Crypto Breaking

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.

Ireland’s Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) has confirmed the seizure of an additional 500 Bitcoin, worth roughly €27 million (about $30.9 million), in cooperation with Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre. The agency said the latest action brings CAB’s total Bitcoin seizures for 2026 to 1,500 BTC, valued at approximately $92.4 million.
In its update posted Thursday, CAB said Europol provided operational coordination, technical expertise, and decryption support during the investigation. The bureau did not name the wallet owner or provide further details about how the access was obtained.
Key takeaways
CAB confirmed a new 500 BTC seizure in cooperation with Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre.
Total CAB Bitcoin seizures in 2026 now stand at 1,500 BTC, valued around $92.4 million.
Authorities have not publicly linked this latest wallet action to any specific criminal case.
Separately, public tracking suggests a wallet address associated with Clifton Collins moved 500 BTC on Thursday.
New seizure brings 2026 total to 1,500 BTC
The bureau’s announcement is the latest in a run of Bitcoin-related enforcement activity. CAB said the seized 500 BTC are currently worth about €27 million and emphasized the cross-border support from Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre, particularly around technical work and decryption.
For investors and users, the key operational signal is not only the size of the seizure but the pattern of international cooperation—CAB’s reference to Europol support underscores how ongoing cryptocurrency investigations increasingly depend on specialized technical capabilities rather than traditional evidence-gathering alone.
Cab also did not offer any additional comment beyond the confirmation, leaving open questions about the nature of the underlying investigation and whether the seized funds come from the same larger case previously discussed in Irish media.
Earlier wallet access set the stage for another 500 BTC
Months earlier, CAB said it had gained access to and seized a cryptocurrency wallet containing 500 Bitcoin. That earlier wallet was reported by Irish media to have been connected to Clifton Collins, a convicted drug dealer.
According to The Irish Times, the March wallet authorities accessed was one of twelve wallets believed to have held about 6,000 BTC once owned by Collins. The paper containing the private keys was reportedly lost, adding a layer of difficulty to how investigators were able to unlock and move the funds.
While CAB did not confirm a connection between Thursday’s seizure and Collins, the timing matters. Public blockchain observers linked to Collins have pointed to movement from an address associated with him around the same day as CAB’s announcement.
Public tracking: Collins-linked address moved 500 BTC
In coverage tied to the earlier Collins-linked wallet, blockchain explorers and analysts have monitored the remaining balances attributed to those holdings. The article notes that an address associated with Collins reportedly moved 500 Bitcoin to an unknown address on Thursday.
As of Friday, wallets still associated with Collins were reported to hold 4,500 BTC, valued at about $277 million. The figure is based on public tracking rather than an official CAB statement, so readers should treat it as observational data rather than confirmed custody or law-enforcement control.
Still, the sequence is notable: the combination of CAB’s 500 BTC seizure announcement and independent reporting of movement from Collins-associated addresses suggests the criminal wallet landscape remains actively contested long after the first tranche of recovered funds.
What authorities previously said about how Collins stored keys
Collins was arrested in 2017 after police searched his car and found cannabis, according to The Guardian. Prosecutors said he used proceeds from his drug operation to purchase about 6,000 Bitcoin in late 2011 and early 2012, spreading the holdings across twelve wallets.
Authorities and reporting described a key-management strategy that relied on a single physical backup: Collins stored the wallet keys on a sheet of A4 paper, hidden inside the aluminum cap of a fishing rod case at his rental home. After his arrest, the landlord allegedly discarded Collins’ belongings. Collins claimed the fishing rod case had been stolen before the landlord entered the property.
That dispute—and the reported loss of the keys—help explain why access to some of the holdings could have taken time. It also highlights a broader lesson for the ecosystem: even when large balances are held securely on-chain, off-chain key handling and physical storage failures can ultimately determine whether funds remain reachable.
With CAB now confirming another 500 BTC seizure in 2026, the open question for the market is how quickly investigators can continue collapsing the gap between wallets once considered “lost” and the funds that ultimately get moved and frozen. Readers should watch for whether CAB’s next updates clarify the relationship—if any—between Thursday’s seizure and the remaining Collins-associated holdings, as well as how Europol’s technical role evolves in future operations.
This article was originally published as Ireland Seizes 500 More Bitcoin, Total for 2026 Reaches 1,500 BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds snapped back into positive territory this week, recording their first daily net inflow above $200 million since early May. The shift marks a notable interruption to a prolonged outflow cycle that has been weighing on inflows for much of the year.
According to SoSoValue data, the ETFs pulled in $221.7 million in net inflows on Thursday. That ended a 10-day streak of net outflows totaling more than $2.7 billion, following what many market participants have described as one of the weakest periods for US spot Bitcoin ETF demand in 2024.
Key takeaways
US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $221.7 million in net inflows on Thursday, ending a 10-day outflow run totaling over $2.7 billion.
June stood out as a particularly tough month for flows, with net outflows reaching a record $4.5 billion, according to earlier coverage cited by the report.
Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) led the rebound with $166 million in net inflows, accounting for about 75% of the day’s total, per Farside Investors.
BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) continued to see outflows, with $40.4 million leaving the fund on Thursday and over $2.2 billion lost across an 11-session streak since June 17.
While Bitcoin flows improved, sentiment remained fragile, with the Fear & Greed Index reading “extreme fear” as Bitcoin recovered above $61,000.
Bitcoin ETF demand reverses after a prolonged outflow stretch
The most immediate story behind Thursday’s turnaround is the magnitude of the inflow itself. After weeks in which spot Bitcoin ETF balances were consistently reduced by withdrawals, investors added risk back to the funds—at least for a day—bringing net inflows above the $200 million threshold that had not been seen since early May.
SoSoValue’s tracking shows Thursday’s $221.7 million inflow broke a 10-day streak of net outflows. In context, the report also points to June as a low point: US spot Bitcoin ETFs logged a record $4.5 billion in net outflows during the month, underscoring how difficult the demand backdrop has been.
Market conditions appear to be part of the catalyst. At the same time as ETF flows improved, Bitcoin regained the $61,000 area after briefly dipping below $59,000. The day’s broader sentiment remained cautious, however, with Alternative.me’s Fear & Greed Index sitting at an “extreme fear” reading on Friday.
One notable viewpoint referenced in the report comes from Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan, who suggested that the market could be nearing a bottom, reflecting a growing contingent of investors interpreting the recent selloff as potentially late-cycle rather than early-cycle.
Fidelity leads inflows; BlackRock’s IBIT remains under pressure
Thursday’s inflow rebound was not evenly distributed across issuers. Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) stood out as the primary driver of the positive day, pulling in $166 million in net inflows. Farside Investors data cited in the report indicates this represents roughly 75% of the total inflow.
Other funds contributed smaller amounts. ARK 21Shares’ Bitcoin ETF (ARKB) added $91.8 million in net inflows, while the VanEck Bitcoin ETF (HODL) attracted $4.4 million and Valkyrie’s Bitcoin Fund (BRRR) recorded $1.7 million.
However, the rebound did not extend to the largest issuer in a way that would suggest a full marketwide reversal of investor caution. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT)—the largest US spot Bitcoin ETF by assets—continued to post net outflows. On Thursday, IBIT recorded $40.4 million in net outflows.
According to the report, IBIT has now lost more than $2.2 billion during an 11-session outflow streak that began on June 17. For investors watching ETF flows as a proxy for institutional appetite, the divergence is important: even as some funds see renewed inflows, persistent withdrawals from a dominant player can limit how quickly overall sentiment can stabilize.
Altcoin ETFs also see inflows as crypto market cap rises
The flow recovery extended beyond Bitcoin. The report notes that US spot Ether ETFs posted net inflows on Thursday, attracting $29.1 million—after $14.9 million in inflows the previous day.
XRP ETFs also returned to positive territory, adding $6.6 million after two consecutive sessions of net outflows. Together, these developments suggest that the rebound in risk appetite—however uneven—was not limited strictly to the largest asset in the space.
Broader market metrics aligned with the improved tone in flows. The report states that global crypto market capitalization increased by 2.4% over the past 24 hours to $2.22 trillion, based on CoinGecko data, while Bitcoin recovered above $61,000.
What traders and investors should monitor next
Thursday’s inflow figure is a meaningful signal, but it’s also a single day in a still-fragile pattern. With IBIT continuing to bleed out and overall sentiment still described as “extreme fear,” the next few sessions will matter most: investors will likely watch whether inflows persist across multiple days and whether outflows from the largest fund begin to slow, or if Thursday’s rebound turns out to be temporary.
This article was originally published as US Spot Bitcoin ETFs Record $200M+ Daily Inflows for First Time Since May on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A teenager suspected of helping the “Scattered Spider” hacking group has been extradited to the United States to face charges tied to an alleged cryptocurrency ransom scheme worth $8 million. The case highlights how ransomware crews increasingly lean on social engineering, stolen credentials, and fast escalation from initial access to extortion demands.
The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday that Peter Stokes, 19, a dual U.S.-Estonian national, was arrested in Finland in April after an Interpol Red Notice and was extradited to the United States last week. He is expected to appear in federal court in Chicago on Tuesday.
Key takeaways
U.S. authorities allege Stokes helped breach a luxury jewelry retailer’s systems in May 2025 and demand an $8 million crypto ransom.
The DOJ says phishing calls to a help desk were used to obtain password resets and compromise employee and IT-admin accounts quickly.
The retailer allegedly evicted the attackers and refused to pay, but still faced $2 million in disruption damages.
The Justice Department links Stokes to Scattered Spider (also known as Octo Tempest and other aliases), a group authorities say has conducted more than 100 network intrusions.
Ransomware payments reportedly fell last year even as attacks rose, underscoring that victim refusal and operational disruption do not eliminate extortion risk.
Extradition follows an alleged $8 million crypto extortion
The indictment and unsealed criminal complaint, as described by the DOJ, accuse Stokes and others of breaching a luxury jewelry retailer’s computer system in May 2025. Prosecutors allege the intrusion involved stealing data and issuing a demand for an $8 million ransom paid in cryptocurrency.
According to the complaint, the retailer managed to remove the attackers from its network and did not pay the ransom. Even so, the DOJ states the company incurred approximately $2 million in disruption damages, reflecting the cost of incident response, operational downtime, and the business impact that can follow an intrusion—regardless of whether attackers receive payment.
The DOJ also framed Stokes as one of the limited number of arrests it has directly connected to Scattered Spider, a group commonly associated with ransomware and crypto-based extortion.
Phishing calls and credential resets as the first move
Prosecutors allege the attack chain began with phishing calls to the retailer’s technology help desk. Stokes and others reportedly posed as employees to request resets of login credentials, a common tactic that turns administrative workflows—designed to restore access for legitimate users—into a shortcut for attackers.
In the complaint, authorities state the hackers compromised three employee accounts in as little as two hours. Two of those accounts belonged to IT administrators, giving the intruders access to higher-privilege systems. Prosecutors further allege those higher-privilege accounts were themselves breached and used to reach deeper into the retailer’s environment.
Within days, the complaint says the attackers sent a ransom note from a compromised company email account, demanding funds or threatening to publish credit card and payment information. The retailer, according to the complaint, resisted the intrusion and later experienced separate outreach from the attackers repeating the $8 million demand.
For defenders, the alleged sequence underscores why help desk and identity processes are a frequent focal point in real-world intrusions: once a reset request is accepted, the attack can progress quickly to privilege escalation and broader system access.
Alleged role in Scattered Spider intrusions and extortion
The complaint characterizes Stokes as a member of Scattered Spider who allegedly engaged in “numerous intrusions, or assisted in them” across multiple companies that prosecutors did not name in the filing. According to the DOJ, an examination of a storage device attributed to Stokes contained downloads from a virtual private server that Microsoft had identified as being used to carry out intrusions.
The complaint also alleges the device held “exfiltrated records from multiple victim-companies,” suggesting the attacker infrastructure was used not only to gain access, but also to extract data—an essential ingredient for ransomware-style pressure campaigns, including data-leak threats.
Authorities further pointed to Stokes’ social media activity as circumstantial evidence of involvement. The complaint claims his Snapchat account showed signs of substantial wealth for a person his age, and that he reportedly boasted about international travel and wealth. Prosecutors also allege he shared media related to apprehended Scattered Spider members.
The Justice Department said Scattered Spider—also described by multiple aliases, including “Octo Tempest,” “UNC3944,” and “0ktapus”—has been involved in more than 100 network intrusions. The DOJ estimates those intrusions resulted in over $100 million in ransom payments and millions of dollars in damages.
Stokes faces six counts tied to alleged hacking, cyber extortion, fraud, and conspiracy.
Ransom payments down, attacks up: what this case suggests
While this matter involves a claimed $8 million demand, it lands in a broader ransomware pattern that authorities and analysts have reported: total payments may be declining even as attacks increase.
According to figures cited by the DOJ, ransomware actors received more than $820 million in payments last year, an 8% decline compared with 2024. At the same time, attacks rose by 50%, as referenced in coverage linked to Chainalysis data. Taken together, the numbers suggest that victims are not necessarily paying as often or as much, but ransomware groups remain active and effective at reaching targets.
The filing’s allegations about the retailer evicting the attackers and refusing the ransom illustrate why: even when payments fail, attackers may still profit indirectly through disruption costs, data theft, reputational harm, and follow-on damages. For organizations, the practical takeaway is that “no payment” does not mean “no impact”—it often signals more urgent remediation work and financial exposure after incident response.
Readers should watch how the case develops in Chicago federal court, particularly whether the defense challenges the alleged linkage between Stokes and the intrusions described in the complaint. Equally important is what prosecutors emphasize next about the help-desk phishing phase and the role of stolen credentials, since that early foothold remains a central vulnerability for many companies targeted by ransomware crews.
This article was originally published as Teen Suspect Linked to ‘Scattered Spider’ Extradited to US Over $8M Crypto Ransom on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Japanese investment firm Metaplanet continued its corporate Bitcoin buildout in the second quarter, adding 2,823 BTC at an average price of about 12.71 million yen (roughly $78,850 at current exchange rates). The purchase pushed the company’s total holdings above 43,000 Bitcoin, while slightly lowering its average acquisition cost.
Separately, the story also highlights a contrasting trend among some smaller treasury-focused companies. South Korean firm K Wave Media exited its Bitcoin treasury strategy after selling its remaining BTC to address debt, while France-based Sequans Communications previously said it would monetize its remaining holdings over time.
Key takeaways
Metaplanet bought 2,823 BTC in Q2, bringing its total to more than 43,000 BTC and reducing its average cost per coin.
The latest tranche was acquired at an average price of about 12.71 million yen per BTC, lowering Metaplanet’s average acquisition cost to roughly $95,117.
Metaplanet reported about $10.95 million in quarterly revenue linked to Bitcoin income-generation strategies involving options premiums and related yield methods.
K Wave Media sold its last 88 BTC to repay debt, ending its Bitcoin treasury approach after earlier plans to expand holdings.
Not every corporate treasury is expanding: Sequans Communications previously signaled that it would monetize its remaining Bitcoin holdings over time.
Metaplanet expands holdings and refines its cost base
According to a Thursday announcement from Metaplanet, the company acquired 2,823 Bitcoin during the second quarter at an average price of about 12.71 million yen per BTC. That figure matters because it was below Metaplanet’s prior average purchase price, enabling the firm to reduce its blended cost basis.
The acquisition lowered Metaplanet’s average acquisition cost to about $95,117 per BTC, down from approximately $96,258 previously. Metaplanet’s total Bitcoin holdings now stand at 43,000 BTC acquired for an aggregate value of about $4.1 billion, based on the figures in the company’s announcement.
Beyond accumulation, Metaplanet also disclosed quarterly performance tied to its Bitcoin income strategy. The company reported around $10.95 million in revenue from Bitcoin-related activities during the quarter. The approach, as described in the announcement, centers on earning premiums by selling cash-secured options and deploying other Bitcoin yield tactics.
For investors, the combination of spot purchases and options-based income generation is a key part of how treasury-style Bitcoin companies attempt to justify their equity valuations. When Bitcoin’s price is volatile, these revenue mechanisms can, in theory, partially offset drawdowns—though the net effect depends on execution, market conditions, and counterparty or strategy risks (none of which are detailed in this particular excerpt).
Shares move, but the broader performance picture remains uneven
Metaplanet’s equity performance reflected modest market optimism around the filing. The company’s shares closed Thursday up 3.5%, though the stock remains down about 48% year-to-date, according to the linked market page cited in the source text.
That underperformance also stands out against Bitcoin itself, which the source notes fell 31% over the same year-to-date period. The contrast underscores a persistent reality for corporate Bitcoin holders: even when a company keeps buying and building a large BTC position, investors may still reprice the stock due to factors like equity dilution risk, funding costs, valuation assumptions, or the market’s perception of how sustainable treasury income is.
The Metaplanet update comes during an ongoing push by several corporate buyers—yet the story is not purely one-directional, as other firms are trimming exposure.
Treasury strategies: K Wave Media exits after selling remaining BTC
While Metaplanet added Bitcoin, K Wave Media—an Nasdaq-listed company in South Korea—went in the opposite direction. The company sold its remaining 88 BTC to repay $6 million in debt, exiting its Bitcoin treasury strategy, according to a Tuesday filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The SEC filing indicates a sharper reversal than what the company had previously communicated. Earlier coverage referenced in the source text describes K Wave Media’s July 2025 announcement that it secured $1 billion in capital capacity to drive its Bitcoin treasury strategy and aimed to expand holdings to 10,000 BTC. Exiting after holding only 88 BTC suggests the original plan ran into constraints—whether financial, operational, or strategic—though the excerpted material does not specify the reasons.
This kind of turnaround is important for readers because it highlights a mismatch risk that can exist in treasury models: plans premised on sustained capital access, favorable volatility, and consistent BTC purchase economics may not survive changing market conditions or debt obligations.
Other companies continue to monetize rather than accumulate
The source also points to Sequans Communications, a France-based semiconductor company that said in May it would monetize its remaining Bitcoin holdings over time. At the time of that announcement, Sequans reported holding 658 BTC, and its shares reportedly rose about 14.5% after the disclosure.
Taken together with K Wave Media’s decision to exit, the broader takeaway is that corporate Bitcoin strategies are diverging. Some companies are doubling down through additional spot buying and structured income strategies, while others are winding down exposure, using Bitcoin holdings to address liabilities, or planning to gradually convert BTC into cash.
Even within the same sector, these choices can produce very different investor outcomes depending on each firm’s balance sheet, debt profile, and how its equity market values the “BTC treasury” thesis.
Looking ahead, investors should watch whether Metaplanet can sustain its Bitcoin income-generation revenue while continuing to manage its cost basis, and whether other treasury-focused firms follow K Wave Media and Sequans toward monetization or debt reduction. The key uncertainty across all these cases remains whether corporate models that rely on both holding BTC and generating yield can hold up as market conditions and financing access evolve.
This article was originally published as Metaplanet Adds 2,823 BTC, Lifts Holdings Above 43,000 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy’s long streak as one of Bitcoin’s most consistent institutional buyers may be ending, according to Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan. Speaking Thursday, Hougan suggested the company’s dominance as a “one-way” source of demand is likely to shrink in the next market cycle, after volatility around Strategy’s principal perpetual preferred stock product, Stretch (STRC).
The reassessment comes after STRC broke sharply from its $100 par value to below $75 late last month, a move that undermined investor confidence in the sustainability of Strategy’s dividend-style model. The timing also overlapped with broader market stress, when Bitcoin fell to a 21-month low of $58,190 on June 25.
Key takeaways
Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan said Strategy’s era as Bitcoin’s dominant buyer may be over, with other institutional allocators expected to play a larger role next cycle.
STRC’s move away from $100 par value below $75 fueled concerns about whether Strategy’s yield structure can hold up through “end-of-cycle” dynamics.
Despite the STRC shock, Hougan argued Strategy is not facing near-term liquidity risk based on liquid asset coverage.
Strive CEO Matt Cole pushed back, calling the STRC episode overblown and noting Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings are about 4% of total supply.
Strategy’s buyer dominance questioned after STRC turmoil
For years, Strategy has been widely viewed as a steady, high-conviction buyer of Bitcoin—helping provide consistent demand even when broader sentiment weakened. Hougan framed Thursday’s comments around a shift in what investors should expect from that demand profile.
“For years, Strategy has been the most dominant Bitcoin buyer in the world and a one-way source of Bitcoin demand. Those days are likely over,” Hougan said in a CIO memo, adding that he expects the company to be “less important” than it was in the previous cycle. In his view, banks, asset managers, pensions, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds may replace Strategy as Bitcoin’s primary demand engine as the next upcycle develops.
Hougan’s concern centers on how STRC behaved during a period when markets were already under pressure. The STRC incident raised fears that the structure underpinning dividend payments could be strained when conditions tighten—particularly in late-cycle environments where risk appetite falls and funding costs rise.
Why Hougan sees STRC as “end-of-cycle dynamics”
Hougan characterized the STRC drop as a pattern he associates with late-cycle stress. He compared the situation to a prior example in 2021: the collapse of Grayscale’s GBTC premium.
His argument is essentially about fit. According to Hougan, “money searching for high yields and low volatility was used to buy Bitcoin, which offers neither.” In that framing, the market eventually needs to “clear out” capital that was attracted by yield characteristics that Bitcoin itself does not reliably provide, before a more durable bottom can form.
This perspective matters for traders and longer-term investors because it reframes Strategy’s recent volatility away from a single-company solvency story and toward a broader liquidity-and-demand composition story—one where the source of marginal demand changes as the cycle matures.
Strategy responds: funding dividends and increasing reserves
In the aftermath of the STRC disruption, Strategy said it would sell Bitcoin when necessary to fund dividends, according to coverage earlier published by Cointelegraph. The company also expanded its US dollar reserve to $2.55 billion, easing some immediate concerns about operational coverage.
Even with those steps, Hougan said Strategy’s role as an aggressive buyer has weakened. The implication for market participants is that reserve moves and occasional Bitcoin sales can stabilize the dividend narrative in the short term, but may also reduce the consistency of net buying during turbulent periods.
Hougan nonetheless said he still expects Strategy to be a “net buyer” in the next bull run—suggesting the firm’s long-term posture may persist, even if its influence on price dynamics is likely to be less dominant than in the last cycle.
Debate over materiality and liquidity risk
While STRC became the focal point, Strategy leadership pushed back on how much attention the incident deserves. Strive CEO Matt Cole argued that the episode has been overemphasized by media and that Bitcoin’s selloff may have been driven more by the broader market than by any single factor.
Speaking with NovaDius Wealth Management president Nate Geraci, Cole noted that Strategy’s 847,363 Bitcoin represents about 4% of total supply. He also referenced US Securities and Exchange Commission standards for materiality, stating that a 4% stake would not be considered material under SEC thresholds, which he described as starting at 5%.
“If one person owned 4%, you don’t even have to report that publicly to the SEC because the SEC deems 4% to be immaterial. They start to view a position to be material at 5%.”
Hougan, meanwhile, addressed liquidity in a more quantitative way. He said Strategy has $52 billion worth of liquid assets marked against $7 billion of debt. In his assessment, Bitcoin would need to fall another 70%—to roughly $18,500—for Strategy to face risk. He also added that if the company began selling Bitcoin immediately, it could cover dividends from STRC and other perpetual preferred stock offerings for the next 28 years.
Taken together, the two positions highlight a tension that investors should watch: one view suggests the STRC mechanism is a late-cycle stress test that affects demand composition and price, while the other emphasizes reserve coverage and argues that the company’s balance sheet prevents an immediate liquidity threat.
For now, the key question is not whether Strategy can operate through the current strain, but whether the market’s next wave of Bitcoin buying will be driven by the same yield-seeking, vehicle-based demand—or by a broader set of long-term allocators that Hougan expects to take a bigger share.
As conditions evolve, investors should monitor whether STRC stabilizes relative to par and whether Strategy’s net buying pace remains consistent enough to reassert influence—while also tracking if incremental demand truly shifts from Strategy-style products to the wider institutional categories Hougan cited.
This article was originally published as Bitwise Says Bitcoin Strategy Will Matter Less After STRC Incident on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tokenization platform Securitize began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday after completing a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company supported by Cantor Fitzgerald. The company’s public debut also came with an expansion of its on-chain offering: it launched tokenized versions of its own shares on both Avalanche and Solana for eligible US investors.
Securitize, backed by BlackRock and Morgan Stanley, started NYSE trading under the ticker SECZ. Alongside the NYSE listing, the firm said its tokenized shares will be issued on-chain and made available through its platform, positioning the launch as a test of how regulated equity tokenization can operate within existing US rules.
Key takeaways
Securitize’s NYSE debut (SECZ) was paired with a first-day rollout of issuer-sponsored tokenized shares on Avalanche and Solana.
The company is framing tokenization as compliant under existing US securities laws, with access gated by onboarding and eligibility checks.
SEC guidance and later delays highlight that regulatory implementation details for tokenized equities remain an active area of focus.
Institutional interest in tokenization is growing, supported by market estimates that place tokenized real-world assets at more than $43 billion.
From SPAC merger to on-chain stock access
Securitize’s path to public markets involved merging with an SPAC backed by Cantor Fitzgerald, enabling it to list on the NYSE. On Thursday, the company began trading under SECZ and concurrently announced the deployment of tokenized versions of its own shares on the Avalanche and Solana networks.
In its announcement, Securitize said these tokenized shares will be available to eligible investors in the US via its platform. The firm emphasized that this is not an experiment detached from traditional market structure, but rather an extension of its issuer-sponsored model—where the company’s shares are tokenized with the issuer positioned at the center of issuance and access.
The launch matters for investors and builders because it attempts to connect a mainstream equity listing to on-chain distribution in a way that regulators can audit. It also serves as a practical stress test for the operational requirements associated with KYC and AML controls that many tokenized asset proposals depend on.
What Securitize says about US regulatory compliance
Securitize’s core argument is that tokenized securities can be issued and accessed in the United States without rewriting the legal framework. According to the company, tokenizing its stock demonstrates that tokenized securities “can be issued and accessed in the US under existing securities laws and market structure.”
The company also stated that on-chain access will be subject to onboarding, eligibility screening, and customer identity and money-laundering checks. That emphasis on compliance gating is consistent with how issuer-sponsored structures typically seek to keep regulated investor protections intact while moving settlement and transfer mechanics onto blockchain infrastructure.
In comments shared by the company, Securitize co-founder and CEO Carlos Domingo said tokenizing SECZ on its first day as a public company functions as a form of validation for the firm’s broader thesis. He also stressed that SECZ would not be “a synthetic token or offshore wrapper,” describing it instead as issuer-sponsored tokenization of the same common stock trading on the NYSE, distributed through regulated infrastructure.
Separately, the article notes that the US Securities and Exchange Commission clarified in January that issuer-sponsored tokenized securities remain subject to US securities laws. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph also reported that the SEC was reportedly moving toward an innovation-related exemption for tokenized stock trading, but the plan was later delayed after concerns from stock exchange officials over implementation.
For market participants, the takeaway is that regulatory acceptance is not only about whether tokenized stocks are possible, but also about the mechanics: how trading, access, and compliance are operationalized across venues and platforms.
Debut performance and the broader tokenized assets market
On Thursday, Securitize shares reached a high of $13.70 during the trading session, later ending the day at $12.30—a gain of 4.4%. The share price continued to rise after hours, climbing an additional 2.4% to $12.60.
The public-market milestone arrives after Securitize raised $400 million in its offering at a valuation of more than $1 billion. Beyond the company-specific story, the timing aligns with sustained institutional interest in tokenized real-world assets and the infrastructure needed to support them.
Token Terminal estimates that the tokenized real-world assets market exceeds $43 billion, with tokenized money market funds representing most of that figure. The same data suggests tokenized commodities are nearly $7 billion, and tokenized stocks are around $1.6 billion.
Looking ahead, Citigroup has predicted—per a report referenced in the coverage—that the tokenization market could expand to $5.5 trillion to $8.2 trillion by 2030. While those projections are forward-looking and depend on regulatory progress and adoption across financial institutions, they help explain why equity tokenization is drawing attention from traditional finance.
Why the Avalanche and Solana choice is part of the story
Securitize’s decision to issue tokenized versions of SECZ on both Avalanche and Solana signals that the company intends to reach investors through multiple blockchain ecosystems rather than a single network. While the exact technical and operational details are not spelled out in the provided coverage, the dual-launch approach reflects a broader industry pattern: tokenized securities providers often aim to reduce friction for users by supporting the networks where capital and liquidity are already active.
At the same time, the launch doesn’t remove uncertainty. The company’s announcements repeatedly tie tokenized access to eligibility, onboarding, and identity and AML checks, and recent SEC-related developments—such as the clarification that issuer-sponsored tokenized securities remain under securities laws—underscore that compliance obligations remain central.
Investors should watch how tokenized SECZ trading and access work in practice over the coming weeks—especially whether onboarding and eligibility requirements prove smooth for eligible participants, and how regulators and stock exchange operators continue to clarify the path for tokenized equities as the market moves from pilots toward scaling.
This article was originally published as Securitize Expands Tokenized Stocks on Solana and Avalanche After NYSE Listing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has expanded its sanctions targeting ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K), sanctioning 134 cryptocurrency wallet addresses tied to the group. ISIS-K has been designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist since September 2015.
OFAC added the addresses to its Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list on Wednesday. The SDN designation covers individuals, entities, and digital asset addresses linked to terrorism and other illicit activity, bringing more crypto-linked points of contact into the U.S. enforcement framework. OFAC’s recent action outlines the update.
Key takeaways
OFAC sanctioned 134 cryptocurrency wallet addresses associated with ISIS-Khorasan, adding them to the SDN list.
Blockchain analysis by Chainalysis says 131 of the sanctioned addresses were on Tron and were frozen by Tether; three were on Monero.
Chainalysis reports the Tron addresses received more than $1.4 million in crypto donations since 2023 and sent over $880,000.
The new action follows OFAC’s prior ISIS-support financier sanctions issued on June 22.
OFAC adds 134 crypto addresses to the SDN list
The latest OFAC update is part of an ongoing effort to disrupt terrorist financing conducted through digital assets. By designating specific wallet addresses, OFAC places them within the SDN framework—aimed at preventing U.S. persons and covered businesses from dealing with the sanctioned parties or facilitating transactions tied to them.
According to OFAC’s description of the measure, earlier rounds focused on “key facilitators who enable ISIS to move funds among its regional affiliates.” The new tranche expands the net further by targeting additional wallet infrastructure associated with ISIS-K’s illicit financial activity. OFAC’s SDN list update records the addresses added this week.
Tether freezes Tron holdings; Chainalysis flags Monero addresses
Industry blockchain forensics firm Chainalysis, in a report released alongside the sanctions news, attributed the breakdown of wallets by network: 131 Tron addresses and three Monero addresses were identified in the OFAC action. Chainalysis said Tether froze balances tied to the 131 Tron addresses, while the remaining addresses were on the Monero network.
The freezing step matters operationally. Sanctions can create legal and compliance barriers, but the immediate restriction of balances by major stablecoin infrastructure can reduce the near-term ability of sanctioned actors to access funds—even before prosecutions or extended enforcement follow.
Chainalysis’ analysis of the specific wallets and their network exposure was published in its report on the July 2026 sanctions round: “ISIS Designation of Crypto Addresses — July 2026”.
Where the money flowed: donations and transfers traced on-chain
Chainalysis also described what it found when mapping the sanctioned wallets’ activity. The report says the 131 Tron addresses received more than $1.4 million in cryptocurrency donations since 2023 and sent over $880,000. The group has reportedly sought crypto donations historically through campaigns using websites and messaging platforms.
Beyond aggregate totals, Chainalysis says it identified donation-related addresses used across multiple networks—including Tron, Monero, and Bitcoin—and noted what it characterized as “significant exposure to mainstream services.” The firm also found wallets that routed funds to cryptocurrency exchanges based in Syria.
That mix—terror-linked wallets interacting with larger crypto services—highlights a key enforcement challenge. Even when an illicit actor uses anonymity-oriented networks (such as Monero), their broader financial graph can intersect with centralized or regulated endpoints through exchange flows, custody, or liquidity routes. For compliance teams, that intersection is often where disruptions become most practical.
Sanctions momentum builds after June 22 enforcement
This week’s OFAC action arrives a little more than a week after the agency sanctioned additional individuals and entities connected to ISIS-related financing. On June 22, OFAC sanctioned three individuals and six entities across Europe, the Middle East, and West Africa, including MSB Bitcoin Xchange (Syria) and MSB Spider (Turkey). OFAC’s June 22 press release describes that previous round and the agency’s rationale.
Comparing the two actions, the pattern appears to be widening from alleged facilitators toward the transactional endpoints used to receive or move funds. By adding wallet addresses to the SDN list, OFAC reduces flexibility for sanctioned networks and increases compliance pressure across exchanges, custodians, and stablecoin-related entities that manage address-based monitoring and balance controls.
It also reinforces the role of blockchain analytics in sanctions design. Chainalysis’ ability to identify donation flows and network-specific wallets helped connect the sanctions process to on-chain behavior, enabling a targeted approach rather than a broad, non-specific sweep.
Why blockchain intelligence is becoming central to enforcement
Across counter-terrorism and financial-crime policy, blockchain intelligence tools are moving from “supporting evidence” to operational components in enforcement. Earlier this year, TRM Labs said onchain evidence was key to securing convictions of three individuals for terrorism financing in Indonesia in 2024 and 2025. TRM Labs argued that courts have treated cryptocurrency evidence—such as wallet addresses, transaction histories, and on-chain flows—as admissible and capable of anchoring prosecution. The company described this in a statement on its site: TRM Labs: on-chain intelligence and terrorism financing prosecutions.
The broader implication for market participants is straightforward: sanctions enforcement increasingly depends on traceable, address-level data. That trend tends to raise the importance of robust address-screening and transaction monitoring, especially for companies that deal with stablecoin liquidity, exchange withdrawals, or custody services across multiple networks.
For readers following this area closely, the next question is how quickly more connected wallets and counterparties are identified—and whether additional enforcement actions will target exchange routes, intermediary services, or other infrastructure tied to the newly sanctioned addresses. Chainalysis’ reporting suggests ISIS-K’s crypto activity has been persistent, but OFAC’s approach is shifting toward more granular, address-specific disruption that can constrain access to funds in real time.
This article was originally published as OFAC Targets 134 ISIS-K Wallets as Tether Freezes Associated Funds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin pushed back above $61,000 after a weaker-than-expected US labor report revived expectations that the Federal Reserve may stay flexible on rates. The selloff in US tech—particularly Nasdaq-linked exposure—also helped traders frame Thursday’s move as a potential rotation away from crowded risk assets and toward traditionally scarce stores of value such as Bitcoin and gold.
According to Yahoo Finance, US non-farm payrolls rose by 57,000 in June, missing the 113,000 expected figure. The Labor Department also revised April and May totals downward by a combined 74,000 jobs, adding to the pressure on rate-hike assumptions ahead of September.
Key takeaways
Disappointing June jobs data reduced near-term rate-hike odds, supporting Bitcoin’s rebound after a dip toward $57,750.
CME FedWatch moved to 54% odds of rate hikes by September, down from 64% the prior day, highlighting a shift in expectations.
Gold strengthened alongside Bitcoin, reinforcing the “scarce assets” narrative as investors priced a potentially less tight policy path.
Onchain indicators cited by CryptoQuant author gaah_im suggest seller exhaustion and a profit-to-loss ratio at levels not seen since 2022.
Jobs data shifts rate expectations and markets follow
The immediate catalyst for crypto’s bounce was the labor market surprise. With non-farm payroll growth coming in well below consensus—and previous months revised lower—traders recalibrated how much economic strength the Fed could rely on to justify additional tightening.
That recalibration showed up in the probability market. CME data via its FedWatch Tool indicated the odds of a rate hike by September fell to 54% from 64% the day before. In practice, that means traders were less convinced the Fed would need to move rates higher despite inflation-related concerns.
At the same time, risk assets that depend on steady growth and low discount rates came under pressure. The Nasdaq 100 erased gains that had built over the prior three sessions, offering a clear macro-throughline: weaker labor prints can compress the appetite for high-multiple equities, while increasing interest in assets perceived to benefit from looser or more supportive liquidity conditions.
Gold steadies as oil slips, reinforcing “liquidity” expectations
Gold prices responded positively on Thursday, which traders often read as a signal that investors are increasingly preparing for a less restrictive policy stance. The article’s framing also connects this to the behavior of crude oil. WTI crude stabilized below $70, while the broader complex had been affected by geopolitical developments.
Oil fell after the Qatar Foreign Ministry said there was “positive progress” in the latest round of discussions between US and Iranian representatives. The move matters less for its headline and more for what it implies for inflation pressure: if energy costs ease, markets may feel less compelled to price aggressive tightening.
In the context of the Fed, attention also turned back to its balance sheet. The Federal Reserve balance sheet was described as stagnating at $6.73 trillion, although the Fed’s mandate allows for $40 billion monthly purchases in short-term Treasuries and bonds. The combination of softer labor data and reduced inflation pressure is commonly interpreted as the backdrop for accelerated liquidity injection—a dynamic that can lower yields and improve conditions for investment flows into assets with limited supply.
AI weakness and “rotation” talk put Bitcoin back in focus
Beyond macro, there was also sector-specific pressure. Traders pointed to weakness in the AI complex—particularly chip-related names—as evidence that capital may be looking for alternatives. Shares of SanDisk, Seagate, Western Digital, and Applied Materials reportedly fell intraday by 9% or more on Thursday.
That disparity between AI-heavy equity exposure and Bitcoin’s price action fed the rotation narrative. While Bitcoin had recently been rejected around $82,500, the rebound followed a broader risk re-pricing after the jobs report. The article notes Bitcoin had been distancing itself from Wednesday’s $57,750 low, suggesting that the market’s downside momentum was losing steam.
If AI-linked selling persists, the logic is straightforward: portfolio managers and traders who reduce high-beta exposures may seek other avenues for returns and hedging—especially those assets that benefit when liquidity expectations improve. In that scenario, the same investors watching Nasdaq futures also become natural readers of Bitcoin’s onchain and macro sensitivity.
Onchain signals: seller exhaustion and a 2022-style profit/loss reset
CryptoQuant author and onchain analyst gaah_im highlighted a set of metrics intended to measure where the market stands in its cycle. In a post referenced in the article, the analyst said Bitcoin’s realized profit-to-loss ratio has reached its lowest level since 2022. The “net percentage of supply in profit” also reportedly turned negative—an outcome gaah_im said historically marks cycle bottoms with “extreme precision.”
For investors, this is the part of the story that matters most if you’re looking beyond the next headline. Onchain indicators can’t guarantee timing, but they can help frame whether the selling pressure that often drives drawdowns has already run its course. A negative shift in profit distribution implies more holders are effectively under water, reducing the likelihood that the market is still populated by large, confident profit-takers poised to dump into strength.
The article also links part of Bitcoin’s recent weakness to disappointment around Strategy (commonly discussed in the market context of its Bitcoin-related capital strategy). Even though the piece describes holders as facing dilution tied to accelerated MSTR share issuance used to buy back some debt and cover dividends on preferred stocks, the takeaway for market observers is that supply dynamics and capital flows around major corporate players can influence short-term volatility.
Finally, the combination of weaker labor data, easier expectations for policy over the coming months, and onchain readings suggesting seller exhaustion is why a near-term rebound toward $70,000 is being discussed. The upside case here is not just “macro improves,” but that the market may already be close enough to a capitulation-like condition that further stabilization in rates and liquidity could quickly translate into renewed demand.
What to watch next is whether labor-market weakness continues to dominate rate expectations—or whether investors start to re-price the Fed back toward a more hawkish stance. Onchain metrics may point to exhaustion, but the market will likely decide the pace of any recovery based on incoming macro data, the path of oil and inflation expectations, and whether AI-linked weakness broadens into sustained rotation rather than a one-day drawdown.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Stays Near $61K as US Jobs Data Lands; AI Weakness Raises BTC Bottom Question on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin rebounded on Wednesday as attention turned to Federal Reserve commentary on stubborn inflation. The move came alongside a rise in US Treasury yields—an environment that typically makes investors more selective about assets that don’t provide ongoing yield, including cryptocurrencies.
Still, the bounce does not appear to have fully erased underlying caution. Bitcoin recently traded near $61,490 after dipping to a 21-month low of $57,737, while institutional flows into spot Bitcoin ETFs have remained under pressure and analysts continue to debate whether recent weakness marks a durable bottom.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin climbed after remarks tied to persistent US inflation, but higher bond yields reinforce why “non-yield” assets face ongoing scrutiny.
Bitcoin bounced from a 21-month low, yet broader sentiment remains in “Extreme Fear” territory based on a fear/greed tracker.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs have seen large outflows in recent weeks, with June reported as the worst month since launch for net withdrawals.
On-chain and chart-based signals cited by analysts suggest the market may not have reached a bear-market bottom if price stays below longer-term benchmarks.
Crypto liquidity and leverage look thinner heading into Q3 after Q2 liquidations, potentially dampening forced-selling cascades but increasing price swing risk.
Fed inflation focus meets a rate backdrop that still pressures crypto
Bitcoin’s recovery followed remarks linked to persistent inflation, reported through coverage of US Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh’s comments. The positive reaction was tempered by the broader macro picture: the US five-year Treasury yield reportedly rose to 4.22%, reflecting investor demand for higher returns on government bonds.
In the same window, oil prices fell—WTI reportedly touched a four-month low—yet market participants still anticipate eventual monetary expansion. The key tension for crypto is that, regardless of how the Fed ultimately handles interest rates or balance-sheet policy, Treasury issuance and yields influence the opportunity cost of holding assets without yield.
BTC rebounds from $57,737 low, but “Extreme Fear” persists
At the time of publication, Bitcoin was trading around $61,490 after earlier trading as low as $57,737 on Wednesday, according to the same market coverage. Ether and Solana also posted gains, with ETH up about 3% and SOL up roughly 4.85%.
However, the rebound took place under an unusually cautious market mood. A fear and greed sentiment tracker cited in the coverage placed the crypto market at roughly 11 out of 100—labeled “Extreme Fear.” That matters because extreme caution can support sharp rallies, but it also suggests many investors remain positioned for downside risk rather than confident recovery.
From a longer perspective, the article noted Bitcoin remains down about a third since the start of the year, and the institutional picture has not improved. Reported flows show US spot Bitcoin ETFs experiencing significant withdrawals, including a total outflow of $4.5 billion in June—described as the largest since the ETFs launched. When institutional allocation confidence lags during a bounce, traders often treat rallies as fragile until inflows return.
PlanB: June weakness and 200-week levels imply the bottom may not be in
Beyond sentiment and ETF flows, at least one widely followed analyst argued the market has more room to fall. PlanB, referenced in the coverage, warned that Bitcoin could drop further after closing June below its 200-week moving average while still trading above its realized price.
The specific setup highlighted is that Bitcoin ended June 20.5% lower to close at $58,526—its worst monthly performance since June 2022. The same coverage placed that close below the 200-week moving average near $62,000, while still above a realized price figure around $52,000.
“All previous bear market bottoms were below realized price,” PlanB said, according to a post attributed to the analyst.
The article further cited PlanB adding that Bitcoin could still decline toward $52,000, framing the current price relationship to those two benchmarks as evidence the bear-market bottom may not yet be confirmed. For traders and portfolio managers, the practical takeaway is that technical “bounce” narratives may remain vulnerable if realized-price confirmation is not reached and ETF outflows continue to weigh on demand.
Sharplink restarts ETH accumulation, while leverage resets change Q3 dynamics
While Bitcoin-focused signals leaned cautious, one notable development in Ethereum accumulation came from Sharplink, a crypto treasury company. The coverage states Sharplink resumed buying Ether after an eight-month pause, and that it purchased $16 million worth of ETH since June 25.
On-chain data from Arkham cited in the report showed Sharplink buying 5,000 ETH on June 25 and another 5,000 ETH on June 26, with the report noting those amounts were worth about $8.5 million per day at the time of the purchases. The company also confirmed the buys in an announcement, saying it paid an average price of $1,611 per ETH.
The same coverage said Sharplink’s latest buys bring its total Ether holdings to 866,725 ETH, and quoted the company’s position that the purchases reflect a continued commitment to growing its ETH treasury as a long-term reserve asset.
Liquidity and positioning are also becoming a key story as markets move into Q3. A market update from institutional data provider Talos, cited in the article, described thinner liquidity but less leverage after Q2. According to Talos, Bitcoin and Ether long liquidations totaled $8.35 billion in Q2—an episode that coincided with spot Bitcoin ETF outflows, reduced Bitcoin buying by Strategy, and a contraction in stablecoin supply.
Talos’ framework suggests the deleveraging may reduce the likelihood of a forced-selling chain reaction heading into Q3. Yet the firm also warned that reduced order-book depth can weaken the market’s ability to absorb renewed selling pressure. In other words: the market may be less fragile in one sense, while simultaneously becoming more prone to sharper swings because there is less trading activity to buffer large orders.
What to watch next as macro pressure and positioning collide
With bond yields still elevated, ETF outflows still shaping institutional demand, and liquidity thinner after Q2’s deleveraging, the next moves in Bitcoin may hinge on whether buying interest returns alongside improved market depth—or whether rallies fade into another test of longer-term technical levels. Investors and traders should watch ETF flow data, Treasury yield direction, and whether stablecoin supply and order-book depth continue to shift as Q3 unfolds.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Near $65K as Sharplink Buys $16M in ETH on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Stablecoin supply contracted in the second quarter of 2026, undoing almost three years of consistent quarterly growth and underscoring a growing split between crypto-native yield products and offerings backed by traditional reserves. According to a Q2 2026 stablecoin report published by crypto exchange CEX.IO, the category fell 15% in Q2—by more than $3.5 billion—marking the first quarterly decline since Q3 2023.
The shift was driven by reductions in yield-bearing, crypto-issued tokens, even as treasury-backed stablecoin yield products gained ground. CEX.IO’s figures point to a total stablecoin supply of $312 billion in Q2 and an adjusted transaction volume decline of 5.5%, alongside meaningful weakness in overall transaction counts.
Key takeaways
Stablecoin supply fell more than $3.5 billion in Q2 2026, according to CEX.IO’s Q2 report, reversing nearly three years of quarterly growth.
Crypto-native yield stablecoins shrank sharply: Ethena’s sUSDe supply dropped 52% (nearly $2 billion) and Sky’s sUSDS declined 16%.
Treasury-backed products expanded while crypto-native contraction accelerated, including BlackRock’s BUIDL (+2%), Circle’s USYC (nearly +16%), and Ondo Finance’s USDY (up over 66%).
Activity deteriorated at the transaction-count level: CEX.IO reports stablecoin transaction counts fell by 530 million to 4.48 billion, the largest quarterly drop on record.
Smaller transfers looked relatively more resilient: transfers under $250 rose 5% to $19.39 billion, even as overall usage weakened.
Crypto-native yield tokens lose traction
CEX.IO’s report centers on a clear divergence in the stablecoin yield landscape. During Q2, yield-bearing stablecoin supply declined significantly as crypto-native products contracted. Ethena’s sUSDe stood out as the largest contributor to the downturn, losing 52% of its supply—shedding nearly $2 billion. Sky’s sUSDS also declined, down 16% over the same period.
The implication for users is straightforward: when demand for crypto-native yield strategies weakens, supply can retract quickly because these products are tightly linked to onchain activity and the availability of capital within crypto trading and hedging structures. In practice, that means stablecoin “yield” is not a uniform category—different issuers and reserve models can experience very different supply dynamics in the same quarter.
Treasury-backed products pick up share
While crypto-native yield tokens shrank, treasury-backed offerings moved in the opposite direction. CEX.IO reported that BlackRock’s BUIDL rose 2% in Q2, Circle’s USYC increased by nearly 16%, and Ondo Finance’s USDY climbed by more than 66%. Taken together, the data suggests investors may have shifted toward products perceived as more directly tied to traditional reserve mechanisms rather than crypto activity.
For market participants, this matters because treasury-backed expansion can stabilize parts of the stablecoin ecosystem even when broader crypto-native demand softens. However, the data also highlights an unresolved question: whether treasury-backed growth will fully offset crypto-native contraction, or whether the overall decline in supply signals that stablecoin usage itself is cooling.
First quarterly contraction since late 2023
CEX.IO frames Q2 as a turning point. The category recorded its first quarterly contraction since Q3 2023, with total stablecoin supply reaching $312 billion. The report also notes that adjusted transaction volume declined by 5.5%—a sign that not only did supply shrink, but the underlying flow of stablecoin-related activity also moderated.
Transaction data adds further detail on what changed. CEX.IO said total stablecoin transaction counts fell by 530 million to 4.48 billion, described in the report as the largest quarterly decline on record. At the same time, the report found that smaller transfers—below $250—rose 5% to $19.39 billion. That combination suggests that smaller peer-to-peer or retail-style use may be holding up better than transaction-heavy activity associated with larger automated or trading flows.
It’s an important nuance for traders and builders: the headline supply decline doesn’t necessarily mean everyday transfers disappeared. Rather, the weakness appears concentrated in higher-frequency, larger-dollar, or more automation-dependent segments of stablecoin utilization.
Weaker signals in Q1 preceded the Q2 drop
The slowdown didn’t arrive without warning. In Q1 2026, stablecoin supply still increased by about $8 billion to a record $315 billion, according to reporting referenced by CEX.IO. However, the report also points to earlier signs that organic demand was softening.
During Q1, retail-sized transfers declined by 16%, while automated activity made up roughly 76% of stablecoin transaction volume. By Q2, these patterns were more pronounced: transaction counts fell sharply, yet sub-$250 transfers increased. Together, the data suggests a market where the “type” of stablecoin activity shifted—away from larger, automation-heavy usage and toward smaller transfers, even as overall activity and supply eventually contracted.
Broader crypto demand concerns weigh on stablecoin dynamics
Stablecoin contraction in Q2 also aligns with concerns about weaker momentum across broader crypto markets. Earlier in the week, institutional data provider Talos identified declining stablecoin supply alongside spot Bitcoin ETF outflows and slower Bitcoin purchases by Strategy as three demand channels that weakened in Q2.
In comments relayed to Cointelegraph, Talos’s Tanay Ved argued that a recovery in stablecoin supply would be a useful signal of “fresh capital coming back into the ecosystem more broadly,” potentially supporting onchain liquidity. Ved also emphasized that spot ETF flows remain among the most important channels to watch, since they tend to reflect more durable shifts in institutional appetite.
Crucially, Ved noted that ETF flows, corporate Bitcoin purchases, and stablecoin supply often move together when market momentum changes. That observation frames stablecoins as more than a settlement tool: when capital rotates out of crypto exposure, stablecoin issuance and onchain usage can weaken as well—especially in segments dependent on active trading and capital deployment.
For readers tracking the next phase, the key question is whether Q2’s contraction represents a temporary reset or the start of a longer decline. CEX.IO’s data shows a sharp internal reshuffle—crypto-native yield tokens losing supply while treasury-backed products gain—so investors should watch both overall stablecoin issuance trends and the relative growth of different reserve models as new quarterly figures arrive.
This article was originally published as Yield Stablecoins Lose Momentum, Ending 3-Year Crypto-Native Run on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple executive chair Chris Larsen has been reported as one of the backers of a financial venture launched by Theodore Gillibrand, the son of US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, according to a Politico report dated Thursday. The development lands in parallel with ongoing Senate negotiations over the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act—US crypto market-structure legislation that lawmakers say could reshape how digital-asset businesses operate.
Politico reports that American Perpetuals Exchange Corp. (APEC), founded by Theodore Gillibrand, raised $30 million, with most investors contributing between $5,000 and $10,000 apiece. Larsen’s reported involvement was noted by Politico, though the report did not specify Larsen’s exact contribution.
Key takeaways
Politico reports Chris Larsen was among investors backing APEC, Theodore Gillibrand’s derivatives-focused venture.
APEC’s funding is described as totaling $30 million, with typical contributions reportedly in the $5,000–$10,000 range.
The investment is unfolding while Senator Kirsten Gillibrand negotiates ethics provisions in the CLARITY Act.
Democratic lawmakers are pressing Republicans to include ethics language, with questions framed around conflicts involving lawmakers and government officials.
The Senate schedule—returning July 13 and then breaking again for an extended state work period—narrows the time left for CLARITY to advance.
APEC funding and the Larsen connection
In its Thursday coverage, Politico said Larsen was one of a small set of investors supporting APEC, the company created by Theodore Gillibrand. The report emphasizes that while APEC attracted a broader group of investors, individual stakes cited in the coverage were relatively modest, with “the majority” contributing between $5,000 and $10,000.
However, Politico did not publish Larsen’s exact amount. For readers tracking the intersection of finance and policy, the more relevant takeaway is not the dollar figure itself, but the timing: the reported investment is occurring while Gillibrand’s office and other lawmakers work to finalize provisions of a bill widely expected to influence the regulatory environment for crypto exchanges, issuers, and derivatives markets.
Ethics provisions in the CLARITY Act are front and center
The reported APEC backers’ list is becoming part of a broader political debate because the CLARITY Act is in active negotiation, and Gillibrand has publicly tied her support to ethics reforms.
As Cointelegraph previously reported, Gillibrand said in May that lawmakers would not be voting for the bill unless ethics concerns were addressed—specifically, the risk that members of Congress or senior administration figures could benefit financially from the crypto industry due to their government roles. In that context, she characterized such outcomes as an unacceptable form of “pay for play.”
“[T]he truth is, is that we cannot allow members of Congress, senior administration officials, presidents or vice presidents, to get rich off of these industries because of their insider status. It is the worst form of pay for play.”
A spokesperson for Gillibrand told Cointelegraph that her son was “a grown adult starting his own independent business” and that the senator had “no involvement in it whatsoever.” Politico’s report does not resolve the underlying political dispute, but it intensifies scrutiny of how lawmakers’ personal or family-adjacent business ties are perceived while ethics language is being negotiated for a major policy package.
Cointelegraph also reported that it reached out to APEC for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
Republicans expect movement—Democrats push harder on ethics
CoinShares data is not referenced in the reporting provided here; instead, the key developments revolve around how Congress plans to handle CLARITY’s legislative path. Democratic lawmakers have been urging Republicans, who hold a majority in Congress, to adopt ethics language in the act. Their calls cite concerns that involve the current administration’s ties to the crypto industry.
On the Republican side, leaders have signaled they expect the bill to move through the Senate in July. Senator Cynthia Lummis, according to Cointelegraph reporting from June, said lawmakers were “working a little bit on ethics,” along with other topics raised in negotiations, including decentralized finance and illicit transactions.
That mix matters because CLARITY is not just a single-issue bill—it is positioned as market-structure legislation. If ethics provisions end up changing the compliance burdens, definitions, or governance expectations for firms operating in the US, those downstream impacts could affect everything from how trading and derivatives products are offered to what internal controls businesses must maintain.
At the procedural level, the Senate’s thin margin means Republicans will need at least some Democratic support to reach the 60-vote threshold for CLARITY to pass.
The legislative timetable is tightening
Even as the debate continues, lawmakers’ calendars are becoming an additional constraint. The Senate is currently in its Independence Day holiday period. Per the schedule described in Cointelegraph’s reporting, the chamber is set to return to session on July 13 and then head into another month-long state work period in August.
That means the practical window for crypto market-structure action is shrinking well before the US election season—an environment that often leads to renewed legislative delay and reprioritization. For crypto firms and investors, the key watch item is whether negotiations on ethics provisions keep the bill on track through July, or whether the calendar effectively pushes momentum into a later legislative session.
While the APEC funding story may appear at first glance to be separate from CLARITY policy talks, it is the simultaneous timing that’s likely to influence political attention. As ethics language becomes part of the bill’s final shape, stakeholders will want to monitor not only the bill’s progress, but also how the Senate frames conflicts-of-interest concerns and whether those discussions drive any substantive changes to the bill text.
What to watch next is the Senate’s ability to reconcile ethics negotiations with broader market-structure provisions before the July vote window narrows—alongside any further disclosure or clarification about the reported involvement of industry figures in private-sector activity during an election-adjacent legislative crunch.
This article was originally published as Ripple Co-Founder Backs Venture by US Senator’s Son, Report Says on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Russia’s central bank governor Elvira Nabiullina has said the country is prepared to launch its central bank digital currency (CBDC), the digital ruble, by Sept. 1—after the timeline previously outlined for the project. According to Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti, Nabiullina framed the schedule as feasible and suggested that work continues on shaping the system’s functionality.
As the digital ruble heads toward an expected rollout, the project remains entangled with sanctions dynamics. The European Union has already announced restrictions tied to Russia’s CBDC plans, while domestic Russian officials have discussed the legislative pathway and the expected transition period after the law takes effect.
Key takeaways
Elvira Nabiullina said Russia is ready to launch a digital ruble on Sept. 1, with initial acceptance by financial and credit institutions.
The digital ruble is intended to function alongside the existing ruble, rather than replace it.
European Union sanctions included restrictions affecting Russia’s CBDC efforts announced earlier this year.
Russia’s first deputy central bank governor, Vladimir Chistyukhin, said the enabling law would be enacted on Sept. 1, followed by a transition period until July 2027.
In the U.S., a separate legislative push would impose a ban on a CBDC issued by the central bank until 2030, reflecting a contrasting regulatory direction.
Digital ruble timetable reaffirmed
RIA Novosti reported that Nabiullina said “everyone is ready” for a Sept. 1 launch of the digital ruble. The central bank governor also emphasized the goal of making the system useful in real-world payments, stating that the authorities are continually discussing what features and functionality should be developed.
In the reporting, Nabiullina described the digital ruble as a complement to Russia’s fiat currency—the ruble—designed to be adopted first through financial and credit institutions. That positioning is important for how the project is likely to be implemented in practice: rather than starting as a consumer-facing token ecosystem, the initial pathway appears geared toward regulated intermediaries.
The digital ruble project has been underway since 2021, and its progress has increasingly been assessed through both technical readiness and the legal timetable. What’s newly underscored by the latest statement is that the central bank is reiterating that the schedule remains on track for a Sept. 1 go-live.
Sanctions pressure and compliance constraints
Russia’s CBDC plans have also been met with preemptive restrictions from the European Union. The EU announced restrictions on the digital ruble in April, as part of a sanctions package described by the Council of the European Union as responding to Russia’s “war of aggression against Ukraine.”
The sanctions framework matters for investors and market participants because it signals how cross-border financial institutions and payment rails may interpret compliance risk around the digital ruble. Even if the CBDC is primarily used within Russia, the broader financial system still connects to global counterparties, correspondent banking, and technology supply chains—areas that sanctions can affect directly or indirectly.
Commentary on the strategy has extended beyond government statements. In a February 2025 report carried by Australian Institute of International Affairs, Dr. Jack Jarmon—described as having served as a USAID technical adviser for the Russian government in the 1990s—argued that Russia could face “structural limitations” if it relies on proof-of-work (PoW) digital assets such as Bitcoin to help evade sanctions. He pointed to energy infrastructure constraints, including the age and upgrade needs of Russia’s power grid, and argued that sanctions cut Russia off from financial capital and technology while leaving the country dependent on external suppliers for components.
While Jarmon’s remarks focused on PoW mining and sanctions circumvention risk rather than the CBDC itself, the broader implication is that Russia’s financial modernization efforts are happening under constraints that can shape implementation speed, technology sourcing, and system design choices.
Law enactment and a multi-year transition
In addition to Nabiullina’s launch timeline, reporting attributed to Russia’s central bank adds specificity on the legal mechanics. RIA Novosti said Vladimir Chistyukhin, the bank’s first deputy governor, stated that legislation enabling the digital ruble would be enacted on Sept. 1, with a transition period extending until July 2027.
This kind of phased structure is often critical for CBDCs because it gives regulators time to define operational rules, settlement responsibilities, and governance frameworks. For market observers, the transition period also suggests that the Sept. 1 date should be viewed as a formal starting point, not necessarily as the end of policy and implementation adjustments.
At the same time, the combination of EU restrictions and an internal transition schedule creates a dual-track environment: the central bank can proceed domestically with regulatory rollout, while external counterparts may apply tighter compliance screening as sanctioned entities and technologies could still be relevant to cross-border processes.
U.S. legislative momentum highlights the global split
Russia’s move stands in sharp contrast to the U.S. approach. While Russia is preparing for a digital ruble rollout, the article notes that U.S. President Donald Trump has received the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act—a housing bill that includes a ban on a digital dollar as part of housing affordability legislation.
The reported mechanism is notable: the article says Trump expects not to sign the bill, but it would still become law automatically if no action is taken within 10 days. Under that timeline described in the report, the ban would take effect in July. The same reporting indicates that the ban would cover central bank issuance or creation of a CBDC until 2030.
For global observers, this highlights how CBDCs are not treated uniformly across jurisdictions. Instead, regulation is emerging as a policy battleground intertwined with national priorities—financial sovereignty concerns in some cases, and skepticism toward digital-dollar rollout in others. The divergence can affect cross-border planning for fintech providers, banks, and payment infrastructure vendors that operate in multiple regulatory environments.
It also matters for interoperability expectations. Even if CBDCs expand domestically, future integration across borders can be shaped—or limited—by differences in legal authority and political will.
With Sept. 1 now repeatedly referenced by Russia’s central bank leadership, attention is likely to shift from announcements to execution: how the digital ruble will be operationalized through financial and credit institutions, how the transition period to July 2027 unfolds, and how EU restrictions and compliance practices influence any future external access. On the U.S. side, the key watch item is whether the CBDC ban’s effective date and scope become a durable baseline for U.S. digital currency policy through 2030.
This article was originally published as Russia Central Bank Targets Digital Ruble Launch on Sept. 1 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

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

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

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