Crypto Breaking

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a leading US lawmaker involved in negotiations on digital-asset market regulation, has proposed a new ethics rule aimed at preventing elected officials—and the president and their spouse—from issuing or backing their own tokens. The push comes as renewed scrutiny continues around conflicts of interest in the crypto space.
In a notice released on Friday, Gillibrand said Congress should consider legislation that would bar elected officials and their spouses from “issuing or sponsoring their own digital assets.” Her proposal specifically covers the US president and their spouse, while not clarifying whether the restriction would also apply to other family members or, for example, the vice president’s office.
Key takeaways
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is calling for a ban on elected officials and their spouses issuing or sponsoring their own digital assets.
The draft she outlined would cover the president and the president’s spouse, according to her Friday statement.
The proposal targets concerns about self-dealing and insider influence in crypto-related policy.
Gillibrand’s ethics push ties into broader legislative negotiations around the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, where ethics issues have contributed to delays.
The new restriction does not explicitly extend to other relatives, even as other criticisms have focused on family involvement in crypto-linked activities.
A targeted ethics rule aimed at token issuance
Gillibrand framed her proposal as a practical safeguard for a sector still working toward consistent federal rules. In her comments, she argued that officials and their spouses should not be able to issue memecoins, emphasizing the risk that personal financial incentives could undermine consumer protections and efforts to combat illicit activity.
Her statement links the ethics concern directly to conflicts of interest: she said “self-dealing” should not be allowed to weaken the policy work required to strengthen safeguards and expand financial access. Gillibrand also pointed to the broader public interest in ensuring enforcement and rulemaking are not distorted by insider advantages.
The senator’s notice also suggested that any workable solution must be broad enough to address the integrity of the legislative process, particularly when lawmakers have influence over market structure and consumer-facing rules.
How this connects to the CLARITY Act negotiations
Gillibrand is not introducing the idea in isolation. She is also among the lawmakers negotiating the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act in the Senate—a bill that has reportedly faced delays linked to ethics concerns, tokenization questions, and how stablecoin incentives would be handled.
According to earlier reporting, Gillibrand expected the chamber to vote on the CLARITY Act by the Senate’s August state work period, but said no one would support the bill without addressing ethics concerns. Her reasoning centered on the possibility that elected officials could “get rich” from crypto markets due to their insider status.
That legislative backdrop helps explain why a narrower proposal about memecoin issuance by officials and spouses could still be politically important: it would target a concrete scenario—token sponsorship or issuance by those with rulemaking power—rather than leaving ethics questions as a vague debate.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that lawmakers were wrestling with ethical and structural concerns in the broader package, including issues related to tokenization and stablecoin-linked rewards.
GENIUS Act history and memecoin conflict concerns
Gillibrand’s latest proposal also aligns with a moment in the development of stablecoin regulation. During consideration of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) in 2025, she said that senators had removed provisions specifically targeting Trump’s connections to the crypto industry, including the president’s memecoin Official Trump.
At the time, Gillibrand said the memecoin was likely “illegal based on current law,” but she acknowledged that fully addressing Trump’s ethics problems would require a “very long and detailed bill.” Trump later signed the GENIUS Act into law in July 2025.
That history highlights a recurring tension in Washington’s approach to crypto ethics: even when lawmakers see potential conflicts, crafting a solution that both clears legal scrutiny and achieves political consensus can be difficult. Gillibrand’s new initiative appears designed to shorten that distance by creating a rule that directly restricts token issuance or sponsorship by officials and their spouses.
Trump’s response and the wider conflict-of-interest debate
The proposal arrives amid continued debate over whether crypto profits by political figures create improper influence. This week, Cointelegraph reported that Trump said he earned about $1.4 billion from crypto ventures in 2025, the same year he took office.
According to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting, Trump also asserted there was “nothing illegal” and “nothing wrong” with profiting from investments as president, while not directly answering questions about perceived conflicts of interest. The underlying concern for critics is not only whether transactions are legally permissible, but whether they erode trust in policymaking when an official’s financial exposure is tied to the regulatory outcomes.
Gillibrand’s proposal also stops short of explicitly extending the ban to all relatives. While she focused on elected officials and spouses, other criticisms have targeted the role of Trump’s sons in crypto-adjacent ventures, including World Liberty Financial and American Bitcoin, as reported in the article’s discussion of prior controversy.
That gap may matter for supporters of stricter rules: if spouses and officials are barred, critics may still ask how regulators should treat token sponsorship that is effectively enabled through broader family involvement, especially where family-linked businesses or holdings can influence perception—even if not always statutory ethics triggers.
As the CLARITY and stablecoin-related policy agendas continue to evolve, the key question for investors, builders, and market participants is whether ethics restrictions become part of a final legislative package—or remain a recurring obstacle that slows major crypto bills. Watch closely for whether Gillibrand’s proposal gains bipartisan traction, and whether negotiators are willing to translate ethics objections into enforceable rules rather than leaving them to case-by-case scrutiny.
This article was originally published as US Senator Proposes Ban on Elected Officials Issuing Memecoins on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A pseudonymous defendant has asked a New York court to dismiss a lawsuit seeking ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, arguing that Bitcoin addresses are simply public data and cannot be sued under the state’s jurisdictional rules.
In a motion filed Thursday, the defendant—using the name “John Doe 33”—contends that the plaintiff’s theory of “finding” and claiming abandoned property fails because a Bitcoin address is not a legal person or entity. The filing also challenges the effort to treat on-chain addresses as recoverable under New York lost-property law.
Key takeaways
The motion argues that Bitcoin addresses are data strings that cannot be the subject of a lawsuit, rather than legal entities that courts can exercise jurisdiction over.
The plaintiffs’ lost-property claim is framed as legally defective because the addresses were always publicly visible on the blockchain.
Even if ownership were determined, recovering the Bitcoin would still require access to the corresponding private keys.
Blockchain-linked reporting cited in the case suggests the defendant may control a long-dormant wallet holding roughly 5,000 BTC.
Why the court fight centers on “addresses” rather than keys
The lawsuit, filed in May by plaintiff “Noah Doe” along with two Wyoming-based LLCs identified as ABC Company and XYZ Company, targets what it describes as abandoned Bitcoin associated with 39,069 dormant addresses. The plaintiffs allege the Bitcoin tied to those addresses is abandoned property, which they reported to the New York Police Department before asserting claims under New York lost-property law.
In the motion to dismiss, John Doe 33 argues the complaint is legally defective for a threshold reason: Bitcoin addresses are not “persons” or legal entities and therefore cannot be sued. The filing further claims that the plaintiffs cannot establish that an address was “found,” as required by lost-property concepts, because the relevant address information has been publicly viewable on the blockchain since the coins were received.
For investors and builders, the procedural dispute matters because it goes beyond a single wallet list. It asks whether traditional legal frameworks for identifying owners and claiming property can map onto the blockchain’s structure—where addresses are public identifiers and control is enforced through private keys rather than through legal status.
The alleged “abandoned” wallets include famous names
The complaint lists 39,069 Bitcoin addresses that include wallets widely associated with well-known Bitcoin labels, such as addresses attributed to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto and to the Mt. Gox hacker. The addresses collectively are reported—via an estimate attributed to Sani, founder of Bitcoin analytics platform Timechain Index—to hold roughly 3.7 million BTC, valued at about $234 billion at the time of that estimate.
That scale is a key reason the case has attracted attention. A ruling could influence how courts treat claims that attempt to convert blockchain identifiers into claimable “property” within existing state laws.
At the same time, the filing acknowledges a practical hurdle that remains independent of any jurisdictional debate: even if the court were to rule on ownership of the assets associated with the addresses, the plaintiffs would still need the private keys to move any Bitcoin. Without those keys, the Bitcoin remains inaccessible regardless of how a court characterizes ownership or abandonment.
Defendant says they control a long-dormant wallet
Separate from the legal arguments, the motion’s credibility is bolstered—at least in part—by blockchain data cited in public commentary. According to an X post on Friday by Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, blockchain information suggests John Doe 33 controls a wallet that received 5,000 BTC in April 2014 and has remained untouched for more than 12 years.
Thorn indicated the wallet’s current value is above $300 million at prevailing market prices, and he characterized the defendant as a “real holder” with meaningful standing rather than a bystander who could be targeted without any real ability to defend the claim.
Thorn also wrote that the filing helped avoid what had been described as a “near-certain” default judgment, while simultaneously challenging jurisdictional and statutory defects raised by the plaintiffs’ approach.
Dormancy data underscores why recovery questions persist
Beyond the specific defendants and plaintiffs, the broader question of what happens to lost or inaccessible Bitcoin continues to drive legal scrutiny. Bitbo data cited in the reporting indicates that about 3.5 million BTC, valued around $215 billion, have been dormant for at least 10 years, while another 6.6 million coins—worth roughly $406 billion—have been dormant for over five years.
Those figures highlight a persistent imbalance in how on-chain “time” translates to legal rights. Blockchain dormancy may signal lost control, but it does not automatically yield a mechanism for third parties to access private keys. This case, therefore, tests whether legal systems can bridge the gap between public address records and the cryptographic controls that govern ownership in practice.
For readers tracking regulation and legal precedent in crypto, the important development is not only who named which addresses, but how courts handle the mismatch between legal concepts like “found property” and the blockchain reality that addresses are public labels—while control is determined privately.
As the New York case progresses, the key questions to watch are whether the court agrees that addresses cannot be sued as entities, and—if the case survives procedural challenges—what standard it may apply to abandonment and recoverability when private keys are necessary to access any funds.
This article was originally published as Defendant Moves to Dismiss NY Case Claiming Ownership of 39,069 BTC Wallets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Zcash’s planned Ironwood network upgrade in late July is facing a potential scheduling squeeze, after Shielded Labs raised concerns that some parts of the ecosystem may not have enough time to prepare both for Ironwood and for a separate, major software migration.
According to Jason McGee, executive director of Shielded Labs, two large tasks are converging: exchanges, mining pools, and wallet operators must coordinate an infrastructure change as well as the Ironwood activation that is intended to restore confidence in Zcash’s shielded circulating supply. McGee said in a Zcash community forum post that ecosystem participants may have insufficient time to safely deploy and audit the updated systems.
Key takeaways
Shielded Labs warns that Ironwood’s late-July activation could be delayed because major ecosystem upgrades are being requested at the same time.
Zcash developers are simultaneously moving away from zcashd toward the Z3 stack (Zebra, Zaino, Zallet), which may require operator changes.
Ironwood is designed to replace the Orchard shielded pool with a new private pool and add an accounting checkpoint to help verify circulating-supply limits.
McGee said no final delay has been set, and developers continue security review and system verification work.
Why Ironwood exists: fixing a privacy-pool accounting problem
Ironwood was proposed after researchers discovered an “infinity” bug in Orchard, Zcash’s primary shielded transaction pool. The issue, as described by earlier reporting from Cointelegraph on the Orchard vulnerability emergency upgrade, suggested that an attacker could theoretically create an unlimited number of counterfeit ZEC tokens inside the pool without triggering detection.
Developers emphasized that there was no evidence Orchard had been exploited. Still, because Orchard’s privacy features make it impossible to independently prove that no fake coins were created, Zcash needed a structural change that would let users verify that the shielded circulating supply remains within intended bounds.
Ironwood’s mechanism: a new private pool and supply checkpointing
Ironwood is intended to open a replacement private pool that prevents new activity inside Orchard. As described in earlier coverage of how Ironwood would work, funds leaving Orchard would then pass through an accounting checkpoint designed to stop withdrawals that would imply more ZEC exiting than originally entered.
The practical outcome is that Ironwood should allow ecosystem participants to verify that circulating supply stays inside Zcash’s specified limits, addressing the core trust gap that remained after the Orchard fix.
The other big change: retiring zcashd for the Z3 stack
While Ironwood targets the shielded pool layer, Zcash is also asking infrastructure providers to replace the longtime node and wallet software, zcashd, with a new tooling collection called the Z3 stack. The stack includes Zebra for network node operation, Zaino for providing blockchain data to applications, and Zallet for wallet-related functions.
In documentation about the deprecation of zcashd, Zcash notes that some functions currently offered by zcashd will not have direct replacements, meaning operators may need to modify their systems. The shift is not simply a branding upgrade: it changes how nodes and wallet services integrate with the Zcash network.
McGee’s central warning is that this migration is colliding with Ironwood’s timeline. In his account, some infrastructure providers believe they can complete their transitions by late July, while others still need more time—particularly because not every component is considered production-ready yet.
What Shielded Labs says could happen next
McGee said that Zallet and Zaino were still under development and were not ready for production use at the time of his forum post. The implication is that operators who rely on those tools—or need to rework their workflows around them—may not be able to reach safe readiness by the scheduled activation window.
At the same time, McGee stressed that no delay has been finalized. That matters for traders and users because it leaves room for planning to continue under the expectation of an eventual Ironwood rollout while the ecosystem weighs whether preparation and review can be completed in time.
Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox also weighed in on the status of the work. In a separate discussion on the Zcash community forum, Wilcox said security reviews had not found additional serious bugs so far and that developers are continuing efforts to verify the new system ahead of Ironwood activation. He also acknowledged that the upgrade process involves more than just the shielded pool change itself, reflecting the broader engineering work around Zcash infrastructure.
Notably, the story shows an imbalance between what the upgrade is meant to solve quickly—restoring confidence in shielded supply—and the time it takes to make the broader ecosystem modifications safely, including software replacement and audits by third-party providers.
As late July approaches, the most important watch items are whether Shielded Labs’ concerns translate into an official timing change, and whether infrastructure operators confirm they can complete the Z3 stack migration alongside Ironwood requirements—especially given that some components were described as not yet production-ready at the time of McGee’s comments.
This article was originally published as Zcash Ironwood Upgrade Could Slip as Infrastructure Readiness Issues Arise on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Solana’s SOL token climbed to a level not seen in more than 30 days, briefly trading around $83, and the move is drawing attention because it doesn’t look like a simple altcoin sympathy rally. Instead, market data points to a mix of rising tokenized-asset activity on Solana, renewed memecoin momentum, and improving flows tied to stablecoin liquidity.
The question now for traders is whether this renewed bid can push SOL back through the $90 area—or whether the market is already cooling off as leverage comes off the table. Recent derivative and on-chain indicators suggest enthusiasm may be more selective than it was earlier in the week.
Key takeaways
SOL hit a 30-day high near $83, showing signs of decoupling from the broader altcoin market’s weakness.
Tokenized trading activity on Solana accelerated as cumulative tokenized stock transfers surpassed $10 billion around June 23.
Memecoins and prediction-market activity boosted short-term attention, but leveraged positioning cooled quickly.
Futures annualized funding fell to about 3% on Friday from an 11% peak earlier, implying less appetite for chasing gains to $90.
Tokenized assets bring a new tailwind to Solana
One of the clearest narratives behind SOL’s strength is the renewed growth in tokenized asset activity on the Solana network. According to data referenced from RWA.xyz, Solana’s tokenized assets rose to a record-high $3.5 billion on Wednesday—up from $2.7 billion about one month earlier.
The same dataset also points to what’s driving that expansion. The article cites tokenization products related to corporate credit and market indexes such as the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq-100. In addition, RWA.xyz data shows Solana leading the tokenized industry by active addresses, with 294,274, compared with Ethereum’s 204,955.
On the “why it matters” side for investors and builders: when tokenized assets expand, it generally increases demand for on-chain infrastructure—settlement, custody, trading venues, and related DeFi rails. Even if tokenized flows don’t translate immediately into SOL spot buying, they can reinforce the perception that Solana is capturing practical usage, not only speculative demand.
Memecoin revival and ecosystem features support short-term momentum
Beyond tokenization, the rally also appears to have been helped by a memecoin resurgence. The article highlights the Sunday airdrop of The Black Bull (ANSEM), which launched on Pump.fun. ANSEM reportedly reached a market capitalization of $60 million by Tuesday, with the developer directing roughly 65% of the supply to Ansem’s public wallet; the launch rollout reportedly involved about 74,000 addresses over the initial three days. The distribution is described as lacking full transparency.
That kind of attention can matter because memecoin activity often spurs retail trading and related network usage—especially on ecosystems where token launches and trading are tightly integrated. In this case, multiple Solana memecoins gained, but the article notes that the biggest winner was the Pump.fun platform token (PUMP). PUMP added about 27% on the week, returning to the top 100 by market capitalization and reaching an estimated $630 million valuation. ANSEM itself reportedly extended gains on Friday, reaching an all-time high market capitalization of $112 million.
Alongside memecoins, the article also ties SOL’s renewed interest to prediction-market functionality. It cites the integration of a “World prediction markets” experience into the Phantom wallet, reporting nearly $890,000 in total value locked over two days, framed as an effort to compete with Polymarket during the World Cup betting cycle. It also mentions that Jupiter has prediction markets under beta testing, with a reference to a June 29 launch.
Leverage cools: derivatives signal traders are less willing to chase
If tokenized-asset growth and memecoins helped ignite the move, derivatives data suggests the market is no longer as eager to press higher prices. The article points to a sharp decline in bullish leveraged appetite after Wednesday, when SOL rose above $75 for the first time in 30 days.
Specifically, the SOL perpetual futures annualized funding rate fell to 3% on Friday from an 11% peak just two days earlier. The piece references Laevitas for those funding figures, and notes that under “neutral conditions,” the funding rate should typically sit in a range from 6% to 12% to balance the capital cost.
That shift is important for traders because funding rates often reflect whether longs are crowding the trade. A cooling funding environment can mean new longs are less willing to pay up for exposure to SOL, which can reduce the momentum needed to sustain a breakout attempt—especially if spot demand doesn’t keep pace.
In other words, the market may be congratulating itself on earlier gains while becoming more cautious about a further push toward $90. The article’s framing emphasizes that investors may not want to bet on SOL widening its performance gap over other altcoins based solely on temporary memecoin-driven attention. Without sustained blockchain activity that converts into durable demand—rather than short-lived hype—there may be fewer reasons for leverage to build again quickly.
What to watch next for SOL and Solana activity
For SOL to realistically challenge the $90 zone, the next signal to track is whether the tokenized-asset expansion and broader on-chain usage can offset any fading retail-driven flows. If tokenized trading volume continues to grow and prediction-market participation sustains, the narrative supporting SOL may broaden beyond memes. Conversely, if leveraged sentiment stays subdued and funding remains below the levels typically associated with healthy upside positioning, SOL may consolidate even if it remains resilient versus the rest of the altcoin market.
This article was originally published as SOL Rebounds as Solana Memecoins and Prediction Markets Spike on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Belgian authorities have arrested a 19-year-old man they say was a central figure in a European phishing and money-laundering operation that netted more than €500,000 by targeting victims with fake government emails and phone calls. The suspected scheme relied on remote-access software to carry out fraud, and investigators say cryptocurrencies were used to move and launder the proceeds.
According to a Federal Judicial Police report cited by Belgian law enforcement, the arrest took place in Antwerp at an Airbnb, where a second suspect was also found. The investigation began in March 2026, when regional authorities escalated phishing as a priority.
Key takeaways
Belgian police say the suspected phishing crew used fake government communications to trick victims into installing remote-access software.
The operation allegedly involved money mules and cash carriers before converting proceeds into cryptocurrencies.
Investigators characterize crypto as serving multiple roles in phishing—both as part of laundering workflows and as an enabling tool.
Broader industry data cited in the report reinforces that phishing and social engineering remain leading drivers of crypto theft.
Recent warnings about malicious ads on Google highlight how attackers are continuing to target users through mainstream search advertising.
Arrest in Antwerp and a laundering pipeline using crypto
In the Belgian case, the Federal Judicial Police reported that the suspected mastermind was detained in an Airbnb in Antwerp. A second suspect was discovered at the location as well, and the primary suspect was subsequently brought before an investigating judge, who issued an arrest warrant.
While authorities did not detail the full operational workflow in the cited report, they described the alleged criminal method: victims were contacted via fake government emails and phone calls designed to induce them to install remote-access software. That is a classic social-engineering pattern in phishing campaigns, because it converts a digital entry point into remote control capabilities.
Police also said the network used intermediaries—money mules and cash carriers—to process and move funds before laundering. The critical addition for the crypto angle is that investigators allege the gang ultimately laundered proceeds through cryptocurrencies, demonstrating how digital assets can be integrated into stages of criminal finance rather than remaining isolated as a payment layer.
Why this matters for crypto users and compliance
The Belgian arrest underscores a recurring reality for the crypto ecosystem: many of the highest-impact losses do not begin with vulnerabilities in smart contracts or protocol code. Instead, fraudsters frequently use human-targeted tactics to obtain access to accounts, wallets, or other assets—and then use crypto to obscure trails.
From an investor and operator standpoint, this has practical implications. It suggests that even if a platform’s underlying technology is secure, users may still face outsized risk through phishing campaigns that impersonate trusted entities. It also points to why transaction monitoring and compliance controls remain relevant even when the entry attack is “off-chain.”
For builders and exchanges, the lessons tend to be operational rather than technical: account security, verification processes for high-risk requests, user education, and fraud response playbooks can all influence outcomes when scams target individuals rather than software.
Phishing and social engineering still dominate crypto losses
The broader threat landscape aligns closely with the Belgian case. Phishing and social engineering scams are described as major contributors to crypto theft, including in reported loss figures for early 2026.
According to Hacken, phishing and social engineering accounted for $306 million of the $482 million lost in the first quarter of 2026. That data, as presented in the source reporting, frames phishing as the most prevalent mechanism behind real-world losses—even as decentralized finance security debates often focus on exploits and protocol failures.
Attackers have long exploited predictable human behavior: creating urgency, impersonating authority figures, and using convincing messaging to bypass caution. The persistence of those tactics is why the crypto community continues to treat user manipulation as a top-tier security concern, not a fringe risk.
Malicious Google ads and evolving tactics
Recent warnings show that phishing campaigns are not limited to email and direct calls. On May 25, onchain analyst “b-block” warned that scammers used Google to run malicious phishing ads impersonating decentralized exchange Uniswap, reportedly stealing more than $400,000 from victims. The warning adds another layer to the problem: threat actors may be leveraging established advertising ecosystems to reach users at scale.
In parallel, DeFiLlama said fake ads on Google are a common source of phishing attacks. Separately, Crypto cybersecurity group Security Alliance reported in April that there was a significant uptick in phishing activity on Google Search in March. Together, these points indicate that mainstream discovery channels—search ads and ad placements—can become a distribution method for crypto scams.
Blockchain security company CertiK’s Skynet report also highlighted phishing and social engineering among leading tactics used by malicious actors associated with North Korea-linked operations. The source further notes that CertiK attributed the 2022 Ronin Bridge exploit to a spearphishing campaign that involved a fake LinkedIn recruiter and a malware-laden PDF—an example of how phishing can lead into broader compromise chains.
What to watch next
With Belgian authorities tying phishing directly to crypto laundering techniques, and with multiple reports indicating phishing remains the largest share of reported losses, the next signal to track is whether law enforcement actions and platform security measures reduce scam distribution channels—especially ads and impersonation attempts—or whether attackers continue to shift to new mainstream touchpoints faster than users can adapt.
This article was originally published as Belgian Police Arrest Phishing Suspect Linked to $572K Theft on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has renewed her push for tighter ethics rules around digital assets, proposing that elected officials—and the president and their spouse—be barred from issuing or sponsoring their own tokens. Her latest remarks explicitly referenced President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump’s memecoin activity.
Gillibrand, a New York Democrat involved in negotiations over US digital asset legislation, said in a Friday announcement that Congress should consider measures preventing public officials from using their position to promote or benefit from token launches. The proposal focuses on “issuing or sponsoring” digital assets, and would apply to a president and their spouse; it did not spell out whether similar restrictions should cover the vice president’s office or other relatives.
Key takeaways
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand proposed banning presidents and elected officials from issuing or sponsoring their own tokens, including memecoins.
The restriction would clearly cover the president and their spouse, but the scope for vice presidents or other family members was not specified.
Gillibrand links the idea to concerns about self-dealing, consumer protection, and efforts to curb illicit finance.
Her comments come amid broader Senate work on digital asset market-structure and stablecoin legislation that has faced ethics-related scrutiny.
The proposal follows shifting approaches in earlier legislation consideration around Trump-related crypto involvement.
Why Gillibrand is targeting token sponsorship by officials
In her Friday statement, Gillibrand argued that “public officials and their spouses should not be issuing memecoins,” framing the move as basic conflict-of-interest prevention rather than a partisan effort. She said the goal is to stop self-dealing from undermining consumer protections and complicating efforts against illicit finance.
The senator’s remarks emphasize the potential for elected officials to benefit from token-related projects that could be influenced by their access to policymakers, regulators, and legislative timelines. In her view, such concerns are especially urgent in markets that are still developing guardrails for disclosure, investor protections, and anti-manipulation enforcement.
Connection to the CLARITY Act and ethics as a gating issue
Gillibrand is also one of the lawmakers involved in negotiations on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act in the Senate. According to prior reporting, progress on the bill has been slowed by worries that extend beyond token rules themselves—particularly concerns about ethics, tokenization practices, and stablecoin reward structures.
Gillibrand previously indicated that the chamber could not move forward without addressing ethics questions, pointing to the risk that elected officials could “get rich” from insider access. In that context, the token-sponsorship proposal aligns with her broader stance that ethics constraints should be treated as foundational, not optional.
The senator’s framing also highlights a recurring legislative tension in the US crypto policy debate: how to extend oversight to new financial products while limiting opportunities for lawmakers to profit from the very markets they help shape.
How stablecoin and memecoin provisions were handled in earlier legislation
During consideration of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act), Gillibrand said senators had removed provisions that specifically targeted Trump’s ties to the crypto industry, including his memecoin Official Trump. In her account at the time, the memecoin was likely “illegal based on current law,” but she suggested that trying to fully cover Trump-related ethics issues would require a “very long and detailed bill.”
Eventually, Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law in July 2025. Gillibrand’s new proposal suggests that even after that outcome—when lawmakers reportedly narrowed focus on Trump-specific provisions—ethics concerns have not gone away. Instead, she appears to be seeking a more general rule that would constrain future token issuance by officials and their spouses.
Notably, Gillibrand’s proposed memecoin restriction did not appear to be designed as a blanket ban covering all family members. The difference matters politically and legally: it shapes how broadly the rule could reach beyond a president’s spouse, while still addressing the most direct relationship that can be tightly linked to official influence.
Trump’s response and the wider conflict-of-interest debate
Gillibrand’s renewed comments arrive as Trump has continued to dismiss perceived conflicts of interest involving his crypto investments. This week, he reported that he earned about $1.4 billion from crypto ventures in the year he took office, while also holding the power to influence legislation that affects digital assets, including both the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
According to Trump, there was “nothing illegal” and “nothing wrong” with profiting from investments while serving as president, and he did not directly answer questions about the perceived conflicts. The contrast with Gillibrand’s position is stark: she argues that legality alone does not resolve the underlying ethical risk when public officials’ influence intersects with markets where their own token or sponsorship interests could be monetized.
The broader backdrop also includes criticism of involvement by Trump’s sons in crypto-adjacent ventures, including their connection to World Liberty Financial and a Bitcoin mining company described as American Bitcoin. While Gillibrand’s new proposal does not explicitly extend to those broader family circumstances, it reinforces that lawmakers and watchdog voices remain focused on whether personal ties to crypto create unfair advantages or distort policy incentives.
For investors and builders, the practical significance of Gillibrand’s proposal is straightforward: if adopted, a ban on token issuance or sponsorship by officials (and a president’s spouse) could reduce expectations of politically driven token promotion. It may also shape how exchanges, issuers, and intermediaries approach compliance and disclosure when influential figures are involved.
Still, much remains uncertain. Key questions include how “sponsoring” would be defined in law, whether enforcement would rely on existing securities and commodities frameworks, and—if a rule passes—how much legislative time it would take to harmonize it with the ongoing CLARITY Act process. Readers should watch how ethics language evolves in both the market-structure and stablecoin bills, and whether lawmakers treat conflict-of-interest guardrails as a prerequisite rather than an afterthought.
This article was originally published as US Senator Proposes Ban on Elected Officials Issuing Memecoins on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korean crypto exchange Upbit says it will not take part in the issuance of Open USD (OUSD), despite an operator-level connection to the stablecoin project. The clarification comes after Open Standard named Dunamu among more than 140 businesses associated with its new dollar-backed initiative.
In a statement to Cointelegraph, an Upbit spokesperson said the exchange has only “indicated our potential willingness to consider taking part in the future expansion of the OpenStandard ecosystem.” The company’s position follows similar pushback from other South Korean firms that were included in Open Standard’s broader business list.
Key takeaways
Upbit denies participation in OUSD issuance, limiting its stance to possible future involvement in the OpenStandard ecosystem.
Open Standard’s public roster includes major South Korean companies, but several say they have not agreed to specific roles.
Regulatory uncertainty in South Korea persists because the Digital Asset Basic Act has not yet been finalized.
Open Standard’s “no fees / no volume limits” mint-and-redeem model remains a subject of debate among industry observers.
Upbit’s clarification reshapes how Open Standard’s list is read
Open Standard announced Open USD on Tuesday, describing a framework under which participating businesses would be able to mint and redeem the stablecoin without fees or volume limits. The project also said it plans to distribute earnings generated from its reserves to participating companies.
Open Standard’s announcement listed a broad group of firms—reportedly more than 140—stating they had “signed up to use” the stablecoin. Among those named were global payments and finance brands including Visa and Mastercard, as well as asset management and tech firms such as BlackRock and Google. In South Korea, Dunamu was included, which is the operator behind Upbit.
That inclusion prompted follow-up clarification from Upbit. The exchange said it is not participating in OUSD issuance, and only signaled openness to potentially joining “future expansion” of the OpenStandard ecosystem. Cointelegraph also reported that it reached out to Open Standard for comment but did not receive a response before publication.
The broader implication is that the public business list may represent interest or preliminary alignment rather than committed operational roles. That distinction matters for users and market participants watching whether large incumbents are truly underwriting, distributing, or managing parts of the stablecoin’s reserve and governance.
Other South Korean companies reportedly echo “no formal role” concerns
According to a Friday report by ChosunBiz, Samsung Electronics said it had not held formal discussions with Open Standard and did not know what role it was expected to play. The same reporting also indicated Shinhan Financial Group and KBank had only signaled they would consider the initiative.
These responses highlight a recurring pattern in early-stage stablecoin announcements: companies may be mentioned in promotional materials or participation lists before regulatory processes, commercial terms, and internal approvals are locked down. For investors and builders, the practical question becomes whether these entities will move from “consideration” to concrete deliverables such as issuance participation, redemption access, or reserve-related responsibilities.
It also raises the likelihood that Open Standard’s roster could change as plans are translated into compliance-ready operating structures—especially given South Korea’s still-evolving legal landscape for digital assets.
Why South Korea’s pending stablecoin law complicates commitments
Stablecoin issuance and ecosystem participation in South Korea remain constrained by policy uncertainty. The country has not yet passed the Digital Asset Basic Act, leaving open questions about who can issue stablecoins and what roles non-issuers and participating firms may perform.
Cointelegraph has previously reported that lawmakers are debating whether stablecoin issuance should be limited to banks or opened to qualified non-bank issuers, with the broader regulatory framework still under discussion. As long as that process remains unresolved, companies may hesitate to commit to initiatives that depend on licensing, reserve management rules, and the permitted scope of activities for different types of institutions.
That uncertainty can delay integrations and reduce the reliability of public participation lists. Even when major names are mentioned, compliance timelines and approval hurdles can force a slower, more cautious path—particularly for projects that connect traditional finance and payments infrastructure to on-chain settlement.
Open Standard’s mint-and-redeem model still faces skepticism
Alongside corporate clarifications, industry figures have questioned whether Open Standard’s economics are sustainable. Open Standard previously said participating businesses would be able to mint and redeem OUSD without fees or volume limits, and it also described plans to share earnings generated from reserves with participants.
Cointelegraph noted earlier that Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire challenged the model’s durability, specifically questioning the logic of free, unlimited minting and redemption. Lorenzo Valente, director of research at ARK Invest, also characterized the announcement as a “giant” letter of intent.
While such critiques do not necessarily disprove the project, they underscore that stablecoin economics—especially those involving reserve yields, operational costs, redemption incentives, and governance—are often the deciding factor in whether participation scales beyond initial pilots. The tension here is straightforward: an approach designed to reduce friction for users may shift financial responsibilities elsewhere, requiring careful reserve and risk management to stay viable.
For market participants, Upbit’s position is another reminder to separate marketing claims from operational reality. Even if a project advertises broad participation, the sustainability of the underlying business model and the readiness of the legal framework will likely determine who can actually play active roles.
What to watch next is whether South Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act—and the specific stablecoin issuance rules it implies—moves from debate toward implementation. In parallel, observe whether Open Standard converts “signed up to use” lists into clearly defined, compliant roles for identified entities, including in South Korea.
This article was originally published as Upbit Clarifies It Only Explored Potential Future OUSD Listing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Europe’s financial watchdog is warning that many prediction market “event contracts” may already be subject to existing binary options rules, regardless of how they are described or marketed. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) says companies cannot sidestep retail investor protections simply by rebranding certain derivatives-like payouts as “event contracts.”
At the same time, the United States is witnessing its own escalation: state gaming regulators and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are fighting over whether prediction markets should be treated as gambling or federally regulated derivatives. Together, the two stories underline a central fault line for the sector—what matters legally is the contract’s structure, not its branding.
Key takeaways
ESMA says event contracts can fall under binary options restrictions based on their characteristics, especially binary outcomes and fixed payouts.
Even if retail investors are excluded, ESMA warns that offering qualifying event contracts to professional or institutional clients may still require MiFID II authorization.
ESMA notes the reminder is not new regulation, but a response to increased offerings as prediction markets grow.
In the U.S., state actions against platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket continue alongside the CFTC’s position that it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over event contracts.
Litigation in multiple jurisdictions has intensified speculation that the dispute could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
ESMA’s reminder: “event contracts” can still be binary options
In a public statement released on Friday, ESMA reminded firms that contracts meeting the definition of financial instruments are already prohibited from being marketed, distributed, or sold to retail investors under national measures implementing ESMA’s 2018 binary options restrictions.
The regulator emphasized that the legal assessment hinges on the contract’s features rather than on marketing language. In particular, ESMA highlighted that event contracts with binary outcomes and fixed payouts are likely to qualify as financial instruments subject to the restrictions.
ESMA also focused on authorization requirements for firms selling into more sophisticated client categories. According to the statement, providing qualifying event contracts to professional or institutional clients still requires authorization under MiFID II, even if retail investors are not directly targeted.
ESMA framed its intervention as enforcement clarity rather than policy change. The regulator said it issued the reminder after observing more event contract offerings and rapid growth in prediction markets, noting that qualifying binary options have been under national restrictions across the EU since 2018.
For readers and market participants, the key implication is that the industry’s current naming conventions may not provide regulatory shelter. ESMA’s approach suggests that product designers and legal teams must evaluate payout mechanics and outcome structures early—before launching—because regulators may treat certain prediction constructs as financial instruments from the outset.
ESMA’s public statement on the application of national binary options measures to event contracts
What ESMA’s approach could mean for European platforms
While ESMA did not claim to introduce new restrictions, the message still carries practical consequences for platforms operating in or distributing into EU markets. ESMA’s insistence on contract-based assessment—binary outcomes and fixed payouts—creates a straightforward but unforgiving compliance test for many prediction-market formats.
In practice, this means firms may face pressure to restructure offerings that resemble fixed-payoff binary options. Alternatively, companies may need to ensure they remain within the boundaries of allowed products and client categories, including meeting MiFID II authorization requirements where applicable.
ESMA also appears to be pushing back against a common industry tactic: presenting payouts as “event-based” rather than as option-like financial instruments. The regulator’s reminder suggests that, from an enforcement standpoint, the distinction may not hold when the economic effect is functionally similar to a prohibited binary option for retail clients.
Builders and investors watching the space should treat ESMA’s statement as a signal about regulatory risk management. In a sector that often iterates quickly, compliance reviews that focus on contract architecture—not UI wording or product naming—may become a gating factor for expansion into regulated markets.
Meanwhile in the U.S., states and the CFTC keep clashing
Across the Atlantic, prediction markets are caught in a jurisdictional fight. The conflict pits state gaming regulators against the CFTC over whether event contracts should be treated as gambling under state law or as federally regulated derivatives under the CFTC’s oversight.
By March, action had already been taken by authorities in 11 states against platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket. Nevada became the first state to temporarily block Kalshi’s operations, while Arizona brought criminal charges alleging the company was running an illegal gambling business.
The following month, the CFTC argued for “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets, saying Congress entrusted the agency with sole authority to regulate commodity derivatives markets, including event contracts. The agency also said it sued several states and filed court briefs supporting platforms such as Kalshi.
The litigation has continued to escalate. On June 30, a Massachusetts judge allowed state authorities to file an amended complaint against Kalshi in an ongoing case alleging the company’s sports-event contracts constitute illegal gambling under state law.
These battles have also driven calls for congressional clarification. Last month, the Indian Gaming Association and the American Gaming Association—joined by tribal and labor groups—urged lawmakers to amend the CLARITY Act to explicitly prohibit sports-related event contracts on prediction market platforms, arguing these products should fall outside the CFTC’s authority and remain governed by state gambling laws.
Legal experts cited in earlier coverage believe the deepening disagreement between federal and state regulators could ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
CFTC press release asserting its authority over prediction markets
Why both regions are converging on the same legal question
Despite differing regulatory frameworks, the EU and U.S. stories share a similar center of gravity: regulators are focusing on how event contracts work economically, not on the label operators choose. In Europe, ESMA points to binary outcomes and fixed payouts as key triggers for binary options treatment. In the U.S., the dispute turns on whether event contracts are properly categorized as gambling or as derivatives subject to federal oversight.
For operators, the stakes are immediate. In Europe, ESMA’s reminder highlights that retail-facing marketing can quickly trigger product intervention rules, while institutional sales may still require MiFID II authorization depending on contract characteristics. In the U.S., state enforcement and federal claims of exclusive jurisdiction have pushed prediction market firms into a patchwork of legal outcomes.
The practical takeaway for market participants is to treat legal categorization as product design input. The compliance and litigation burden can increase sharply when a platform’s core contract mechanics resemble the category regulators are already prepared to police.
As ESMA’s guidance circulates and U.S. court battles continue—possibly moving toward higher-level review—watch for two things: whether prediction platforms adjust contract structures to better fit regulatory definitions in the EU, and whether the U.S. dispute narrows around a definitive jurisdictional ruling rather than expanding across states and claims.
This article was originally published as ESMA Warns Prediction Market Event Contracts May Breach EU Retail Ban on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US lawmakers have pushed the CLARITY Act back into the center of crypto policy debate. Reports say the Senate could release final bill text this weekend, giving markets a clearer view of Washington’s plan. The move would mark a key step for a digital asset framework that has faced years of delay.
Senate Text Could Shape Next Crypto Policy Step
The expected Senate text could define how US regulators oversee digital assets. It may also clarify the roles of the SEC and CFTC. Therefore, the release could shape the next phase of crypto lawmaking.
Earlier expectations for a July 4 signing have faded. Senator Bill Hagerty has indicated that action may come after Congress returns from recess. Lawmakers are now looking toward the period after July 13.
The shift does not end the bill’s momentum. Instead, it shows that Senate leaders still need more time. The final text could also reveal whether lawmakers changed key market structure provisions.
The CLARITY Act aims to set rules for crypto exchanges, token issuers, and related platforms. It seeks to reduce confusion that has grown under enforcement-led oversight. Supporters argue that clear rules could keep digital asset activity inside the United States.
The bill still faces a difficult vote count in the Senate. Republicans hold 53 seats, but the bill needs at least 60 votes. As a result, at least seven Democrats must support the measure.
Democratic Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Ruben Gallego backed the bill in committee. However, both avoided a firm pledge for the final Senate vote. That position keeps the path open, but it also leaves uncertainty.
Political Support Strengthens the Bill’s Position
Fresh backing from Republican leaders has helped keep the bill active. Senator Tim Scott has said clear rules can help innovation grow. He also linked the measure to consumer protection and US financial leadership.
The Senate debate comes after years of pressure from crypto firms and policy groups. Many companies have asked Congress to replace unclear guidance with direct law. Meanwhile, regulators have continued enforcement actions against several major digital asset firms.
That background gives the CLARITY Act wider policy importance. It could become one of the most important crypto market structure bills in Washington. It may also influence how future stablecoin and token rules develop.
Lawmakers may adjust the bill to win broader support. They could refine consumer protection language and oversight powers. They could also address concerns about state authority and federal agency control.
The bill’s supporters want rules that reduce legal risk for compliant firms. However, critics may argue that weak standards could expose users to harm. That debate will likely continue once the Senate releases the final version.
Law Enforcement Endorsement Adds New Weight
The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives has endorsed the CLARITY Act. The group became the first major law enforcement body to support the bill. Its backing adds a new public safety angle to the debate.
The endorsement includes support for provisions tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. Those provisions seek clearer treatment for developers and non-custodial service providers. They also aim to separate software activity from financial custody.
That distinction matters because many blockchain services do not hold customer funds. Clearer rules could protect developers from broad compliance burdens. At the same time, lawmakers still want safeguards against fraud and illicit finance.
The endorsement may help supporters answer concerns about enforcement gaps. It also gives the bill a broader coalition beyond crypto companies. Therefore, the final text could draw attention from both policy and security groups.
The next stage will depend on Senate procedure and party talks. If leaders secure enough votes, the bill could move toward floor action after recess. If talks stall, the timeline may again move deeper into July.
This article was originally published as Senate Clarity Act Text May Define Next Phase for US Crypto Rules on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is advancing SEC Project Crypto as Chairman Paul Atkins outlines plans for blockchain-based financial markets. The initiative focuses on modernizing securities rules, improving token classification, and supporting market systems that can operate on-chain. Atkins said the agency has spent the past year adjusting its approach after President Donald Trump called for U.S. leadership in cryptocurrency. The SEC expects several rulemaking steps to continue through mid-2026.
Sec Sets Direction For On-Chain Markets
Atkins said SEC Project Crypto marks a broad effort to prepare existing market rules for blockchain infrastructure. He described the agency’s work as “historic steps” toward modernizing regulations for on-chain market activity. The plan aims to help issuers understand whether a token falls under securities laws before they launch a project. That clarity could reduce legal uncertainty for crypto startups, token issuers, and regulated trading platforms.
The SEC chairman said the initiative does not give the digital asset industry special treatment. Instead, he said the agency wants clear regulations that allow markets to operate under known rules. This approach places disclosure, investor protection, and market integrity at the center of the SEC’s digital asset agenda. It also signals that the agency wants blockchain finance to fit within regulated market structures.
Sec And Cftc Work On Joint Framework
The SEC also plans deeper coordination with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under the current timeline, both agencies expect a Memorandum of Understanding by March 2026. The agreement should help classify digital assets that do not qualify as securities. It also aims to reduce overlap between the two regulators.
Atkins said the goal is to replace a “fragmented regulatory environment” with a more coordinated structure. This matters because many crypto products combine trading, custody, payments, and derivatives features. Clearer coordination could help firms understand which regulator oversees each product. It may also reduce delays for platforms that want to offer compliant digital asset services.
Rule Changes Target Custody And Trading
SEC Project Crypto also includes updates to market structure rules, including Regulation NMS. The SEC wants pathways that allow blockchain-based trading systems to operate alongside traditional exchanges. These changes could affect tokenized securities, settlement systems, and digital asset trading venues. The agency expects key rule updates by mid-2026.
Custody rules remain another major focus for the commission. Updated standards could determine whether banks can hold tokenized securities for clients. The SEC-CFTC framework may also shape crypto derivatives that now operate in a less settled legal environment. As a result, SEC Project Crypto could influence how on-chain markets connect with U.S. financial institutions.
URLS:
https://x.com/SECGov/status/2072745983088160996?s=20
This article was originally published as Sec Advances Project Crypto For On-Chain Markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US President Donald Trump has pushed back against criticism of his latest financial disclosures, telling CNBC that there was “nothing illegal” and “nothing wrong” about earning income tied to his crypto investments while in office. The remarks came shortly after the US Office of Government Ethics (OGE) released his 2025 financial disclosure report, which advocacy groups say highlights troubling conflicts of interest.
In a Thursday interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen, Trump argued that others were responsible for his crypto-related investments and that he did not “even know who they are,” without directly addressing concerns about whether his position could influence policy affecting the digital asset industry. The disclosures reportedly show Trump’s businesses and investments generated more than $2 billion during 2025, with about $1.4 billion linked to crypto ventures.
Key takeaways
Trump said on CNBC there was “nothing illegal” about profiting from crypto investments while president, following the release of his 2025 OGE financial disclosure.
The filing reportedly attributes roughly $1.4 billion of Trump’s 2025 income to crypto-related activities, including his memecoin and the family platform World Liberty Financial.
Trump did not provide specific answers about who managed the investments, saying he did not “even know who they are.”
Advocacy groups argue the scale of crypto-linked earnings raises conflict-of-interest concerns as Congress considers digital asset legislation.
Crypto political spending appears to be ramping up ahead of the 2026 elections, according to Public Citizen.
Trump denies wrongdoing after crypto-linked disclosures surface
Trump’s defense centered on the idea that profiting from digital assets while holding the presidency is not inherently improper. Speaking to CNBC’s Joe Kernen, he maintained that his crypto holdings did not involve wrongdoing and suggested he was not directly involved in the investment management decisions.
That response came after reporting on the contents of Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure. According to coverage referencing the OGE filing, Trump reported taking in more than $2 billion from his businesses and investments during 2025. Within that total, roughly $1.4 billion was described as connected to crypto projects, including his memecoin and activities tied to World Liberty Financial, a platform associated with his family.
According to the same reporting, Trump’s disclosed crypto-related earnings included:
About $636 million from his memecoin
About $588 million from World Liberty sales
$197 million from equity in a stablecoin venture
Trump has previously criticized Bitcoin during his first term, calling it a “scam.” However, in the lead-up to the 2024 election he reportedly increased engagement with prominent figures in crypto, including Gemini co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, as well as executives from mining companies and crypto exchanges. He has also launched an Official Trump memecoin and has remained closely associated with World Liberty and American Bitcoin.
Conflict-of-interest concerns keep pressure on US crypto policy
Trump’s remarks are likely to intensify a dispute that has been playing out across US politics: whether leaders can personally profit from industries while also participating in government actions that shape the regulatory environment for those same industries.
Several advocacy organizations have characterized the disclosed crypto earnings as a “grift,” pointing to the possibility that personal financial ties could affect legislative outcomes. In particular, critics have flagged the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act as an example of the kind of policy initiative they believe could benefit from a more transparent and strictly separated approach.
Trump’s CNBC comments did not directly resolve those concerns. Instead, he emphasized that other parties were responsible for his investments and that he did not know the individuals involved. For critics, that stance may not address the core issue: whether the presidency creates an inherently asymmetric influence over markets and legislation even when day-to-day decisions are delegated.
Beyond Trump himself, his family has also become a focal point for commentary. In a Friday interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Mary Trump—the president’s niece—argued that the political system enables people to “get away with” serious financial wrongdoing, adding that investors may have been harmed by trusting Trump’s businesses. Her comments did not cite new details from the OGE filing, but they align with the broader line of criticism that seeks more accountability and clearer separation between political power and private crypto interests.
What changes: from “scam” rhetoric to industry engagement
One of the more striking dynamics in this story is how sharply Trump’s posture toward crypto appears to have shifted over time. In his first term, he publicly derided Bitcoin. But leading into the 2024 election—and continuing since—he has moved closer to influential crypto personalities and industry players.
The new disclosure-related controversy comes against that backdrop. If 2025 earnings are indeed as large and as closely tied to crypto-specific ventures as the filing descriptions indicate, the question for investors and builders is not only whether regulations will change—but whose incentives are most aligned with those changes.
This matters beyond politics because crypto markets respond quickly to expectations about rules, enforcement posture, and legislative clarity. When a head of state is personally linked to crypto outcomes—whether through tokens, platforms, or stablecoin-related equity—participants may reassess the probability that policy will be aligned with industry interests rather than general consumer protection.
Crypto spending looks set for another election-cycle push
Trump’s crypto-related disclosure debate is unfolding as the industry prepares for more political contests. After digital asset companies reportedly spent $170 million to support candidates they considered “pro-crypto” during the 2024 cycle, political action committees and related organizations appear to be following a similar approach for 2026.
In a report cited by Cointelegraph, Public Citizen said that companies and figures linked to the crypto industry contributed $189 million toward the 2026 election cycle as of June. That figure is presented as the bulk of $294 million in spending so far across crypto, AI, Big Tech, and online betting companies to support or oppose politicians.
With Trump’s term running until January 2029, the timing of 2026 elections is still crucial: all 435 seats in the US House of Representatives and 35 in the Senate will be contested. For digital asset policy, those races could shape committee leadership and the legislative momentum behind bills that attempt to clarify how different parts of the market should be regulated.
For traders and long-term participants, political funding and lobbying activity can act as early signals for where the policy debate is moving—even when the market seems focused on immediate price action. However, disclosures like Trump’s add a separate layer of scrutiny: not just how much money crypto firms spend to influence policy, but whether government officials’ financial incentives complicate the regulatory process.
As these issues move forward, readers should watch for how lawmakers address conflict-of-interest concerns and whether any additional scrutiny from ethics or oversight bodies changes how crypto-linked disclosures are interpreted in practice.
This article was originally published as Trump Says $1.4B Crypto Windfall Raises No Issues for Office on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy’s corporate approach to Bitcoin is evolving in a way that signals the industry’s broader shift from ideology to balance-sheet realism. This week, the company authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales under a new capital framework—explicitly designed to support dividends, strengthen cash reserves, and fund buybacks while keeping its long-term commitment to Bitcoin.
At the same time, the rest of crypto business news points to a more pragmatic era: stablecoin issuers are racing to capture reserve-driven yield, Fidelity is disputing the idea that Bitcoin’s security will deteriorate as halvings reduce rewards, and political spending by crypto firms is climbing ahead of the 2026 US midterm elections.
Key takeaways
Strategy authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales to fund shareholder dividends, cash reserves, and buybacks—despite years of “never sell” messaging.
The company outlined a formal Bitcoin monetization program under its “Digital Credit Capital Framework,” alongside additional capital return measures.
Open USD (OUSD) is positioning as a yield-enabled dollar stablecoin, backed by payments and crypto firms, in an effort to challenge USDT and USDC.
Fidelity argues Bitcoin’s security economics extend beyond block subsidies, citing rising miner revenue from fees and market incentives.
Public Citizen reports $189 million in crypto-related spending for 2026 elections, with major PACs again driving influence.
Strategy’s “never sell” era meets capital allocation reality
Strategy disclosed that it has authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales under a new capital framework called the “Digital Credit Capital Framework.” The stated objective is to preserve Strategy’s long-term Bitcoin exposure while creating a structured path to monetize Bitcoin to support shareholder payments and corporate liquidity.
The framework increases the annual dividend on Strategy’s STRC preferred stock from 11.5% to 12% and sets out additional capital return mechanisms. Strategy also said its dedicated cash reserve has reached $2.55 billion, which management described as sufficient to cover roughly 17 months of preferred dividends and interest obligations.
Just as importantly, the authorization marks a change in how Strategy talks about Bitcoin. According to earlier reporting by Cointelegraph, the company had already disclosed its first-ever Bitcoin sale of 32 BTC in June. With this new framework, monetization is no longer an isolated event—it is now formalized as a program.
Strategy also indicated it did not purchase additional Bitcoin last week, leaving its holdings unchanged at 847,363 BTC. That detail matters because it underscores the logic behind the new approach: the company is trying to balance continued accumulation with practical liquidity management rather than relying solely on uninterrupted buy-and-hold behavior.
A new stablecoin backed by major payments firms targets “reserve yield”
While corporate Bitcoin holders reassess capital flexibility, stablecoin innovation is pushing in the opposite direction—toward feature competition. More than 140 financial and crypto companies have come together to launch a new US dollar-backed stablecoin designed to allow participants to retain yield generated by its reserves.
The project, Open USD (OUSD), is supported by large payments players including Visa and Mastercard, alongside crypto and trading ecosystem firms such as Coinbase, Ripple, OKX, and Bybit. Its positioning is straightforward: unlike many traditional stablecoin models that route reserve earnings to the issuer, OUSD aims to route those reserve earnings to token holders or businesses, according to the project’s supporters.
Open USD’s design also includes operational choices that proponents say could help it compete for market share. The initiative plans to let businesses mint tokens without fees or volume limits while keeping reserve earnings. Backers frame the offer as a direct alternative to incumbents, referencing Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC as competitors.
Timing and regulation are part of the pitch. Cointelegraph reported that the launch comes as US policy has moved toward a more favorable stance after the passage of the GENIUS Act. According to the reporting, Open Standard intends to roll out OUSD later this year, entering a market analysts expect to keep expanding, with the article noting the sector is already worth more than $300 billion.
Fidelity challenges the claim that halvings erode Bitcoin security
One of Bitcoin’s most persistent debates—especially after each halving—is whether lower block subsidies will eventually undermine miners’ incentive to secure the network. Fidelity Digital Assets is pushing back against the notion that Bitcoin’s long-term security is threatened by reward reductions.
In a research report, Fidelity argued that Bitcoin’s economic model extends beyond block subsidies. The central claim is that the network’s security incentives can be maintained through rising transaction fees, broader market incentives, and Bitcoin’s own price appreciation.
Cointelegraph’s summary of Fidelity’s analysis cites research analyst Daniel Gray, who points to miner revenue growth over time. The report’s figures, as quoted in the coverage, show average daily miner revenue increasing from $1.3 million during 2012–2016 to $40.2 million today. The implication is that while subsidies shrink mechanically, the overall economic picture for miners can improve through other revenue streams.
The timing also matters for the real-world mining industry. As halvings reduce block rewards, publicly traded mining firms have faced renewed pressure. Cointelegraph noted that many miners are seeking diversification—such as expanding into AI and high-performance computing—to offset the squeeze. Fidelity’s stance, however, is that those pressures do not automatically translate into a long-run weakening of Bitcoin’s programmed security.
Crypto’s political footprint expands ahead of the 2026 midterms
Beyond market structure, crypto’s business influence is increasingly visible in politics. A report by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen says crypto companies have contributed roughly $189 million to the 2026 US election cycle so far—about 37% of all corporate political spending, according to the figures cited in Cointelegraph’s coverage.
Public Citizen’s findings also suggest that crypto-backed PACs are again the key engine behind political leverage. Cointelegraph reports that Fairshake has spent more than $82 million this cycle, while the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. Super PAC—described as heavily backed by Crypto.com—has spent more than $56 million.
The report frames the strategy as consistent with 2024: supporting candidates from both major parties that align with the industry’s policy agenda. Public Citizen also notes that crypto election spending has already surpassed roughly $170 million deployed during the 2024 election cycle, with more than four months remaining before the November elections, based on the coverage’s description.
For investors and builders, this matters because policy outcomes can shape stablecoin rules, disclosure requirements, and enforcement priorities—areas that directly affect how crypto firms operate and compete.
What to watch next
The key question now is whether Strategy’s monetization framework becomes a template for other major Bitcoin holders—and how quickly stablecoin competitors like OUSD can translate “reserve yield” features into real usage. In parallel, the ongoing debate over Bitcoin security economics and the industry’s political momentum will likely define how both networks and regulations evolve as 2026 approaches.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Maximalism Faces Capital Market Realities, Crypto Biz Notes on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BTSE Group has launched BTSE Indonesia, marking its official entry into Indonesia’s regulated crypto market. The platform began operations after the rebranding of NVX, a local digital asset exchange, into BTSE Indonesia.
The company announced the launch on July 3 through a joint venture with PT Aset Kripto Internasional. Under the arrangement, BTSE Group provides the exchange technology, trading engine, and liquidity, while the Indonesian entity manages local growth, partnerships, marketing, and sales.
BTSE Indonesia Enters Regulated Market
BTSE Indonesia operates under a license from Indonesia’s Financial Services Authority, known as OJK. The license allows the platform to act as a Digital Financial Assets and Crypto Assets Trading Operator, or PAKD, in the country.
That approval permits BTSE Indonesia to offer regulated crypto trading services while following anti-money laundering rules and customer asset protection standards. It also places the exchange among the approved platforms allowed to serve Indonesian crypto users under local supervision.
The license also allows the platform to work with Indonesian banks and payment gateways. As a result, users can access Indonesian rupiah deposits, withdrawals, conversions, and IDR-denominated trading pairs.
Joint Venture Combines Global Technology and Local Operations
BTSE Group said it will support the platform with trading infrastructure, liquidity, and technical systems. Meanwhile, BTSE Indonesia will use its domestic market knowledge to expand customer access and build business relationships.
Jeff Mei, Chief Operating Officer of BTSE Group, said Indonesia has the population, demand, and regulatory framework needed to become a major crypto hub in Asia. He added that the joint venture brings together global infrastructure and local expertise.
Stephanie Kusnadi, Chief Strategy Officer of BTSE Indonesia, said the integration with BTSE gives the platform access to global exchange technology while keeping its focus on local compliance and Indonesian users.
Indonesia Tightens Crypto Oversight
The launch comes as Indonesia continues to expand its rules for digital assets. In June, OJK issued Financial Services Authority Regulation No. 6 of 2026, which introduced new requirements for crypto promotion.
Under the rule, social media influencers who recommend crypto assets must obtain competency certification unless they already hold another qualifying license. They may also promote only assets listed on authorized exchanges.
The regulation also requires promotional campaigns to run through licensed financial services businesses. These businesses remain responsible for the content. For BTSE Indonesia, the launch places the platform inside a market where regulatory compliance now plays a central role in crypto expansion.
Find the original press release here.
This article was originally published as Btse Launches Regulated Crypto Exchange in Indonesia on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin extended its advance into the US holiday weekend, setting fresh July highs as buyers pressed through a key technical level near the 200-week moving average. The move also played out alongside strength in global equities, as expectations for Federal Reserve action appeared to soften after weaker US jobs data.
On TradingView, BTC/USD reached $62,295 on Bitstamp—its highest level since June 24—highlighting renewed focus on whether the latest breakout can be sustained through the next weekly close.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin pushed to $62,295 on Bitstamp, marking a fresh July high and the strongest print since June 24.
Traders are watching the 200-week simple moving average, cited around $62,652, as a pivotal level for weekly structure.
Price action is approaching a broader “strong resistance area” near $62,000–$62,500.
Weak US nonfarm payrolls helped lift risk assets, while CME Group’s FedWatch tool pointed to roughly even odds of a September pause versus a hike.
BTC tests a major technical line near the 200-week SMA
The latest rally has brought Bitcoin back to levels closely tracked by chart analysts. According to TradingView data referenced by market observers, BTC/USD hit $62,295 on Bitstamp, extending gains during the Independence Day holiday period when US markets were closed.
For many traders, the near-term question is not simply whether Bitcoin can trade higher, but whether it can hold its momentum around the 200-week moving average. One commonly cited reference point comes from Daan Crypto Trades, who highlighted that the 200-week simple moving average is currently around $62,652, and that it may be important for the weekly candle close.
“It is key for BTC now to hold this breakout and maintain its low timeframe bullish market structure,” Daan Crypto Trades said, calling the current trading zone “important.”
Separately, Exitpump pointed to a zone rather than a single number, warning followers to keep an eye on $62,000–$62,500 as a “strong resistance area.” The implication for traders is that a move into this band could trigger either consolidation or renewed bids—depending on how Bitcoin reacts as the chart approaches the 200-week line.
The current dynamic also fits the way some traders describe order flow during breakouts. Exitpump referenced “controlled slow buying” on exchanges, suggesting demand is present but not necessarily in a single aggressive surge. If that pattern continues, it may support the idea of gradual progress; if it stops, resistance in the same region could slow the move.
Risk-on tone as equities hit new records
Bitcoin’s strength has coincided with a broadly constructive macro backdrop. With US markets closed for the Independence Day holiday, global equities were still moving higher; the Dow Jones closed at record highs the previous day, and a report cited by The Kobeissi Letter described global market capitalization reaching all-time highs as well.
In a post on X, The Kobeissi Letter wrote: “Global equities are in the midst of one of the most powerful rallies in history.” That kind of parallel move matters for crypto traders because it can influence how investors position across risk assets, especially when interest-rate expectations are in flux.
While Bitcoin is not a direct proxy for stocks, the correlation often becomes more visible when markets treat macro news as broadly supportive for risk appetite. In that setting, technical levels can attract attention faster—particularly when liquidity and sentiment align.
Fed rate pressure eases as jobs data cools expectations
Beyond the charts, the macro driver most directly referenced in the coverage is the impact of recent US labor market data. Earlier coverage linked Bitcoin’s rebound to weak nonfarm payrolls figures, and Mosaic Asset Company argued that the “knee-jerk” response from investors was to lift stock index futures—signaling a regime where weaker economic news supports risk assets by easing rate outlook concerns.
For crypto, the direction of Federal Reserve policy expectations remains one of the key variables. Rate hikes can weigh on liquidity and risk appetite, while expectations of a pause—or slower tightening—tend to improve the backdrop for speculative assets.
To quantify that shifting expectation, CME Group’s FedWatch Tool showed roughly equal odds of a pause or hike at the Fed’s September meeting. The tool also indicated that rates are expected to remain at current levels until that point, leaving September as the next major event for traders to anchor their positioning.
Mosaic’s analysis characterized the payrolls release as closer to a “Goldilocks” outcome—neither weak enough to intensify recession fears nor strong enough to accelerate expectations for additional rate hikes. The central takeaway is that the jobs data may not have changed the overall direction of the policy debate, but it has helped reduce the urgency of the most hawkish interpretation.
That balance can be important for Bitcoin because it supports a middle ground: neither a sharp risk-off shock nor a fully risk-on blowout. Instead, it can create the conditions for measured advances toward technical targets—exactly the type of behavior traders described when they discussed gradual buying and respect for nearby resistance.
What to watch next around the resistance band
Bitcoin is currently pressing into a region traders describe as both a resistance zone and a potential pivot tied to the 200-week moving average. The next meaningful signals will likely come from whether BTC can hold above the $62,000–$62,500 area and, crucially, how it behaves as the weekly candle approaches the 200-week SMA near $62,652.
With the FedWatch probabilities pointing to an evenly split September outcome, markets may remain sensitive to fresh US data releases and incremental shifts in rate expectations—so traders should monitor both technical follow-through and any new developments that could tilt the rate outlook back toward hikes or further toward a pause.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Rallies to $62.3K as Global Stocks Hit Record High on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The EU’s MiCA regime has entered its first true enforcement stretch now that the regulation’s transition period has ended. Crypto-asset service providers that were operating under that grace window but have not obtained MiCA authorization can no longer legally serve clients in the European Union, pushing many firms toward either rapid compliance or an orderly wind-down.
Industry lawyers and executives told Cointelegraph that the initial challenge won’t just be understanding the rules—it will be how consistently national regulators apply the bloc’s “single rulebook.” Although MiCA harmonizes the framework, day-to-day supervision is still handled by national competent authorities, and their enforcement posture may differ at first.
Key takeaways
The MiCA transition deadline has passed, meaning unauthorized crypto companies are now exposed to enforcement action and legal consequences across the EU.
Compliance costs can be substantial—often hundreds of thousands of euros—but operating without authorization carries higher regulatory and financial risk.
National regulators (NCAs) conduct authorization and day-to-day supervision, while ESMA coordinates and helps drive supervisory consistency.
Early enforcement may not look identical in every member state due to differences in resources and priorities, creating potential for regulatory divergence.
Penalties for MiCA violations can be severe, including multimillion-euro fines and turnover-based calculations proposed by EU bodies.
From transition to enforcement: what changes on July 1
MiCA’s transition period was designed to give the industry time to adapt to a new licensing and compliance framework. With that window closed, the practical effect is immediate: crypto firms without MiCA authorization should stop serving EU clients, and regulators are expected to treat continued activity as non-compliant.
Cointelegraph reported that executives and lawyers view this as MiCA’s first major enforcement test—an inflection point where regulators begin applying the EU crypto rulebook not just on paper, but through formal supervision and penalties.
What MiCA compliance costs can look like—and why firms may still pay
While MiCA compliance can be expensive, experts argue it is often less costly than the alternative. Legal and compliance implementation can range from several hundred thousand euros to multi-million-euro budgets depending on a firm’s size and the services it provides.
According to Nicola Massella, partner at Legal & Resilience, many cryptocurrency companies face MiCA implementation costs estimated around €350,000 to €600,000. Brickken CEO Edwin Mata told Cointelegraph that costs can rise to €2 million depending on a company’s business model and readiness.
Penalty exposure can also start at a high floor. Eckehard Stolz, managing director of Amina EU, said MiCA penalties begin at €5 million or 5% of annual turnover for certain violations. Separately, Massella said the European Banking Authority (EBA) proposed, on June 26, increasing penalties under certain regulatory regimes—at levels that could reach up to 12.5% of annual turnover for some stablecoin-related breaches. The EBA’s consultation is linked in Cointelegraph’s reporting.
For investors and operators, the key takeaway is that MiCA is not only a licensing hurdle; it is also a regime where financial penalties are calibrated enough to make continued unauthorized activity a board-level risk rather than a “wait and see” option.
How MiCA is supervised: ESMA coordination, NCAs enforcement, EBA stablecoin oversight
MiCA establishes a single set of rules across the EU, but its enforcement relies on a distributed supervisory structure. National competent authorities (NCAs) authorize, supervise, and enforce rules for crypto-asset service providers at the local level.
At the EU level, ESMA coordinates supervision across member states and maintains a public register of authorized crypto-asset service providers. In addition, the EBA directly oversees significant stablecoin issuers.
In comments shared with Cointelegraph, Ivo Grlica, founder of GrlicaLaw and G LAB Advisors, said ESMA’s coordination role is especially important to avoid regulatory arbitrage between member states. He also noted that while NCAs are the first line of enforcement, the consequences of underlying harmful conduct can extend beyond supervision into national courts and even criminal-law systems.
Early enforcement is expected to be uneven—at least initially
Even with a harmonized rulebook, enforcement intensity may vary in the short term. Stolz told Cointelegraph that ESMA has made clear it expects NCAs to act against unauthorized providers from July 1, but how aggressively each regulator moves will depend on local resourcing and supervisory priorities.
Peter Bidewell, vice president of institutional product adoption at Parfin, warned that differences in supervisory approaches could create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage—undermining MiCA’s goal of consistent application across the EU.
Grlica, however, suggested that enforcement could become more systematic over time as regulators identify unauthorized providers and share information across member states. The longer-term implication is that companies considering delay may face a shrinking window: continued non-compliance could make later authorization harder as regulators develop clearer patterns and intelligence.
Cointelegraph also noted that multiple regulators have already issued public reminders that the transition period ended and that providers without authorization should wind down. Reported examples include notices from authorities in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and Italy, with the Czech National Bank also outlining its sanction framework.
Examples of national sanction frameworks and enforcement posture
In the Czech Republic, Cointelegraph said the Czech National Bank stated that the Financial Market Digitization Act gives it authority to impose sanctions for MiCA-related violations. According to the reported details, sanctions can be levied for operating without authorization, unlawful token offerings, and failure to cooperate with supervisors.
The law, as described to Cointelegraph, allows fines up to 118.5 million Czech koruna (about $5.6 million), or 5% of annual turnover if higher, or twice the unlawful benefit obtained, whichever is greater. This matters for market participants because it illustrates how MiCA enforcement may be backed by specific domestic legal tools and maximum penalty thresholds.
Cointelegraph contacted France’s Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), the Netherlands’ Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM), and Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) to ask about their planned enforcement approach after the transition deadline. None had responded by the time of publication.
Meanwhile, ESMA’s ongoing work to maintain and update its register of authorized providers has been highlighted in related coverage referenced by Cointelegraph. For firms trying to comply quickly, the register functions as a public signal of who is authorized—and a starting point for counterparties and platforms assessing MiCA status.
Over the coming weeks, companies and investors should watch two things closely: whether NCAs demonstrate consistent escalation against unauthorized providers, and how quickly public compliance information—especially ESMA register updates—filters into business decisions across exchanges, custodians, and other market intermediaries. The legal outcome of continued unauthorized activity may vary at first, but the direction is clear: MiCA’s licensing wall is no longer optional.
This article was originally published as EU’s MiCA Transition Ends, Triggering New Enforcement Test for Crypto Rules on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

For most of crypto’s short life, exchanges competed on a single metric. Whoever listed the most tokens looked like the most serious player. That era is fading. The platforms winning UK customers in 2026 are not the ones with the longest menus. They are the ones that can prove they are safe to use.
The reason is simple. The audience has changed. Research from the Financial Conduct Authority suggests that around 12 percent of UK adults now hold cryptoassets, and a growing share of them are first time buyers rather than experienced traders. These newcomers are not hunting for obscure altcoins. They want three things. They want to know their funds are protected, they want to understand what they are paying, and they want confidence that their provider will still be operating in a year. In other words, they are buying trust before they buy crypto.
Anyone weighing up where to start will find no shortage of rankings, including this regularly updated guide to the best UK crypto exchanges. The real value, though, is less in the list itself and more in the criteria behind it. Here is what experienced UK investors actually weigh up.
The trust stack
Experienced investors tend to assess a platform in layers, working from the outside in.
The first layer is regulation. In the UK, exchanges that handle cryptoassets are expected to register with the FCA for anti money laundering supervision. Registration does not make crypto safe, and the asset class remains volatile and largely outside mainstream financial protections, but it shows a provider is willing to operate in the open and meet a baseline standard. A platform that cannot or will not register is an immediate red flag.
The second layer is custody and security. After several high profile collapses, investors now ask pointed questions. Does the exchange keep the majority of funds in cold storage. Does it publish proof of reserves. Is two factor authentication enforced rather than optional. The most careful users treat an exchange as a doorway to the market and move long term holdings into wallets they control.
The third layer is transparency. This covers clear terms, honest fee disclosure, and proper GBP support so that British users are not quietly pushed through dollar or stablecoin conversions. The final layer is service, which means responsive support and the ability to reach a human when a withdrawal stalls.
The fees you do not see
Marketing tends to shout about a single low number, often a zero percent promotional trading fee. The real cost of using an exchange is rarely that number. It is the sum of several smaller charges, most of which are easy to miss.
Consider a typical UK investor putting 500 pounds into bitcoin each month. The headline fee might look trivial, but the spread, the conversion from pounds, and the cost of moving the coins later can add up to far more than the advertised commission. The table below shows where that money usually goes.
Cost type Typical range Easy to miss? Trading commission 0% to 1.5% No, it is advertised Spread (gap between buy and sell price) 0.1% to 2% Yes, often hidden GBP deposit by card 0% to 3% Sometimes Crypto withdrawal (network fee plus markup) Varies by asset Yes GBP withdrawal 0 to 5 pounds Sometimes Currency conversion (GBP to USD or stablecoin) 0.5% to 2% Yes
The lesson is not that fees are bad. It is that the cheapest looking platform is often not the cheapest in practice. A small monthly buyer feels spreads and conversion costs far more than a one time investor, so the right choice depends on how someone actually plans to use the account.
Liquidity beats breadth
A long list of supported coins is easy to market and easy to overvalue. For most people, liquidity matters more. Deep, active markets mean an order fills close to the price on screen. Thin markets mean slippage, where the final price drifts away from the quote. Sensible investors check that the specific assets they want are well supported and actively traded, rather than being impressed by hundreds of listings they will never touch.
How to compare without the noise
Because registration status, fees and supported assets all change frequently, comparing platforms from scratch is harder than it looks. Rather than trusting any single provider’s own claims, the sensible approach is to start from an independent comparison and then verify the details that matter to you directly with each platform.
A short checklist helps cut through the marketing:
Is the platform FCA registered for anti money laundering.
Does it offer genuine GBP deposits and withdrawals.
What is the all in cost for the way you plan to buy.
How is customer money stored, and is there proof of reserves.
Are the specific assets you want liquid and well supported.
Red flags worth walking away from
Some warning signs are consistent across the platforms that later run into trouble. Guaranteed returns are the clearest. No legitimate exchange can promise a fixed yield on a volatile asset, and any that does should be treated with deep suspicion. Pressure to deposit quickly, vague answers about where customer funds are held, and support channels that only exist on social media are all reasons to step back.
Another quiet red flag is a platform that makes withdrawals harder than deposits. Getting money in should never be smoother than getting it out. If an exchange adds friction, delays, or extra verification only when users try to take funds away, that asymmetry tells you where its priorities sit. Investors who learn to read these signals early tend to avoid the worst outcomes, regardless of how polished the marketing looks.
Trust is the new moat
The UK crypto market has matured faster than many expected, and the investor has matured with it. The questions have moved on from which coin will moon to which platform can be relied upon. Regulation, security, real costs and liquidity now decide where money flows, and the providers that take those seriously are pulling ahead.
None of this removes the underlying risk of crypto, and nothing here is a recommendation to buy any particular asset. But the direction of travel is clear. In 2026, the strongest UK exchanges are not the ones promising the most. They are the ones with the least to hide.
This article was originally published as Why UK Crypto Exchanges Are Now Competing on Trust, Not Token Counts on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin has printed another set of on-chain “bear-market bottom” signals this month, with analysts pointing to a metric last seen near the bottom of the previous cycle in November 2022. The update centers on how much of the BTC supply is moving in profit versus loss—an approach often used to gauge whether sellers are being exhausted.
In a Friday analysis, crypto analyst Axel Adler Jr., a contributor to on-chain analytics platform CryptoQuant, said the Advanced Net UTXO Supply Ratio has returned to its earlier buy-trigger behavior for the first time in nearly four years. While the model’s signal is bullish in the short-term, Adler emphasized that it does not automatically confirm a macro bottom, and that key “supply in loss” conditions still need to evolve.
Key takeaways
Advanced Net UTXO Supply Ratio has crossed back above its buy threshold after spending time in deeply negative territory, printing buy signals in late June and early July.
The model’s last comparable “buy trigger” appeared in November 2022, widely viewed as a bottoming period for the prior bear market.
Confirmation would require the ratio to hold above zero alongside rising price; a return to negative territory without price support would weaken the case.
Analysts say seller exhaustion alone isn’t enough—demand must follow to turn bottoming signals into a durable recovery.
A profit-and-loss metric returns to “buy trigger” territory
Adler’s Friday post ties Bitcoin’s current positioning to the Advanced Net UTXO Supply Ratio, which tracks the proportion of Bitcoin held in UTXOs (unspent transaction outputs) that last moved in profit versus loss. According to Adler, the ratio dropped into deeply negative territory and then recovered above the model’s signal level during a rebound, causing the framework to issue buy calls across “several sessions” in late June and early July.
Crucially, Adler framed this as a notable similarity to the end stages of the prior bear cycle, writing that it is the first buy trigger since November 2022, when analysts previously identified a bottom. That makes this more than a random dip-and-rebound—at least within the parameters of the CryptoQuant model—because the prior buy signal occurred near a cyclical low.
Adler also stressed that UTXO-based supply ratio cues are typically observed “near cyclical lows,” not necessarily as proof that a full macro bottom has already been reached. In other words, the signal may indicate conditions approaching a turning point, but it still requires additional confirmation from price behavior and from how much BTC remains locked in loss.
Why the signal isn’t a full “bottom confirmed” yet
The core of Adler’s caution is that the Advanced Net UTXO Supply Ratio is only one leg of the bottoming picture. He pointed to a specific confirmation condition: the ratio should hold above zero while price rises. In contrast, he described a negative scenario where the ratio slips back into negative territory without supportive price action—an outcome that would suggest the market has not yet cleared enough selling pressure.
Adler further argued that one “missing piece” is the degree to which supply is still being held at a loss. He noted that current levels have not yet reached the extremes seen during earlier bear markets, implying that while selling pressure may be easing, it may not have fully run its course.
He also offered a timing-oriented expectation based on another on-chain measure: Adler forecast that the 90-day simple moving average (SMA) of supply in loss should reach the model’s bear-market reversal target within two months. Until that happens, Adler suggested it is more accurate to view capitulation as a process rather than a completed event.
Other analysts flag “exhaustion,” but demand is still required
Adler’s view aligns with a broader theme in on-chain analysis: many metrics can point to seller exhaustion, but recovery usually depends on whether demand renews strongly enough to absorb remaining supply.
Another CryptoQuant contributor, Darkfost, also discussed potential inflection signals this week through the UTXO Supply framework. In a Wednesday Quicktake post, Darkfost noted that because the metric depends on the profit and loss state of UTXOs, it can signal during either rapid sell-offs or rapid price increases. Still, he said that on cyclicality, it would not be inconsistent to think that the end of this bear market could be approaching.
Darkfost’s key message was that the UTXO supply dynamics do not guarantee an immediate reversal. As he put it, the signals “won’t stop BTC from going lower,” but the market now has “several signals pointing to seller exhaustion.” He then identified the next step as a renewal of demand, warning that this phase could take time.
This distinction matters for investors and traders because it helps set expectations: a buy-trigger on a profit-and-loss ratio can indicate improving conditions, but it does not remove volatility risk if price continues to undercut support or if demand fails to materialize.
What to watch as the market tests for a floor
The immediate question for Bitcoin bulls is whether the on-chain signals translate into sustained market support. Adler’s framework makes that practical: readers should watch whether the Advanced Net UTXO Supply Ratio can maintain itself above zero and whether that improvement coincides with rising price, rather than quickly reverting to negative territory.
Equally important is progress on the “supply in loss” condition. Adler’s expectation that the 90-day SMA of supply in loss could reach a reversal target within about two months suggests that the market may need additional time for losses to wash out more completely—meaning this cycle’s bottoming could remain uneven rather than instantaneous.
Finally, while some market narratives anticipate a bear-market bottom forming later in the year, earlier coverage cited in the discussion pointed to expectations that favor a bottom in Q3 or later. With on-chain exhaustion signals emerging now, the next phase hinges on whether demand can catch up—turning a sell-pressure easing into a durable recovery.
For now, the most actionable takeaway is to monitor whether the current “buy trigger” behavior can persist and whether supply held at a loss continues to trend toward reversal conditions—because that combination is what analysts say would strengthen the case that a true cyclical transition is underway.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Supply Metric Gives First Buy Signal Since Late 2022 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

ESMA has published the first post-transitional update to its EU crypto register under MiCA, adding 37 newly licensed crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) after the regulation’s transition period ended on Wednesday.
In Friday’s update, the EU supervisory body listed 37 additional CASPs—bringing the interim total to 280. Among the additions is Standard Chartered, which received MiCA authorization from Luxembourg regulators on June 25.
Key takeaways
ESMA’s interim MiCA register now lists 280 CASPs, up from 243 in the previous update dated June 26.
37 new CASPs were added after MiCA’s transitional period ended Wednesday, including major banking and digital-asset firms.
Cyprus led the latest wave of authorizations by jurisdiction, with six of the newly listed CASPs.
The asset-referenced token (ART) register remains unchanged, with no approved issuers shown.
The non-compliant entities list continues to stand at 162, according to the update.
ESMA adds 37 CASPs to the MiCA register
ESMA’s update to its register of crypto companies reflects the regulator’s ongoing effort to make MiCA authorizations visible in a single public list. The latest posting was released after the transitional period concluded, which is intended to bridge activity until firms either obtain MiCA permissions or adjust their operations to comply with the new framework.
According to ESMA, the interim MiCA register now totals 280 CASPs. This follows the previous update published on June 26, which listed 243 CASPs—an increase of 37 entries in this first post-transition step.
The newly added CASPs include a range of business models. ESMA’s list now features names such as FalconX (a digital asset prime brokerage), Sygnum Europe, and Ronin EM, alongside financial institutions that can perform MiCA-regulated crypto activities.
Standard Chartered’s MiCA authorization expands—alongside an EMI license
Standard Chartered stands out among the headline additions. In addition to securing MiCA authorization from Luxembourg regulators, the bank also received an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license, enabling it to issue electronic money and provide payment services.
Standard Chartered said in a Monday announcement that the approvals represent a “key step” in advancing its European digital-asset strategy. The bank also framed its decision as responsive to client demand for regulated access to digital assets in Europe, referencing prior progress including the launch of digital asset custody services in Asia and the Middle East.
ESMA’s register update matters for investors and counterparties because CASP listings provide a visible checkpoint for regulated market access. For banks, prime brokers, and other service providers, MiCA permissions can also be a practical prerequisite for operating under a standardized EU framework rather than relying solely on member-state approaches.
Standard Chartered’s approvals were announced on the bank’s website: https://www.sc.com/uk/2026/06/29/standard-chartered-granted-mica-and-emi-licence-advancing-its-digital-asset-strategy-in-europe/.
New CASPs also include EMT token activity via CACEIS
ESMA’s update was not limited to MiCA’s broader CASP categories. The register of electronic money tokens (EMTs) added Crédit Agricole’s CACEIS, according to the Friday update.
Separately, earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted Crédit Agricole and CACEIS in the context of EMT-related developments ahead of the updated register entries. That earlier reporting is linked here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/credit-agricole-eurxt-euro-stablecoin-caceis.
Jurisdictional picture: Cyprus leads; Germany still on top
While the ESMA register is EU-wide, authorizations are issued by national authorities. In the latest wave, Cyprus accounted for six of the newly listed CASPs, the largest share among jurisdictions.
France recorded five new entries, as did Italy and Malta. The Czech Republic and Spain each added four new CASPs. Luxembourg listed three and the Netherlands added two. Germany, Liechtenstein, and Latvia each contributed one new entry.
ESMA’s update also provides perspective on the broader accumulation of authorizations. It states that CySEC has now granted 21 MiCA authorizations in total, while BaFin remains the national regulator with the most authorizations at 58.
For market participants, this distribution can be relevant: it highlights where regulatory capacity and licensing pipelines may be moving faster, which in turn can influence where firms choose to apply first.
What did not change: no ART issuers and no movement on non-compliance
ESMA’s post-transition update included no changes to two other register components.
The asset-referenced token (ART) register continued to show no approved issuers. In parallel, the list of non-compliant entities remained at 162, according to the update.
That lack of ART issuer approvals contrasts with the steady progress in CASP licensing and underscores a point many market participants are watching: different parts of MiCA’s ecosystem are moving at different speeds. CASPs can begin positioning under MiCA permissions while token issuers—particularly for categories such as ARTs—may face a longer path to approvals.
Going forward, the next register updates will be important not only for how quickly the CASP count rises, but also for whether the ART register finally changes; until then, investors and counterparties may want to treat MiCA’s service-provider authorizations as a clearer near-term indicator of regulatory readiness than token-issuer approvals.
This article was originally published as Standard Chartered Listed on ESMA’s First MiCA Register Update After Deadline on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has sounded a note of caution on the pace of “agentic” AI development, telling employees that progress on autonomous agents has not accelerated as quickly as expected despite heavy investment by major technology and crypto firms.
Speaking during a company meeting on Thursday, Zuckerberg said the “trajectory of the agentic development over at least the last four months hasn’t really accelerated in the way that we expected,” Reuters reported after reviewing a recording of the call. He added that the broader bet on agent adoption “hasn’t come to fruition yet,” even as leadership pushed harder into agent-focused infrastructure earlier this year.
Key takeaways
Zuckerberg said Meta’s agentic AI progress has not matched expectations over the past four months, according to Reuters.
Meta executives accelerated agent-focused infrastructure plans in January due to concerns they were moving too slowly.
Meta still expects returns from its AI spending within three to six months, Zuckerberg said.
Meta expanded its Meta Business Agent globally for businesses across Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp.
Blockchain data suggests AI-agent transaction activity remains limited, including only about $2 million in x402-facilitated volume over the last 30 days, per Artemis.
Meta’s AI agents: expectations versus delivery
Zuckerberg’s remarks highlight a growing mismatch between the industry’s timeline for autonomous AI agents and how quickly real-world systems can scale and deliver value. While agentic AI has captured attention from both software giants and crypto-adjacent companies, Zuckerberg indicated that even within a company widely positioned for rapid experimentation, momentum has been slower than planned.
Reuters reported that Zuckerberg pointed to a lack of acceleration in the “last four months,” despite a push intended to close perceived speed gaps. He acknowledged that an aggressive January push into agentic infrastructure was driven by fears that Meta wasn’t advancing “fast enough,” while also framing the current state as not yet reaching the level of adoption leadership expected.
At the same time, Zuckerberg said he believes Meta’s AI investments will start paying off within the next three to six months. That timeframe matters for investors and teams because it signals management still expects near-term results—even if the broader agent ecosystem remains behind schedule.
Business Agent rollout across Meta’s messaging and social apps
Meta’s comments came alongside new product deployment. On Thursday, the company expanded its Meta Business Agent globally, aiming to bring agent capabilities to businesses operating across Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp.
According to Meta, the Business Agent is designed to handle customer inquiries, make product recommendations, and close sales without requiring human intervention. For businesses, the appeal is straightforward: agent systems can reduce response times and staffing pressure while enabling commerce flows inside channels where customers already interact.
Zuckerberg also previously said in March that he was building a personal AI agent to support CEO decision-making, reinforcing Meta’s view that agent tooling can move beyond customer-facing automation into internal workflows.
Crypto’s agent payments thesis faces measured on-chain activity
Zuckerberg’s reality check lands amid a crypto industry that has largely embraced the idea that AI agents could become major users of blockchain payments. Executives including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire have previously predicted that AI agents may become dominant users of blockchain-based payment rails in the coming years, as noted in coverage referenced by Cointelegraph.
In support of that narrative, several integrations have been announced in recent months. Cointelegraph previously reported that Amazon Web Services integrated Coinbase’s x402 payments protocol into Amazon Bedrock AgentCore in May, enabling agents to transact using the USDC stablecoin. Other examples cited include a Visa-supported virtual card for AI agents from Oobit launched in April for purchases in USDt (USDT).
However, the gap between “capability” and “usage” is showing up in on-chain volume. Artemis data cited by Cointelegraph suggests that AI-agent transaction activity facilitated through the x402 protocol remains comparatively small: only $2 million in trading volume over the past 30 days.
This matters because the crypto payments story around autonomous agents depends not just on integrations being possible, but on consistent demand emerging from actual agent behavior. Low volume can indicate early-stage adoption, experimentation without sustained deployment, or limitations in how agents currently interact with payment endpoints.
What to watch next for agentic AI and stablecoin payments
Zuckerberg’s comments suggest the industry may need to plan for a slower-than-hoped transition period as agentic systems mature and as businesses learn where automation genuinely outperforms human-led workflows. At the same time, Meta’s investment outlook—expecting payback within three to six months—signals continued pressure to convert AI spending into operational results.
For the blockchain segment, the next checkpoint should be whether on-chain payment volume tied to agent infrastructure increases materially from current levels, and whether new business-facing deployments like Meta Business Agent lead to measurable downstream demand for stablecoin payment rails.
This article was originally published as Zuckerberg: AI agents aren’t progressing as fast as expected on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

India’s central bank is weighing a policy approach aimed at containing crypto activity—particularly by limiting how banks and regulated financial institutions interact with digital assets and privately issued stablecoins—according to a report by The Economic Times. The stance is expected to feed into a broader review of the country’s digital asset framework as lawmakers prepare a report.
In a background note reviewed by a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, RBI officials presented what the publication describes as a renewed emphasis on preventing crypto from being used in payments and settlements, while keeping the banking sector’s exposure controlled. The same materials reportedly argue that simply applying “traditional” regulation to crypto could inadvertently legitimize speculative assets and create a misleading sense of safety for users, though the RBI also urged policymakers to differentiate crypto from tokenized instruments that are already regulated.
Key takeaways
The RBI’s reported position favors “containment” of crypto—especially by limiting banking-sector involvement—rather than a blanket ban on ownership.
Officials reportedly reiterated support for prohibiting crypto use in payments and settlements to reduce systemic exposure to digital assets and private stablecoins.
The RBI cautioned that treating crypto like conventional regulated products could confer unwarranted legitimacy to speculative tokens.
At the same time, the RBI urged regulators not to conflate crypto with tokenized government securities or corporate bonds.
India’s crypto adoption profile remains a point of contention, with Chainalysis placing India first in its 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index while the RBI reportedly challenged the methodology.
Containment strategy and the RBI’s policy logic
According to The Economic Times, RBI Deputy Governor Rohit Jain and Executive Director P. Vasudevan shared the central bank’s views with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on Thursday. The submission reportedly lays out a policy framework in which outright prohibition remains “a recognized policy option,” but the operational thrust is to restrict crypto’s role in core financial functions—namely payments and settlements.
The RBI’s reported concern is that banks and other institutions could become conduits for risk if they are allowed to directly facilitate crypto transactions or hold exposure to privately issued stablecoins. In the background note, the central bank reportedly recommended policies that prevent crypto usage in payments and settlements while limiting the degree to which the banking system is exposed to digital asset activities.
That position also includes a caution about regulatory design. The RBI reportedly warned that applying established regulatory approaches meant for conventional financial instruments to crypto assets could end up legitimizing speculative tokens. The central bank’s argument, as described in the report, is that such an approach could create a “false perception of safety” among users.
Still, the RBI reportedly made an important distinction: policymakers should separate crypto from tokenized government securities, corporate bonds, and other regulated financial products. The practical implication is that the RBI appears to support tokenization where the underlying instrument is already within a regulated perimeter—while treating “crypto” broadly and its speculative use cases as a different category of risk.
How this echoes the RBI’s 2018 playbook
The reported containment push aligns with an approach the RBI used in 2018. At that time, the central bank directed regulated financial institutions to stop dealing in crypto or providing services to people and entities involved in crypto, effectively severing many crypto exchanges from India’s banking rails without banning individuals from holding or trading crypto.
That policy path was challenged and ultimately overturned. India’s Supreme Court overturned the circular in March 2020. In doing so, the court recognized the RBI’s authority to take preventive measures but concluded that the approach did not meet the “proportionality” standard—specifically noting the RBI had not demonstrated the harm experienced by the regulated entities affected by the measure.
In May 2021, the RBI clarified that banks could not cite the invalidated circular when advising customers against crypto transactions. However, the RBI also indicated that regulated institutions could continue applying know-your-customer (KYC), anti-money laundering (AML), and foreign-exchange compliance requirements, preserving compliance practices even as the earlier, more direct restriction was removed.
The key difference suggested by the latest reported submissions is framing: the RBI appears to be arguing for a policy model that limits crypto’s access to payments and settlement functions and constrains banking exposure, rather than relying purely on an exchange-banking cutoff. Whether Parliament and regulators can craft such a framework without running into the same proportionality objections that surfaced in 2020 is likely to be one of the central questions as the policy debate progresses.
Tokenization vs. “speculative” crypto
One of the more consequential aspects of the RBI’s reported position is its insistence on separation. The central bank reportedly warned against regulating crypto in a way that treats it as if it were equivalent to established financial instruments. At the same time, it urged policymakers to distinguish crypto assets from tokenized government securities and corporate bonds—categories that, in principle, sit closer to regulated capital markets.
For investors and market participants, this distinction matters because tokenization is often viewed as a potential bridge between traditional finance and distributed ledger technology. If regulators accept the argument that tokenized regulated instruments should not be blocked simply because they use similar technical formats, tokenization could evolve within a more familiar compliance environment. Conversely, if policymakers adopt a broad-brush approach, the same infrastructure could face tighter constraints even when the underlying asset is regulated.
In practical terms, what changes from this position is the emphasis on “use” and “function.” Rather than focusing only on who owns or trades tokens, the RBI’s reported approach appears more concerned with where crypto can be used (payments and settlements) and how much it can permeate the banking system—areas that policymakers can target without necessarily prohibiting market participation outright.
Adoption metrics under scrutiny
The RBI’s stance also intersects with discussions about India’s crypto adoption level. The report notes that India was ranked first in Chainalysis’ 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index, though the RBI reportedly challenged the methodology behind private-sector adoption rankings.
This disagreement signals that, even as adoption becomes a key input into policy arguments, there is still no shared view of how adoption should be measured or interpreted. For lawmakers considering regulation, the takeaway is that adoption numbers may not settle the debate by themselves; policymakers will likely scrutinize both metric design and what those metrics truly indicate about user protection, financial stability risks, and the degree of institutional involvement.
With India’s regulatory framework still under review, readers should watch closely for how policymakers translate the RBI’s reported containment ideas into concrete rules—particularly around payments and settlement use cases, banking-sector permissible activities, and how regulators draw boundaries between tokenized regulated instruments and broader “crypto” categories.
This article was originally published as India’s Central Bank Renews Effort to Ring-Fence Banks From Crypto, Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.