consistency of payouts and the pool’s overall draw of hashpower. Even without SBI Crypto’s exact rationale, the size of its current share means the migration away from its pool is likely to be watched closely by miners looking to avoid disruptions around the end date.
Hashrate migration options SBI Crypto recommends
With the July 31 shutdown approaching, SBI Crypto encouraged miners to redirect their hashing power to other Bitcoin pool operators. In its announcement, the company named several alternatives, including Braiins, Luxor, and NeoPool.
SimpleMining’s ranking data suggests that Braiins and Luxor each account for roughly 2% to 3% of global Bitcoin hashrate—placing them in the mid-tier portion of the pool market. NeoPool, meanwhile, is not included among the top-ranked pools by hashrate in the SimpleMining dataset.
SBI Crypto also indicated that some operators may run special programs or offer preferential conditions for clients transitioning from its platform. It advised customers to contact each pool directly to understand any available terms.
That guidance is likely important for both large mining operators and smaller participants. When a pool shuts down, miners typically face a tradeoff between operational convenience and the economics of switching—such as how quickly a new pool can reflect incoming hashpower and what payout structures apply after migration. SBI Crypto’s note that customers should check directly with alternative providers suggests these details may vary case by case.
SBI’s broader crypto direction: trading and stablecoins
The closure of SBI Crypto’s mining pool follows a broader pattern in SBI’s crypto strategy: shifting emphasis from mining toward expanding its financial-market role in digital assets.
Earlier, SBI Holdings agreed to acquire full control of the crypto exchange Bitbank in a deal valued at 46.7 billion Japanese yen (about $289 million), with the stated goal of building what it describes as Japan’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. SBI has also increased its focus on stablecoins—backing JPYSC, a new trust bank-backed Japanese yen stablecoin, and supporting Ripple’s rollout of its Ripple USD (RLUSD) stablecoin in Japan.
While the mining pool is closing due to SBI Crypto’s operational decision, these adjacent initiatives suggest where management believes growth is likely to be concentrated: in regulated exchange infrastructure and stablecoin rails rather than in running a corporate mining service.
For miners, the next question is less about long-term corporate strategy and more about execution: how smoothly hashrate transitions occur across pools and whether payout conditions remain stable around the July 31 cutoff. Watch SBI Crypto’s communications for any final operational clarifications, and track how major pools absorb redistributed hashpower as the shutdown date approaches.
This article was originally published as SBI Crypto ends Bitcoin mining pool after five years on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum layer-2 network Taiko has brought its bridge back online after an exploit on June 21 disrupted withdrawals and movement of funds. The protocol announced on Thursday that users can once again transfer assets to and from the network following completion of the last step in its multi-stage recovery process.
Taiko said it has made affected users whole and that any remaining withdrawal limits are intended as temporary safeguards rather than an ongoing restriction on normal bridge usage. The reopening concluded an 11-day period during which the bridge remained closed while security fixes were implemented and the bridge’s 1:1 backing status was restored.
Key takeaways
Taiko reopened its bridge after an 11-day outage tied to a June 21 exploit.
In its recovery update, Taiko said it restored full operations and completed the final stage of a four-step plan.
The protocol stated affected users have been fully reimbursed, while any remaining withdrawal limits are temporary precautions.
Taiko previously said the incident involved compromised chain-state verification that allowed forged proofs and unauthorized withdrawals.
The network has not yet detailed exactly how its 1:1 bridge backing was restored or whether any stolen assets were recovered.
Bridge reopening after a four-stage recovery
On Thursday, Taiko posted that transfers to and from the Taiko network were operational again after users completed the last stage of the protocol’s recovery steps. The announcement framed the reopening as the end of the most disruptive phase of the incident response, when the bridge was paused to prevent further unauthorized movement.
The bridge disruption stemmed from a compromise of the chain-state verification mechanism used by Taiko. According to earlier reporting cited by Cointelegraph, the attacker’s access enabled forged proofs to be accepted, which in turn allowed withdrawals from Taiko’s Ethereum vault.
Taiko said the bridge is now operating with restored backing and that the network had progressed through four stages to address the issue. The project also indicated it had verified that the finalized state of the chain does not include forged checkpoints or attacker-controlled claims that could still be executed.
What went wrong on June 21
The exploit took place on June 21. The core failure, as described in the reporting that accompanied Taiko’s response, was the attacker’s compromise of Taiko’s chain-state verification mechanism. That meant the system could accept proofs that should not have been valid, creating a path for unauthorized withdrawals through the bridge to the underlying Ethereum vault.
Security companies cited in the earlier coverage said the incident may have resulted in up to $1.7 million being taken. The event highlights a recurring risk in cross-chain bridge architectures: when verification assumptions break, attackers can exploit proof-handling logic to move assets away from intended custody rules.
Following the bridge reopening, Taiko’s token briefly rose to around $0.35 before falling back to roughly $0.14. That short-lived move reflected renewed market access to transfers, though the token’s trading range suggests investors remained cautious about the full details of the incident and remediation.
Security fixes, backing restoration, and remaining limits
Taiko had already laid out its recovery plan on Sunday, describing a four-stage approach. The network said it deployed security fixes and then verified the chain’s finalized state to ensure it contained no forged checkpoints or attacker claims. It also stated that the changes were submitted through its security council and reviewed by independent security experts.
After those software and verification steps, Taiko said the system then replenished the bridge so that assets issued on the layer-2 network are backed 1:1 by assets held on Ethereum. With the bridge now reopened, that backing restoration is central to the protocol’s claim that users can transfer funds again without taking on unmanaged bridge risk.
As an extra layer of caution, Taiko introduced conservative withdrawal quotas. The project said these limits are not expected to interfere with normal bridge usage, though it did not specify the quota size or how long the temporary restrictions would remain in effect.
Notably, Taiko has not publicly explained the specific operational steps it used to restore the bridge’s 1:1 backing, nor has it stated whether any of the assets taken during the exploit were recovered. The protocol indicated it would publish a full postmortem describing the incident and its response, which is likely to be a key point of follow-up for users and auditors.
Why this matters for users and the broader DeFi stack
For Taiko users, the bridge is the key interface between the layer-2 environment and Ethereum, so keeping it closed affects everything from liquidity movement to routine redeployments of capital. By reopening the bridge and stating that affected users were made whole, Taiko is attempting to restore user confidence and reduce the operational friction that comes with paused cross-chain movement.
For the wider market, the episode is another reminder that layer-2 bridging continues to concentrate risk around proof verification and custody assumptions. Even when the impact is limited relative to the size of the broader ecosystem, an exploit that forces bridge shutdowns can interrupt DeFi operations and affect how quickly liquidity can be rebalanced across networks.
The decision to implement withdrawal quotas after reopening also signals the trade-off protocols are increasingly making after incidents: restoring functionality while controlling the rate at which funds can exit, giving teams time to monitor systems and confirm that the fixes behave as intended in real-world conditions.
Going forward, the most important items for Taiko users to watch are the promised postmortem—especially any detail on how 1:1 backing was restored and whether recovery occurred—and how long the temporary withdrawal limits remain in place. Those answers will help determine whether the reopening is purely operational restoration or the start of a longer stabilization period for the bridge and surrounding smart contract components.
This article was originally published as Taiko Restores Bridge After $1.7M Exploit, Says Users Fully Made Whole on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

OpenAI has reportedly floated a plan to give the US government a 5% equity stake as Washington moves toward tighter oversight of frontier AI models. The proposal, discussed in early talks with the Trump administration, is tied to how the company and other major AI players might share in the economic upside of rapidly expanding AI capabilities, according to the Financial Times, citing people familiar with the matter.
The idea comes as OpenAI prepares for a potential US public listing, having confidentially submitted an S-1 for an initial public offering in the United States. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that OpenAI is joining Anthropic in preparing for a Wall Street debut this year, while the US government takes a more active role in how advanced models are built, released, and governed.
Key takeaways
OpenAI reportedly discussed offering the US government a 5% equity stake as AI oversight intensifies in Washington.
The proposal is framed as a way to share the economic benefits of AI, modeled by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Alaska’s Permanent Fund structure.
It remains unclear whether major US AI firms beyond OpenAI would support contributing equity to a public investment vehicle.
The discussions arrive alongside reported steps toward voluntary security and access standards for frontier AI models from the White House.
A shareholder-like approach to AI economics
The reported 5% stake would not be a one-off grant or regulatory fee, but an equity position—suggesting a longer-term relationship between AI developers and the public sector. According to the Financial Times, OpenAI raised the concept in early discussions with the Trump administration as the company weighs how it navigates a more demanding political environment ahead of a potential public listing.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman argued that letting the public hold a financial stake could be the “best” mechanism to ensure Americans share in the economic benefits generated by the AI boom. The report says Altman modeled the proposal on Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which invests oil revenue into stocks and pays dividends to residents—an example often used to illustrate how natural resource earnings can be converted into ongoing public wealth.
How the plan could work—and what’s uncertain
Under the reported framework, several leading US AI companies would contribute a 5% equity stake to a public investment vehicle. While the direction is clear, the details are not: the Financial Times reports it remains unclear whether firms such as Anthropic, Google, or Meta would back the idea.
This uncertainty matters because any equity-based structure depends on broad coordination among market participants—particularly if the goal is to create a stable “public” ownership pool rather than a patchwork of separate deals. If major developers do not participate, the plan could fail to achieve the universal “sharing” effect Altman is aiming for, or it could lead to a narrower arrangement centered on specific companies.
The report also describes Altman as actively engaging in the political conversation beyond standard corporate lobbying. It says he has discussed the idea with President Donald Trump and senior officials including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and that he also spoke with Sen. Bernie Sanders, who earlier this year proposed a one-time 50% tax on the stock of the largest AI companies to help fund a nearly $7 trillion sovereign wealth fund for Americans.
For investors and builders watching AI policy, this angle is important: it suggests AI governance may increasingly blend market participation with public ownership models. Even if the exact equity structure changes, the underlying direction—linking national oversight with financial alignment—could shape how companies approach compliance, product timelines, and long-term strategy.
Washington’s shift from regulation to standards
The equity-stake discussion is occurring as the White House moves toward a more operational oversight posture for frontier AI systems. The Financial Times reports that the White House is preparing voluntary standards for frontier models following interventions involving recent systems from OpenAI and Anthropic.
Those standards are expected to be announced as early as next week and would cover security benchmarks, define review timelines, and clarify access rules for the most advanced models—both within the United States and abroad. In practice, that implies the US is seeking to formalize “how” advanced models are handled, not just “whether” they meet broad requirements.
Separately, reporting indicates that the Trump administration requested a staggered rollout of OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 and temporarily imposed export controls on Anthropic’s latest models due to cybersecurity concerns before later lifting the restrictions. Coverage from The Guardian describes these steps as part of a broader pattern of active involvement in model deployment and distribution.
Earlier reporting also highlighted how quickly the policy environment can change for model release and export. Cointelegraph, for example, noted that Anthropic planned to bring back its newest models after the US lifted export controls. That coverage underscores how regulatory or security decisions can directly affect availability.
Potential implications for IPO timing and governance
Because equity proposals intersect with capital markets, the timing of OpenAI’s public listing plans is hard to ignore. A potential IPO changes the internal calculus for any government-related ownership or governance mechanism: it can alter how negotiations are framed, how disclosures are handled, and how investors assess regulatory risk.
The reported talks also highlight a broader tension facing the largest AI firms. On one hand, they are moving toward greater transparency and public-market visibility. On the other, they are operating under a government that appears increasingly willing to intervene directly—whether through standards, access rules, rollout expectations, or export controls.
Cointelegraph reports it reached out to OpenAI for comment on the discussions but had not received a response at the time of publication. Until OpenAI or the administration provides further clarification, the equity-stake concept should be treated as a reported proposal rather than an announced policy.
Still, for market participants, the direction of travel is clear: AI oversight is evolving into something more detailed and more closely tied to how advanced models move through the economy and across borders. If voluntary standards harden into practical gatekeeping—or if equity-based public participation gains traction—AI companies may face a governance reality where policy alignment becomes part of competitive strategy rather than a post-launch compliance step.
Readers should watch next whether the White House’s upcoming voluntary standards are sufficiently specific to guide developers’ release and security processes, and whether any government-aligned ownership concept gains support from other major AI firms beyond OpenAI. Those two threads—standards and financial participation—could determine how quickly policy risk becomes predictable for the sector.
This article was originally published as OpenAI Considers 5% US Gov Stake as Trump Talks Continue: FT on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum’s push to win broader institutional involvement just gained a new coordinating body. On Wednesday, a new independent nonprofit called Ethereum Institutional was launched with backing from Ether treasury companies BitMine Immersion Technologies and SharpLink, along with Joe Lubin and other contributors, aiming to build a more formal “front door” between Ethereum and mainstream financial firms.
The timing reflects a familiar tension in the market: Ethereum remains the leading platform for institutional-facing crypto use cases like stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), yet the ecosystem is also facing intensifying competition from other blockchains that are actively courting banks and asset managers.
Key takeaways
Ethereum Institutional is designed to coordinate outreach to financial institutions with education, standards development, research, and industry events.
The nonprofit plans to expand beyond early hubs including New York, London, Hong Kong, and Singapore to additional financial centers.
Ethereum’s institutional narrative is supported by market concentration in stablecoins and tokenized RWAs, according to DeFiLlama and Token Terminal.
Launches arrive while parts of Ethereum’s treasury-heavy constituency face ETH price pressure, underscoring how institutional strategy and token volatility remain intertwined.
Industry observers link the new organizations to renewed efforts around Ethereum’s long-term ecosystem development alongside layer 1, layer 2, and DeFi.
A new “front door” for TradFi engagement
According to a Wednesday announcement from Ethereum Institutional on X (available at https://x.com/ethereuminsti/status/2072304960142729373?s=20), the group was created because the Ethereum ecosystem lacked what it described as a “credible, independent front door” for engaging financial institutions.
Ethereum Institutional says it intends to support institutional adoption by offering multiple layers of engagement: education for traditional finance participants, standards development work, industry research, and institutional events. The organization also signals an outward geographic push, with plans to go beyond its initial focus on New York, London, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
For investors and market participants, the practical value is less about a single announcement and more about what institutional firms typically need before they allocate resources: clear points of contact, consistent educational material, and credible pathways for discussing standards and risk. An independent nonprofit structure may also help reduce perceived conflicts of interest that can arise when outreach is perceived as coming directly from token-driven incentives.
Ethereum’s institutional use cases remain hard to ignore
While other networks have been increasingly vocal about winning institutional attention, the underlying activity on Ethereum continues to anchor the institutional narrative. The article’s data points emphasize that Ethereum retains strong market share in tokenized finance.
According to Token Terminal, Ethereum hosts nearly 58% of the tokenized RWA market. In parallel, DeFiLlama data cited in the report indicates Ethereum accounts for roughly half of the $311 billion stablecoin market—a scale that matters because stablecoins remain one of the most direct onchain interfaces for many financial institutions.
That dominance can influence how institutional outreach groups prioritize where to engage. Even if traders respond quickly to price moves, institutions often plan more slowly, following the liquidity and settlement rails that already exist. Ethereum’s concentration in these categories—stablecoins and tokenized RWAs—helps explain why an institutional coordination effort targeting mainstream finance is arriving now, rather than after a competitor has already established similar entry points.
ETH volatility adds urgency to the strategy
Institutional expansion is happening alongside continued uncertainty around ETH itself. The same report notes that Ether prices have been under pressure, weighing on the balance sheets of companies that hold large ETH treasuries.
It states that BitMine and SharpLink are both facing “sizable unrealized losses,” and references ETH trading around $1,620 at last check on Wednesday, with market cap data of $195.4 billion from CoinGecko (https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/ethereum). It also points out that ETH had been above $4,000 as recently as Oct. 27.
For readers, this matters because institutional outreach and token performance are not independent variables. When large holders see drawdowns, it can shift internal priorities toward risk management, governance questions, and long-horizon development—yet it can also strengthen the case for structured engagement with traditional finance, where firms often expect clearer frameworks around custody, compliance, and operational reliability.
The report also cites 21shares, arguing that current asset prices have not fully reflected growing demand from portfolio managers, asset managers, and financial institutions.
Governance shake-ups and new ecosystem organizations
Ethereum Institutional’s launch comes while the Ethereum Foundation is undergoing internal changes. The report describes a broad organizational overhaul, including leadership turnover, internal debates over governance and development priorities, increased competition from other blockchains, and criticism tied to ETH market performance.
Earlier coverage referenced in the report notes that Hsiao-Wei Wang, co-executive director of the Ethereum Foundation, stepped down last month. It also highlights reported departures from the foundation this year and a restructuring that included laying off 20% of staff, as covered previously by Cointelegraph.
At the same time, the report frames the emergence of additional independent efforts as part of a broader shift: rather than consolidating all ecosystem-facing work under one umbrella, multiple specialized nonprofits are taking on distinct roles. It points to Ethlabs, launched in June by backers associated with Ethereum Institutional—also supported by BitMine, SharpLink, and Joe Lubin—described as a nonprofit research organization focused on advancing Ethereum’s scalability.
In other words, Ethereum Institutional appears to focus on institutional readiness and engagement, while Ethlabs targets technical R&D. The combination suggests a coordinated attempt to separate “market-facing trust building” from “protocol and performance development,” even as governance and staffing transitions continue within the Foundation itself.
Banking eyes: “commercialisation” as TradFi scales in
Standard Chartered’s Geoff Kendrick highlighted the potential overlap between these nonprofit efforts and Ethereum’s broader ecosystem roadmap. In a Wednesday note to clients cited in the report, Kendrick said the announcement—paired with the earlier launch of Ethlabs—has “direct positive implications for both Ethereum layer 1, layer 2s and the Ethereum originated DeFi protocols.”
Kendrick also pointed to the composition of the anchor funders, calling them “the three commercial giants in the Ethereum ecosystem,” and argued their expertise should help drive commercialization of Ethereum as “TradFi is entering at scale.”
Separately, the report notes Kendrick reaffirmed ETH price forecasts of $4,000 at the end of 2026 and $40,000 at the end of 2030—figures that remain predictions rather than commitments, but they reinforce the bank’s bullish framing around Ethereum’s institutional trajectory.
What to watch next is how Ethereum Institutional operationalizes its stated mission: which standards it prioritizes, what education or research outputs it produces, and how quickly it can translate outreach into measurable commitments from banks and asset managers. Equally important will be whether governance turbulence inside core institutions (like the Ethereum Foundation) stabilizes enough to ensure these new nonprofit tracks complement rather than compete with each other.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Supporters Form Nonprofit to Drive Institutional Adoption on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Robinhood is pushing deeper into tokenized markets and perpetual trading, partnering with the team behind the dYdX decentralized exchange to relaunch the protocol as Arcus on Robinhood Chain. The move links a retail-focused trading brand with on-chain derivatives infrastructure, aiming to bring around-the-clock access to US equity exposure and perpetual products.
According to posts from Arcus on X, dYdX is now Arcus and the protocol will launch on Robinhood’s Arbitrum-based layer 2 network, which went live the same day. The dYdX Foundation said the dYdX blockchain itself is not affected, adding that Arcus is a separate offering built through infrastructure created by dYdX Labs in partnership with Robinhood.
Key takeaways
dYdX is rebranded into Arcus and positioned for a launch on Robinhood Chain, Robinhood’s Arbitrum-based layer 2.
dYdX Foundation says the original dYdX blockchain remains unchanged and continues to be community-owned.
Arcus plans tokenized stock trading and perpetuals, including the ability for tokenized stocks to be used as collateral.
Robinhood Chain is being marketed as a venue for expanded tokenized-asset access as regulators show interest in bringing such products to market.
Early ecosystem integration efforts are already forming, with wallet and swap-platform partners announcing support for Robinhood Chain.
Arcus launches on Robinhood Chain with tokenized stocks and perps
Arcus describes its goal as removing access barriers for traditional market participants who—according to the protocol—have historically been “shut out” of equities, commodities, and index exposure due to geography, market hours, and institutional restrictions. In a blog post titled “Arcus x Robinhood: Trade Stocks & Perpetuals 24/7”, Arcus says the protocol was built specifically to reduce those barriers.
The protocol states that it will support perpetual products and tokenized stock trading, with the initial products scheduled to go live this month. Arcus also says tokenized stocks can be used as collateral for perpetuals—an approach that, if it scales, could connect retail stock-like exposure to continuously traded derivatives.
In addition, Arcus claims it will provide access to “pre-IPO markets.” The details of which tokenized instruments qualify for that claim are not specified in the provided materials, so users will likely need to watch the protocol’s product rollout and collateral eligibility before assuming full parity with traditional pre-IPO access channels.
dYdX Foundation: dYdX blockchain remains community-owned and “not affected”
While the product is branded as Arcus, the dYdX Foundation sought to clarify that the broader ecosystem is not being rewritten around Robinhood. In its statement, the Foundation said that Arcus is a distinct, independent product built on separate infrastructure and that the dYdX blockchain is not affected in any way. It also reiterated that the dYdX blockchain would continue operating and remain community-owned.
That distinction matters for existing users and liquidity providers who associate dYdX with a specific chain and governance structure. Instead of a direct migration of the original chain, Arcus appears positioned as a parallel protocol offering—one that Robinhood’s users can reach through Robinhood Chain.
Arcus also said Robinhood’s crypto technology arm, Robinhood Crypto, made an investment in Arcus, though it did not disclose further terms or figures in the materials provided.
Robinhood’s tokenized-assets and perp push meets competitive pressure
This development arrives as tokenized assets and on-chain derivatives move from “niche” to mainstream attention. The article framing points to renewed momentum as regulators in the US have shown interest in allowing tokenized products to come to market more easily. (For context, the provided coverage references SEC-related proposals around tokenized US stocks.)
Robinhood’s interest in perpetual trading also reflects how quickly trading formats can shift user behavior in crypto markets. The provided material notes that traders have been increasingly active on the crypto perpetual futures platform Hyperliquid, whose token reportedly climbed nearly 150% so far this year, as earlier coverage highlighted a surge in open interest and market attention. Robinhood’s bet appears to be that tokenized equities plus perpetual mechanics—traded on a familiar retail rail—could draw demand beyond traditional spot-only approaches.
More broadly, the competitive dynamic is not limited to crypto exchanges. Major retail-oriented trading platforms have expanded their offerings to remain competitive, and the provided coverage points to examples such as Coinbase expanding access to thousands of stocks. It also notes Coinbase’s earlier 2023 move into building its own Ethereum layer-2, Base, which has grown significantly, according to DeFiLlama data referenced in the provided text.
Robinhood Chain now adds another front in this trend: blending a consumer brand’s market access with on-chain infrastructure built for tokenized instruments and derivatives.
Ecosystem signals: wallets, swaps and first movers on Robinhood Chain
Alongside the Arcus announcement, additional ecosystem support was highlighted. The provided materials report that Bitget Wallet partnered with Robinhood Crypto to integrate Robinhood Chain, enabling users to trade tokenized stocks. Separately, decentralized exchange aggregator 1inch said it would be among the first major swap platforms to support Robinhood Chain.
These integrations are important because they determine how quickly new assets and liquidity can become accessible to end users. Tokenized stocks and perpetuals are only as practical as the rails that let retail participants reach them—through wallets, swaps, and routing infrastructure—without unnecessary friction.
The combination of an exchange-like retail pathway (Robinhood) and DeFi-style liquidity tools (wallet integrations and aggregators) suggests Robinhood Chain is aiming to be more than a closed ecosystem. However, the true depth of support—such as which specific tokenized stocks will be available first, how collateral is handled across markets, and what the onboarding experience looks like—will only become clear after the protocol’s rollout begins.
As Arcus products go live on Robinhood Chain this month, the key details to watch are collateral rules for tokenized stocks, the breadth of available perpetual markets, and whether liquidity and execution quality improve quickly enough for retail traders accustomed to centralized-style trading speed. The dYdX Foundation’s assurance that the original dYdX chain remains unchanged should reduce concern about existing governance and infrastructure, but users will still want to confirm how Arcus will function as a separate, Robinhood-connected product.
This article was originally published as Robinhood Partners With dYdX Labs to Launch Arcus DEX on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez says authorities have recorded 77 incidents involving kidnapping, extortion, or attempted extortion linked to crypto in the first half of 2026—an increase from 45 cases recorded across all of 2025. Speaking to the Association for the Development of Digital Assets (ADAN), Nuñez pledged a “more ambitious” government response to tackle the so-called “crypto wrench” attacks, where criminals use physical violence to force victims into handing over cryptocurrencies.
France is among the countries most frequently targeted for these attacks, in part due to the scale of retail adoption. ADAN estimates that about 11% of the French population owns cryptocurrencies—roughly 7.3 million people—making the country a major pool for criminals seeking both visibility and leverage.
Key takeaways
France recorded 77 crypto-linked kidnapping/extortion incidents in the first half of 2026, up from 45 across all of 2025, according to figures cited by BFM Business.
Nuñez says France’s dedicated prevention platform and rapid-alert/protection system has attracted 724 sign-ups so far.
Emergency measures have reportedly led to 200 arrests, including an attacker detained within eight hours after a victim used an emergency identification hotline.
Nuñez outlined a three-part plan focused on better intelligence-sharing, deeper coordination with ADAN, and improved operational alignment between security services.
CertiK reports wrench attacks rose 41% globally in the first four months of 2026 versus the same period in 2025, with Europe accounting for most activity.
A sharp rise in crypto-linked extortion and kidnapping
Nuñez’s remarks underscore how quickly crypto crime involving physical coercion appears to be scaling in France. The 77 incidents reported so far this year, as cited by BFM Business, represent a steep year-over-year acceleration: 45 incidents were logged over the entire previous calendar year of 2025.
Nuñez told ADAN that authorities regard these cases as serious and that public concern is justified. That framing matters for both policy and investor sentiment, because it signals that the state is moving beyond general warnings and into more structured prevention and enforcement.
France expands prevention and emergency response
Earlier in 2026, French authorities reportedly launched a prevention platform alongside a rapid-alert and protection system for crypto holders and professionals. Nuñez said the initiative has already reached 724 sign-ups, suggesting that at least some in the sector are willing to use formal reporting channels and risk-reduction tooling.
According to Nuñez, the emergency approach has also translated into enforcement outcomes. He said it has resulted in 200 arrests, and highlighted a recent case where an attacker was arrested within eight hours on Friday—helped, he said, by a victim using an emergency identification hotline.
For victims and service providers, the practical value of such a hotline is that time-to-response can determine whether coercion ends with a transfer or with the attack interrupted. For the industry, higher sign-up rates may also improve the quality of reporting data, helping law enforcement target networks rather than individual incidents.
Three-part plan: intelligence, coordination, and operations
Nuñez promised a “more ambitious” three-part plan designed to strengthen security across the crypto sector. The plan includes:
Stronger intelligence-sharing, reflecting Nuñez’s view that criminal networks often operate from abroad.
Deepened partnership with ADAN, aiming to align the government’s approach with the sector’s infrastructure and reporting mechanisms.
Better operational coordination between security services, intended to streamline how cases are investigated and responded to.
While the government’s prevention measures are already in place, the emphasis on intelligence-sharing and cross-agency coordination indicates officials see wrench attacks as a transnational criminal problem—not simply isolated cases. That framing can influence how exchanges, custody providers, and other compliant market participants think about operational readiness and incident reporting.
Why France is a focal point for wrench attacks
Broader reporting from blockchain security firm CertiK adds context to Nuñez’s announcement. In a report released in May, CertiK said wrench attacks globally increased 41% in the first four months of 2026 compared with the same period in 2025, with most attacks occurring in Europe.
CertiK also described France as the “epicenter” of these attacks. In its assessment, factors include the presence of prominent industry companies and their executives, what it characterizes as a culture of public “flexing” and voluntary doxxing within parts of the crypto community, and “proven exposure” from multiple sensitive data leaks.
The human and industry consequences are not theoretical. French hardware wallet maker Ledger co-founder David Balland was kidnapped and held for ransom in January 2025, alongside his partner, before police rescued them. The incident followed a damaging earlier event: CertiK-linked coverage points to Ledger’s 2020 data breach, in which its customer database was hacked and more than 270,000 personal records were leaked—an episode that the firm says contributed to subsequent phishing and wrench attacks that continue to this day.
“France ranks among the most targeted countries in the world for this type of breach,” CertiK said, connecting the country’s risk to both criminal targeting and the downstream effects of data exposure.
What to watch next for holders and the sector
Nuñez’s plan suggests France intends to scale enforcement and prevention further, but readers should watch whether sign-ups to the rapid-alert system continue to grow and whether intelligence-sharing and operational coordination lead to sustained disruption of the networks behind these attacks. With CertiK’s data indicating Europe is driving much of the year’s rise, the next measure of success will likely be fewer incidents alongside faster intervention when threats emerge.
This article was originally published as France Plans Stronger Security Response After 77 Crypto Wrench Attacks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin ended June at $58,526, sliding 20.5% over the month and recording its weakest monthly performance since June 2022. The retreat left the flagship cryptocurrency trading below its 200-week moving average near $62,000, but still above a key on-chain valuation metric known as realized price (around $52,000), a configuration that some analysts interpret as a warning that the market may not have reached a full bear-market bottom.
Crypto analyst PlanB, creator of the stock-to-flow pricing model, argued that this price positioning matters because previous bear-market troughs occurred below realized price. In a post shared this week, PlanB said the setup suggests Bitcoin’s downside could continue, potentially revisiting the realized-price area and beyond.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin’s June close at $58,526 placed it below the 200-week moving average (about $62,000) while remaining above realized price (~$52,000).
PlanB says earlier bear-market bottoms formed below realized price, implying the market may still be searching for its bottom.
Analysts at Bitrue Research Institute and Bitget Wallet both described the June-to-$60,000 region as a developing bottom zone, but with risk of further drawdowns.
Benjamin Cowen suggested Bitcoin may see a cycle-bottom window tied to the US midterm election year, historically aligning with accumulation phases in 2018 and 2022.
Why June’s “in-between” level is drawing attention
PlanB’s argument centers on what he views as the relationship between price and realized price during bear markets. According to the stock-to-flow analyst, Bitcoin’s historical bear-market bottoms have not simply arrived after price fell below major moving averages; they also tended to appear after price moved to levels beneath realized price.
In earlier posts, PlanB highlighted that if Bitcoin breaks down below realized price, it would align with that prior pattern. He referenced the possibility that Bitcoin could fall to $52,000, which would correspond closely with realized price.
From an investor perspective, this distinction can be important because realized price is often used as an on-chain proxy for the average cost basis of coins in circulation. When market price trades above realized price, the market may still be able to bounce; when it slips below, the distribution of holders’ costs versus current valuations tends to become more unfavorable, which can prolong bearish conditions.
Realized price explained—and what it signals
Realized price is calculated by valuing all Bitcoin outputs (typically discussed in terms of unspent transaction output or UTXO cohorts) at the price when each coin last moved on-chain. The result is an aggregate measure of the average acquisition price for the existing supply.
Because realized price reflects holder cost basis, it is frequently used to identify potential support areas during downtrends. The idea is that when price is substantially below realized levels, the market is effectively pricing Bitcoin below what many holders paid when they last moved coins, which can coincide with capitulation phases and supply shakeouts.
Against that backdrop, June’s outcome—still above realized price but no longer above the 200-week moving average—has led analysts to frame the current range as transitional rather than conclusive.
Analysts see a bottom developing, but not confirmed
Andri Fauzan Adziima, research lead at Bitrue Research Institute, told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin’s June close carried a signal consistent with prior cycles. He said the month’s finish above realized price but below the 200-week moving average “signals the bear bottom is still ahead per prior cycles.”
Adziima added that he is watching for a potential capitulation period in late 2026 before a subsequent move higher—while also arguing that the decline could be shallower this cycle due to the role of institutions.
Meanwhile, Lacie Zhang, research analyst at Bitget Wallet, characterized the current consolidation around $60,000 as an area that may be approaching a bottom. She told Cointelegraph that if further downside occurs, the market could build “strong historical and technical support” around $55,000.
Taken together, these views reflect a common tension in market bottoms: technical indicators and on-chain benchmarks can both suggest stabilization, yet neither can confirm capitulation has fully played out. In this case, the “middle” positioning—between the 200-week moving average and realized price—is leaving room for additional volatility before a more durable floor forms.
Cycle-bottom theory tied to US midterms
Beyond on-chain valuation levels, some analysts are also looking at macro calendar effects. ITC Crypto founder Benjamin Cowen speculated that Bitcoin may see a cycle bottom this year, pointing to the fact that it is a US midterm election year.
Cowen argued that the second half of midterm years often marks an accumulation zone and a market cycle bottom, noting that such timing previously coincided with bear market bottoms in 2018 and 2022. The next US midterms are scheduled for Nov. 3, with all House of Representatives seats and about a third of Senate seats up for election.
While this framing is not the same as a realized-price breakdown model, it can influence how traders time risk—particularly when they treat the calendar as a factor that shapes liquidity and positioning. Investors watching this thesis would likely focus on whether Bitcoin’s downtrend stabilizes into accumulation rather than continuing to grind toward or below realized price.
For now, the key takeaway from all perspectives is that June’s close did not neatly resolve the debate. Bitcoin is weak enough to be below its long-term trend proxy, but it has not yet fallen to the on-chain valuation zone that PlanB says has marked prior trough formation.
Traders and long-term holders will likely watch whether Bitcoin can hold above realized price around $52,000 and whether weakness extends toward $55,000 support. The market’s next step—whether it stabilizes into accumulation or breaks below realized valuation—may determine if this is merely consolidation or the start of a more complete bear-market bottom.
This article was originally published as Analyst Flags Risk of Further BTC Declines After Worst June Since 2022 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Venice AI, the privacy-focused AI platform founded by Erik Voorhees, has raised $65 million in Series A funding at a $1 billion valuation, bringing the company to “unicorn” status. The round—led by Dragonfly and backed by Coinbase Ventures, F-Prime, North Island Ventures, Morgan Creek and others—was announced on Wednesday, and represents Venice AI’s first outside capital raise since it launched in 2024.
The funding arrives as privacy concerns around mainstream AI services are drawing renewed attention. Earlier this month, Anthropic cut off foreign access to two of its latest models, and in the broader public debate over AI data handling, a class-action lawsuit recently accused OpenAI of sharing ChatGPT data with third parties. Against that backdrop, Venice AI positions itself as a layer between users and model providers, designed to reduce what third parties can see about user activity.
Key takeaways
Venice AI reached unicorn status after closing a $65 million Series A round at a $1 billion valuation, led by Dragonfly.
The platform claims 3.5 million users and routes traffic through a proxy that can obscure IP address and user/account/session data from model providers.
Venice AI says the new capital will fund more of its own infrastructure, including owning GPUs via data center expansion rather than relying entirely on rental capacity.
The announcement lands amid heightened scrutiny of AI data privacy, including legal claims involving tracking technologies and alleged sharing of user information.
Unicorn funding for a privacy-first AI delivery layer
Venice AI’s Series A funding was announced by the company in a blog post published Wednesday, with Erik Voorhees describing the company’s mission in constitutional terms in a separate X post. Voorhees said the funding will be used to uphold the First and Fourth Amendments “as they relate to mankind’s interaction with AI.” In the U.S. legal framework, the First Amendment protects core freedoms including speech, while the Fourth Amendment restricts unreasonable government searches and seizures.
While the fundraising headlines focus on valuation and total capital, the more meaningful detail for potential users is the product model: Venice AI’s platform is built to act as an intermediary between a user and over 200 AI models. According to the company, users can choose the level of privacy they want, with different models routed through different privacy protections.
How Venice AI says it protects user data
Venice AI claims it has 3.5 million users. For models associated with OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI and Google, Venice AI says its proxy obscures users’ IP address as well as account and session data. The company also claims “other models offer higher levels of privacy,” indicating that its approach is not one-size-fits-all and may vary depending on which model is being accessed.
The core premise is that owning (or controlling) the “delivery stack” matters: if the intermediary is the part that can see traffic patterns and data flows, then that component can potentially reduce exposure to outside entities that operate the underlying model endpoints. Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi framed the strategic stakes in those terms, arguing that whoever runs the AI delivery layer can see more about users’ behavior and ultimately influences the conditions under which users get access to powerful systems.
Where the $65 million will go
Voorhees said the Series A funding will be used to continue building Venice AI’s data center infrastructure. A central element of that plan is ownership of the compute resources—specifically, owning GPUs that power the platform—rather than renting them at higher costs.
Beyond infrastructure, Voorhees said remaining capital will support growth initiatives including expanding the customer base, entering new markets, hiring talent, and acquiring what he described as “additive businesses.” The acquisition language suggests Venice AI may be looking to broaden capabilities around its platform, though no specific targets were named in the materials provided.
Privacy scrutiny pushes privacy-focused AI into focus
Venice AI’s funding timing underscores how quickly privacy questions have become a defining topic for AI adoption. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph reported that a user who consults an AI for legal matters could face the risk of chat logs being used against them in court. The broader theme is that AI interactions can generate sensitive records—even if users are not providing personal data intentionally.
In parallel, researchers and industry figures have proposed technical approaches to limit exposure. For example, the Ethereum Foundation’s AI lead Davide Crapis and Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin proposed using zero-knowledge proofs and other techniques to help ensure that a user’s interactions with large language models are kept private.
Legal concerns have also intensified. In May, a proposed class action was filed in California federal court accusing OpenAI of disclosing private ChatGPT user data to third parties including Google and Meta. The complaint alleged that Meta Pixel and Google Analytics were embedded into ChatGPT.com, so that when users send queries, duplicate data is allegedly sent to Meta and Google along with advertising cookies and personally identifiable information—information that could then be used for targeted advertising.
These developments highlight a tension for users: modern AI platforms often involve multiple layers of data collection, analytics, and third-party integration, which can be difficult to disentangle from “model inference” itself. Venice AI’s proxy concept is an attempt to restructure that data path by introducing a dedicated intermediary that can obscure certain identifiers from model providers.
The recent industry shifts also reinforce why an intermediary approach is gaining attention. Anthropic’s sudden reduction in foreign access to two of its latest AI models earlier this month served as another reminder that availability and access controls can change quickly—while privacy-focused architectures aim to give users more predictable control over how their data is handled.
What to watch next
With Venice AI scaling its infrastructure and expanding adoption, the key question for investors and users will be how effectively its proxy-based design delivers measurable privacy protections across a wide set of models and real-world integrations. Readers should watch for more transparency around which metadata is obscured under each privacy mode, and whether Venice AI’s compute buildout translates into faster, more consistent performance without sacrificing its stated privacy goals.
This article was originally published as Venice AI Hits Unicorn Valuation as Privacy Concerns Shape AI Risk on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

American Bitcoin (ABTC) is set to complete a 1-for-15 reverse stock split as it tries to remain listed on Nasdaq, a move that arrives as the company’s shares sink to fresh lows. The miner said the split becomes effective after the market closes on Thursday and will be reflected in trading on a split-adjusted basis when the market opens Monday, with the stock continuing to trade under the ABTC ticker.
Under the plan, every 15 shares of the company’s Class A and Class B common stock will be consolidated into a single share. American Bitcoin expects that its share count will fall from more than 1 billion outstanding shares to about 73 million. According to the company’s release, shareholders approved the reverse split on June 22, and the company now aims to satisfy Nasdaq’s minimum bid rules.
Key takeaways
ABTC’s 1-for-15 reverse stock split takes effect after Thursday’s market close and begins trading on a split-adjusted basis on Monday.
American Bitcoin expects its outstanding shares to drop from over 1 billion to roughly 73 million while keeping the ABTC ticker.
The company’s stated reason is to maintain compliance with Nasdaq’s requirement that the stock not trade below $1 for 30 consecutive sessions.
Shares fell to an all-time low of 62 cents on Wednesday, down nearly 8.4% on the day, before a modest after-hours rebound.
The move reflects a broader pattern among crypto-related public companies using reverse splits to address prolonged weakness in share prices.
Reverse split scheduled to protect Nasdaq listing
Reverse stock splits are often viewed by investors as a sign that a company is struggling to keep its stock above exchange listing thresholds. In American Bitcoin’s case, the company explicitly tied the action to Nasdaq’s minimum bid requirements, which can lead to delisting if a stock closes below $1 for 30 consecutive trading days.
American Bitcoin said it is implementing the consolidation to support its share price and maintain compliance with those rules. The company also confirmed that it would continue trading under the ABTC ticker through the process.
Shares hit a record low as crypto equities remain under pressure
Wednesday’s trading brought another sharp decline for ABTC. Shares fell nearly 8.4% to close at an all-time low of 62 cents. After the close, the stock reportedly edged higher by about 4.5% to 65 cents in after-hours trading.
The stock’s broader performance has been weak. American Bitcoin is down more than 63% year-to-date and has fallen more than 92% since it began trading on Nasdaq on Sept. 3, when the company launched through a merger process involving a publicly listed crypto mining entity.
American Bitcoin was founded earlier this year by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, according to the company’s background described in the reporting. The business merged with Nasdaq-listed Gryphon Digital Mining to go public, with the Trump brothers and crypto miner Hut 8 together holding roughly 98% of the combined company.
Financial results and market turbulence weigh on the stock
American Bitcoin’s share weakness is unfolding amid a wider downturn affecting parts of the crypto market and the equities that trade as proxies for it. In May, the company reported that it lost $81.7 million in the first quarter, with the figure cited in earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
Reverse splits can help companies avoid immediate delisting pressures, but they do not address underlying business fundamentals. For traders, that means investors may still be exposed to the same operational risks—especially in a sector where revenue can be influenced by factors such as mining economics, digital asset prices, and cost structures.
Bitcoin itself was trading around $60,000 in early Thursday trading, down 32% so far this year and more than halved from its October peak of above $126,000, according to CoinGecko.
Broader trend: crypto firms use reverse splits to stay listed
American Bitcoin is not alone in turning to reverse stock splits to manage listing compliance. Another example cited in the reporting is Bitcoin treasury company Nakamoto, which completed a 1-for-40 reverse stock split in May after its shares reached a low of 16 cents in April, also in an effort to remain on Nasdaq.
The pattern is notable because it highlights a recurring tension for crypto-linked equities: when digital assets or mining sentiment deteriorate, smaller-cap listed firms can quickly slip below exchange price floors. Reverse splits can temporarily alter the math of share price—though they leave investors’ proportional exposure unchanged in most cases—while companies work to stabilize operations or regain market confidence.
For ABTC holders, the immediate practical impact is timing. With the split scheduled to take effect after Thursday’s close and begin reflecting on Monday’s open, investors will want to watch how the market recalibrates around the new share count and whether trading volume or liquidity dynamics change after the adjustment.
Going forward, the key unknown is whether the company can sustain its share price long enough to satisfy Nasdaq’s ongoing $1 minimum-bid condition. The next few trading weeks will be the real test: the exchange compliance clock runs on consecutive closing prices, so investors should track ABTC’s daily closes after the effective date to see whether the reverse split achieves its intended listing protection.
This article was originally published as Trump’s American Bitcoin Drops 8.4% Before Reverse Split to Stay Listed on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin pushed higher at the Wall Street open on Wednesday, briefly trading up to the $60,000 area as broader risk sentiment improved and the US dollar eased.
TradingView data showed BTC/USD reaching $60,475 on Bitstamp, translating into nearly a 3% gain on the day. The move came after the pair’s June selloff had started July with a bounce from recent multiyear lows, while liquidations across crypto derivatives reportedly totaled more than $200 million over the prior 24 hours, according to CoinGlass.
Key takeaways
BTC climbed toward $60,500 at the start of the first US session of July, adding nearly 3% intraday.
Some of the tailwind appears linked to a cooling in US dollar strength, with DXY reversing off local highs.
CoinGlass data points to large 24-hour liquidation totals, highlighting how sensitive leverage remains.
Traders are framing July as a potential “relief” period, while still watching for a continuation of the broader downtrend later.
Market participants note crowded positioning in the US dollar, which could affect cross-asset flows if it unwinds.
Bitcoin’s early July bounce targets a key $60,000 level
The rally gained momentum during the early New York session, with BTC/USD spiking to $60,475 on Bitstamp, per TradingView. At the time of the move, daily gains were running close to 3%, suggesting dip-buying interest rather than a sustained breakout at that moment.
Derivatives flows reinforced that volatility was still in play. CoinGlass data cited in the coverage put 24-hour crypto long liquidations above $200 million at the time of writing—an indicator that leveraged longs had been forced out during the prior decline, clearing some room for upside rebounds.
Trader Lennaert Snyder described the move as a “lovely pump” and suggested that exhaustion on lower time frames could precede another push toward roughly $60,700, based on his intraday charting. Snyder’s comments, posted on X, pointed to a near-term sequence: a brief cooling after the initial surge, followed by an attempt higher.
Range traders watch whether $58,000–$61,000 holds
While the price action looked constructive, several traders focused on range behavior rather than immediately calling for a trend reversal.
Daan Crypto Trades highlighted the possibility that BTC could turn the $58,000 to $61,000 area into a temporary range. In an X post earlier in the session, he argued that if price revisited either end of that range, it could produce a “decisive break” and a larger directional move.
“I think there’s a good chance that the next attempt at the range high or low will cause a decisive break and bigger move.”
US dollar weakness and “crowded” positioning add context
Alongside crypto-specific signals, the broader macro backdrop appeared to matter. The US dollar index (DXY) reportedly reversed from local highs of 101.6 at the open, giving Bitcoin room to rise as dollar strength cooled.
Commentary from The Kobeissi Letter emphasized that the larger dollar trend could shift “soon.” In a post cited in the coverage, it warned that the “long US Dollar trade is crowded,” claiming speculative long positioning surged to +$34.3 billion as of June 23—its highest level in 18 months.
That matters for crypto because BTC often trades as a high-beta asset sensitive to dollar liquidity conditions. If crowded positioning unwinds or if expectations for dollar strength fade, it can influence risk assets quickly—sometimes amplifying moves once markets already have momentum.
Why traders are calling July a potential “relief rally”
Beyond the immediate bounce, market participants continued to discuss the possibility of a relief rally through July, even as they acknowledged that the path beyond mid-summer remains uncertain.
Trader Titan, referenced in the report, pointed to a base-case scenario tied to the monthly structure—specifically that a relief move in July could occur before the downtrend resumes. In his view, Bitcoin’s monthly performance would need to navigate the broader trend pressures rather than simply break away from them.
“My base case: a relief rally in July before the downtrend resumes.”
Rekt Capital also reiterated a historical pattern he associates with Bitcoin’s calendar behavior: “Red June. Green July. Red August.” In a post cited in the coverage, he suggested that while downside “wicking” could happen early in July—potentially dipping below the new Monthly Open—history implies the price may expand upward as the month progresses.
Still, this framing is not a blanket bullish call. The same analysis points to a likely two-step process: near-term volatility and potential testing of levels early in the month, followed by an upside stretch—followed by a watchful stance for bearish moves in August.
In other words, the rally appears to be treated by many traders as a tactical reprieve within a larger uncertainty band, rather than evidence that the broader trend has definitively reversed.
What to watch next
Bitcoin’s move above $60,000 is attracting attention because it interacts with both leverage dynamics and macro inputs like the dollar. Traders will likely focus on whether BTC can hold gains through key intraday levels and whether DXY continues to lose momentum; at the same time, many market participants are watching the early-July monthly structure for signs that the “relief rally” thesis is developing or failing.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Reclaims $60K as Stronger US Dollar Undercuts Weekly Peak on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.