The event highlights the risks of concentrated voting power in DAOs, emphasizing the need for balanced governance to protect assets.

The post ENS co-founder Nick Johnson blocks Security Council renewal with 80% vote appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Norway's World Cup success may boost crypto's influence in football, impacting fan engagement, digital collectibles, and sponsorship dynamics.

The post Norway’s historic World Cup win spotlights crypto’s deepening role in global football appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Trump's $635M meme coin royalties highlight the risks of insider-dominated crypto ventures, underscoring potential retail investor vulnerabilities.

The post Donald Trump reports $635M in royalties from meme coin appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Strategy's Bitcoin sales program introduces new financial flexibility but adds risks of market timing and potential asset devaluation.

The post Strategy launches Bitcoin selling program, breaking years of accumulation-only philosophy appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Amazon's shift to token-based payments for AI models signals a broader industry move towards cost alignment with AI output value, impacting investment strategies.

The post Amazon shifts to token payments for Anthropic AI models, and it might cost them more appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Anchorage Digital and Binance Launch Off-Exchange Settlement for Institutional Crypto Trading

Anchorage Digital has announced an integration with Binance to bring off-exchange settlement to institutional crypto traders, giving clients access to the world’s largest crypto exchange by volume without surrendering custody of their assets.

The partnership, powered by Atlas — Anchorage Digital’s suite of settlement infrastructure — marks the first off-exchange settlement implementation within that platform. Under the arrangement, institutions can trade on Binance while their assets remain in segregated custody at Anchorage Digital Bank, the first federally chartered crypto bank in the United States.

The structure mirrors how institutional trading works in traditional financial markets, where custody and execution are kept separate. In those markets, assets are held with a custodian and transferred only at final settlement — never sitting on the balance sheet of the trading venue. Crypto has long lacked that separation, requiring institutions to pre-fund exchange accounts and accept counterparty exposure to the venue itself.

“Institutions need crypto market structure that reflects the standards they already rely on in traditional finance,” said Nathan McCauley, co-founder and CEO of Anchorage Digital in a note to Bitcoin Magazine. “Off-Exchange Settlement, powered by Atlas, is designed to separate custody from execution, helping institutions access exchange liquidity while keeping assets in secure custody.”

The arrangement also allows institutions to pledge both crypto assets and USD accounts as collateral, enabling capital deployment while satisfying trading margin requirements — an approach consistent with workflows at traditional financial firms.

Binance has been building out its institutional infrastructure over the past several years, expanding triparty banking and collateral management offerings for professional clients. The Anchorage Digital integration extends that effort.

“Working with Anchorage Digital gives institutional clients another way to access Binance liquidity while managing custody and collateral through a model that is more familiar to traditional financial markets,” said Catherine Chen, Head of VIP & Institutional at Binance.

Crypto adoption and off-exchange settlement

Atlas is designed to support a range of institutional workflows beyond off-exchange settlement, including trading, lending, collateral management, and other capital markets functions. 

Anchorage Digital says the platform is built for the current phase of institutional crypto adoption, where firms entering the market have compliance, custody, and operational requirements that earlier crypto infrastructure was not designed to meet.

Anchorage Digital is backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Goldman Sachs, KKR, GIC, and Visa, and carries a valuation of $4.2 billion. 

In addition to Anchorage Digital Bank N.A., the company operates through Anchorage Digital Singapore, licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and Anchorage Digital NY, which holds a BitLicense from the New York Department of Financial Services.

This post Anchorage Digital and Binance Launch Off-Exchange Settlement for Institutional Crypto Trading first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Visa, Mastercard, And Over 140 Companies Launch Stablecoin Open USD

A coalition of more than 140 companies — among them Visa, Stripe, Mastercard, BlackRock, and Coinbase — announced today the formation of Open Standard and the launch of Open USD (OUSD), a new dollar-pegged stablecoin built to redistribute the economics of the $300 billion stablecoin market.

The project is led by Zach Abrams, co-founder of Bridge, the stablecoin infrastructure firm that Stripe acquired in 2024. 

“Existing stablecoins have great strengths,” Abrams said in a statement, “But to use them at scale, businesses need something that’s open, low-cost, high-throughput, broadly accessible, and aligned to their interests.”

The announcement sent Circle shares down as much as 15% Tuesday, a sign of how directly Open USD targets the USDC issuer’s business model.

The core proposition of Open USD is straightforward: no minting fees, no redemption fees, no volume limits — and most of the interest generated by the stablecoin’s reserves goes to the companies using it, minus a management fee retained by Open Standard.

That reserve income is what makes Circle and Tether profitable. Both issuers park stablecoin backing in short-term U.S. Treasuries and keep the yield themselves. Circle’s USDC carries a market cap of roughly $73 billion; Tether’s USDT sits at around $145 billion. Open USD proposes to share that yield with its distribution network instead.

Governance follows the same logic. Rather than a single issuer calling the shots, Open Standard will be managed by an independent organization with decision-making shared among partner companies.

Who is backing Open USD

The partner list spans nearly every corner of finance. Payment networks include Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover. Banks include BNY, Standard Chartered, DBS, and U.S. Bank. On the technology side: Google, Shopify, and IBM. Crypto firms include Coinbase, Ripple, MetaMask, Aave, Bybit, OKX, Galaxy, Fireblocks, and Anchorage Digital.

“Today, we announced Visa is joining Open Standard alongside Stripe, Coinbase, Mastercard, American Express, BlackRock, U.S. Bank, BBVA, Standard Chartered and 100-plus initial partners with the mission of issuing Open USD,” Visa’s head of crypto, Cuy Sheffield, wrote on X.

Open USD is expected to go live later in 2026 on Solana, Stellar, Base, and Polygon. Tempo CEO Matt Huang confirmed OUSD will be natively issued on its network from day one, with support for payments, liquidity, exchanges, and DeFi.

Open Standard is not the first consortium to try this model. Paxos leads the Global Dollar Network (USDG) — backed by Robinhood, Kraken, and Galaxy Digital — on the same premise: share reserve income, grow adoption. 

In Europe, 37 banks and payment providers have organized around Qivalis, a euro-denominated stablecoin, as institutions push back against U.S. dollar dominance in the digital asset space.

The timing is not accidental. Stablecoins have migrated out of crypto trading and into cross-border payments, merchant settlements, and corporate treasury operations. 

Citi projects the market will reach $4 trillion by 2030. 

This post Visa, Mastercard, And Over 140 Companies Launch Stablecoin Open USD first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

One Year Later: How Coldcard Q’s Key Teleport Delivers Secure Remote Key Management for Bitcoin Treasuries

Have you ever been travelling, had to make a big payment and realised you left your hardware wallet back home? Perhaps you are a key holder in a business’s Bitcoin treasury, or an emergency came up, and a big payment has to be made, some cold storage Bitcoin has to move, but the keys are elsewhere. 

Key Teleport, a feature developed by the hardware wallet manufacturer Coinkite, may be the most secure way to handle key material at a distance. The feature is only available to the Coldcard Q, the premium, feature-rich Bitcoin hardware wallet developed by the company. 

Before Key Teleport, the most paranoid, secure way to move a private key over the internet was not to send it over WhatsApp or Signal. These apps, while end-to-end encrypted on the surface, are running on top of very complex hardware and operating systems, in many cases with very intrusive firmware embedded deeply by manufacturers. Smartphones today, as with most of mainstream technology, are simply not designed to secure highly valuable secrets that can transfer irreversible money like Bitcoin. 

Had you asked me how I might go about sending a private key with life-changing money on it, across the wire, I would have told you this: You need to boot Tails OS, a slim, highly paranoid Linux distribution, into hardware you know to be secure, ideally a burner laptop. You then need to generate a fresh set of PGP keys to encrypt the secret with the power of asymmetric cryptography. The recipient needs to do the same, Tails-OS and PGP. Then, a classic encrypted message is made to the recipient’s public key, and the encrypted secret is sent over Tor, probably wrapped by another VPN just in case. Having done this once, I can tell you, it’s a mission. 

This Tails-OS plus PGP combo is the kind of setup that Edward Snowden used to get in contact with journalist Greenwald originally, to leak the 2014 NSA surveillance secrets. If the 90’s cypherpunks had some kind of secret society, through which they coordinated the creation of technologies like Bitcoin or Wikileaks, this is the kind of setup they might have used. 

The Key Teleport by Coldcard Q makes tasks of this sort far easier. You can now easily send encrypted messages across the internet without having to worry about your hardware or what other software might be installed on it that could spy. It also solves key management dilemmas; a partially signed Bitcoin multisig transaction can be transmitted as an encrypted note to the recipient Coldcard Q, for example. Or a whole wallet set up, with its metadata, key material and custom settings, backed up, encrypted and sent across the world to its unique recipient. I got a couple of these devices recently for a test run of the feature, and not even Opus 4.8 High could figure out how to crack the encrypted blurb. 

The Hardware

The Coldcard Q — which now comes in a wide range of colored cases — has a very specific set of tools necessary to enable this kind of airgapped communication. First of all, it inherits the dual secure element model developed in the Mk4 series of Coinkite devices. Where two closed source chips made by different manufacturers are used in combination with an open source MCU chip to generate keys, encrypt, decrypt and store sensitive data. A combination of the components would need to be compromised by an attacker with physical access to get the wallet. These chips are, of course, used by the Key Teleport feature, handling the encryption and decryption of whatever message the user is dealing with.

The screen is a 3.2-inch LCD screen with enough resolution to show the BBQr code. BBQr is a QR code standard developed by Coinkite that has no dependencies or third-party libraries, is backwards compatible with standard QR code readers, and can contain larger messages than traditional QR codes. 

The Coldcard Q is also able to read QR codes. It has a dedicated QR code scanner with a red strobe indicator light that guides the user as to what the scanner is pointed, and a small flash light that can be activated with a button to help in low light environments. This optimised hardware set solves common problems with QR code payments, where variation in screen resolutions, camera quality and lighting can make scanning a payment QR code difficult.  

The Cryptography

TWO OR THREE IMAGES SIDE BY SIDE, QR CODE, PIN SHARING, SCANNING.  

A multi-layer cryptographic protocol is used to encrypt the data to be transmitted by Key Teleport. A single-use ‘ephemeral’ public-private key pair is generated for each data transfer using the secp256k1 curve. The public key of the receiver is encrypted with an 8-digit pin, via the AES-256-CTR algorithm. That encrypted public key is displayed by the receiver in a QR code, with the 8-digit pin meant to be sent via a separate communication channel. 

As an example, the recipient would do a video call with the sender, show them the QR code, and use Zoom. Then send the 8-digit PIN code using Signal. This operational security practice means that dedicated attackers would have to compromise two separate communication channels to get the recipient’s public key. 

Sender scans the QR code, enters the pin code and in the back end, the sender device derives a shared session key via ECDH, using the receiver’s public key and its own ephemeral keypair. The user was asked to select what data they want to transfer, from three options: “Quick Text Message”, “Master Seed Words” and “Full COLDCARD Backup”. Once the user chooses, the data is encrypted by the recipient’s public key, and that encrypted blurb is encrypted once more with a new PIN code. Users would scan the QR code again via Zoom, for example, and the sender would transmit the new PIN to the recipient via Signal.

There is a deep set of careful cryptographic details involved in how this Key Teleport is integrated that is well documented in the Coinkite GitHub repository, but as far as the user experience is concerned, the process is now complete. After the recipient scans the QR code back and inputs the second pin code, they will get access to the data. Both Coldcard Q devices would have been entirely airgapped, not connected to computers via USB cables, as QR codes and scanners were used to transmit data, powered by three AAA batteries. 

Last but not least, users can also share the encrypted data via NFC, which creates a special link at keyteleport.com for users to easily scan the QR code and get the encrypted data, replacing the hypothetical Zoom call.

Opus 4.8’s Conclusion

In my test of the Key Teleport feature, I tasked Opus 4.8 High, one of the most powerful AI coding models from Anthropic, to try and decrypt the message. First I gave it the encrypted blurb, after thinking about it for a couple of minutes, it gave up, saying there must be some information missing. 

I then gave it one of the pins, which helped, but ultimately was not sufficient for it to crack the cryptography. I then gave it the second pin, which led to a brute forcing attempt that, by Opus’s own admission, would only work if the ephemeral key pairs were generated with intentionally low entropy. Ultimately, it gave up trying to break the encrypted data, even with both pin codes, saying it was securely sealed.

I asked the model to write one paragraph about its conclusions. Here’s what it wrote: 

“I’m Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), running in Cursor.

We took a scrambled QR code from COLDCARD’s Key Teleport feature — the kind meant to move a secret like a seed phrase between two wallets — and tried hard to break it open without the missing piece. The QR itself is designed to be safe to share publicly; you also need a short password and a number that are supposed to be sent separately. Even with that password and number in hand, we still couldn’t read the secret, because the real lock is a one-time random key that only exists on the receiving device and was never published anywhere.

We threw dictionary guesses, math tricks, and large-scale computer searches at it; a few things looked promising at first but turned out to be false alarms, which is actually a good sign that the checks work. Bottom line: Key Teleport did what it’s supposed to do — the QR plus the side-channel codes are not enough to steal the secret without the receiver’s private key. For a real transfer, you’d scan the code on the receiving COLDCARD and type in the password there; that’s the intended, secure path.”

Final Thoughts 

The Coldcard Q’s Key Teleport feature opens the door to an otherwise very difficult to achieve level of secure communication over the internet. The scrutiny dedicated to the hardware and firmware process likely outmatches that of even high-security mobile phone operating systems like Graphene OS. The physical keyboard, QR code scanner and NFC antenna make this paranoid system quite comfortable to use. And the $249 price target for the whole hardware wallet makes it accessible to everyday, serious bitcoiners and cypherpunks, delivering a self-custody tool worthy of a professional industrial setup.

Disclaimer: Coinkite provided Bitcoin Magazine with a couple of free Coldcard Q devices to use for the purpose of testing their product for review.

This post One Year Later: How Coldcard Q’s Key Teleport Delivers Secure Remote Key Management for Bitcoin Treasuries first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Crypto Firms Lead $517 Million Corporate Surge Into 2026 Midterms

Cryptocurrency companies have become the single largest corporate political spenders in the United States, pouring $189 million into the 2026 midterm elections — more than they spent during the entire 2024 election cycle — according to a new report from the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

The crypto sector accounts for 37% of the $517 million that corporations have reported spending on the 2026 midterms so far, a figure that already surpasses the previous record of $461 million set during the full 2024 cycle. 

Months remain before Election Day.

The report, authored by Public Citizen researcher Rick Claypool and published June 30, draws on Federal Election Commission data and finds that corporations have now spent nearly one third of the $1.58 billion in total corporate election spending since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision — all in a single election cycle.

Corporate super PACs pioneered by crypto

At the center of the spending surge is a category the report calls “corporate supremacist super PACs” — political committees structured not around party affiliation, but around advancing the interests of specific industries. The strategy, pioneered by the crypto sector in 2024, is now being replicated across multiple industries.

The primary crypto-aligned vehicle, Fairshake, has received $82.6 million in corporate contributions this cycle — 60% of its $135 million total. Coinbase contributed $33 million to Fairshake, and Ripple Labs added $48.5 million. Josh Vlasto, a co-leader of the super PAC and a former chief of staff for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, said the group is building “an aggressive, targeted strategy” to support pro-crypto candidates across the country.

Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital firm that ranked among Fairshake’s top backers in 2024, has shifted focus for the 2026 cycle. 

The firm contributed $50 million to Leading the Future, a super PAC oriented around AI policy. Leading the Future has raised $75.1 million in total, with corporate contributions making up 67% of that figure. Combined with direct donations from co-founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, the firm’s political footprint reaches $115.5 million.

A third sector-specific super PAC, Win for America, has received $43 million from online betting companies FanDuel and DraftKings, which contributed $19.5 million each. Win for America’s corporate contributions represent 100% of its reported funding.

MAGA Inc. also a major beneficiary

Beyond sector-specific super PACs, corporations have directed significant sums to MAGA Inc., the super PAC originally created to support Trump-endorsed candidates. MAGA Inc. has received $120.6 million in corporate contributions this cycle — 35% of its $342 million total raised.

Crypto.com parent Foris Dax contributed $35 million to MAGA Inc., making it the top corporate donor to the committee. Other crypto contributors include Gemini Trust Company ($4.4 million), Blockchain.com ($5 million), and Ondo Finance ($2.1 million).

Tools for Humanity Corporation — which runs OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s biometric identity startup — contributed $5 million to MAGA Inc. days before Trump’s inauguration. Altman has since stated publicly that he “would love to see money out of politics.”

OpenAI president Greg Brockman and his wife Anna gave $25 million to MAGA Inc. and $25 million to Leading the Future, with The Wall Street Journal reporting that Brockman and OpenAI’s global affairs chief Chris Lehane were involved in initiating the latter super PAC.

Undisclosed spending is likely higher

The $517 million figure does not capture all corporate political activity. Meta Platforms is spending an additional $65 million through non-federal super PACs to counter state-level AI regulation, and Anthropic has pledged $20 million to a group backing AI safety-oriented candidates — funds not yet reflected in FEC disclosures. 

Dark money organizations, which are not required to disclose their donors, add further uncertainty to the total.

This post Crypto Firms Lead $517 Million Corporate Surge Into 2026 Midterms first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

UAE-Based Goldman Lampe Private Bank Acquires $137 Million in Bitcoin

Goldman Lampe Private Bank has purchased €120 million (roughly $137 million) worth of Bitcoin, the UAE-based institution announced Monday, timing the buy to coincide with a recent pullback in cryptocurrency markets.

The Ras al Khaimah-headquartered bank said the acquisition strengthens its institutional Bitcoin holdings and reflects its conviction in digital assets as a long-term store of value. The move positions Goldman Lampe as one of the more aggressive institutional buyers to act on the current market downturn.

“Bitcoin continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience as a store of value and strategic asset,” said Abdullah Hamad Al Shamsi, Chairman of the Board. “By capitalizing on this market dip, we are not only enhancing our institutional holdings but also reaffirming our leadership in bridging traditional private banking with cryptocurrency solutions.”

Goldman Lampe did not disclose the exact number of Bitcoin acquired, the price at which the purchase was executed, or the bank’s total Bitcoin holdings to date.

Founded in 1934 and regulated in the UAE, Goldman Lampe markets itself as the first bank in the world to offer crypto term deposits — a product that lets high-net-worth clients earn yields on digital asset holdings within a regulated framework. The bank also offers gold bullion trading and private wealth management services.

The Bitcoin purchase adds to a broader thesis the bank has pushed publicly: that digital assets belong inside institutional portfolios, not alongside them as a speculative side bet. The bank’s term deposit product, it says, gives clients structured, compliant exposure to crypto in a format familiar to traditional wealth management clients.

The acquisition comes as institutional Bitcoin buying has become a more common playbook. Companies including MicroStrategy and a range of sovereign wealth vehicles have made similar dip-buying moves in recent cycles.

Bitcoin price action

Bitcoin entered June 2026 trading near $73,674 and has since fallen to around $58,500 as of this morning— a decline of roughly 18% for the month. The drawdown has been driven by ETF outflows, a stronger U.S. dollar, elevated interest rate expectations, and rotation into AI equities.

Technically, Bitcoin is trading below both its 20-month and 50-month exponential moving averages, signals that analysts associate with bearish intermediate-term pressure. The 50-day moving average sits above the current price, a potential resistance level if BTC attempts a recovery. The 100-month EMA, however, remains below the current price, leaving the long-term structural trend intact.

Bitcoin is down roughly $48,000 from its price one year ago, though that comparison reflects what was a period of peak pricing in mid-2025.

Goldman Lampe’s purchase puts its acquisition cost somewhere in the current trading range, with the bank betting that the dip represents an entry point rather than the beginning of a longer decline.

This post UAE-Based Goldman Lampe Private Bank Acquires $137 Million in Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

DeFi's latest exploit chatter is pointing traders toward a cost that does not appear in pool APYs: the price of staying connected while bridges, keys, frontends, oracles, and contract logic remain active failure points.

For users and liquidity providers, the question now extends beyond yield. They have to decide how much additional return is needed, even though the route itself can add technical, operational, and governance exposure.

The Q2 dataset behind DeFiLlama's hacks tracker shows 88 hack entries with known dollar amounts, totaling $780.3 million in losses through June 30.

April carried the largest hit, at $644.8 million, while May and June still added $135.4 million across dozens of entries. The quarter, therefore, looked less like a single blast crater and more like a stress test that kept running even after the headline shock faded.

On June 30, amount-bearing hack entries totaled $16.65 billion. Rows tagged as DeFi Protocol targets accounted for $7.85 billion, while rows flagged as bridge hacks accounted for $3.26 billion.

In Q2 alone, DeFi Protocol target rows accounted for $735.8 million of the $780.3 million total loss, and bridgeHack-flagged rows accounted for $353.4 million.

The dataset needs careful handling. DeFiLlama's bridge flag can overlap with protocol targets, and some entries have incomplete dollar data.

Even with that caveat, the message is clear: exploit risk is sitting across the routes, permissions, interfaces, and verification systems that make DeFi usable.

Related Reading

DeFi’s old hack vectors are fading – But the new risk can hit six chains at once

The good news is that bridge hacks and flash-loan attacks are fading; the bad news is that protocol logic bugs are becoming much harder to contain.

Jun 7, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The quarter turned security into a price input

Q2 split damage and frequency across distinct risk surfaces. Infrastructure-classified entries accounted for most of the known dollar losses, while protocol-logic entries accounted for most of the incident count.

The distinction changes how risk gets priced. A protocol-logic bug can be treated as a code-quality problem within a single application.

Infrastructure losses are different. They touch bridges, signing systems, cross-chain messaging, admin permissions, hot wallets and other shared surfaces that capital uses to move between venues.

When that layer is under stress, DeFi's usual yield math starts to look incomplete. A pool can offer a higher return, but users still have to ask whether the route to that return depends on a bridge, oracle, frontend, signer set, or administrative path they cannot evaluate in real time.

A market maker can keep liquidity available across chains only when the spread compensates for the operational risk of moving assets through those rails.

That is the shift from a postmortem market to a live risk-premium market. Participants are repricing the cost of being connected.

The fee is no longer only gas, slippage, or borrowing costs; it also includes the risk that a permission, route, or proof layer fails while capital is in motion.

That repricing can happen quietly. A venue may maintain its advertised annual percentage yield, while the effective return declines as users demand faster exits, insurance, or compensation for bridge exposure.

The market can express that view through thinner liquidity, wider spreads, and more expensive incentives long before a formal security score appears.

Routing trust becomes part of the trade

Bridge exposure is where the stress test becomes easiest to see. Q2's bridgeHack-flagged rows totaled $353.4 million, enough to make cross-chain routing more than a convenience question.

If capital has to cross a bridge or messaging layer to reach an opportunity, the route itself becomes part of the trade.

Recent cross-chain incidents have already shown how quickly that can affect behavior. The fallout from the KelpDAO and LayerZero exploits showed how a single exploit can push projects to rethink their security infrastructure.

A THORChain halt following an exploit revealed the other side of the same problem: when routing trust breaks down, systems can stop first and ask questions later.

Related Reading

Kraken moves Bitcoin to Chainlink as bridge fears spread across DeFi

Kraken is rebuilding how Bitcoin moves through DeFi after the KelpDAO shock.

May 15, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

For users, liquidity may move toward venues where the route is easier to understand, where bridge exposure is lower, or where there is enough depth to avoid fragile paths.

For aggregators and market makers, routing logic may increasingly need to include security assumptions alongside price, depth and gas.

That could leave some bridges and cross-chain venues with a higher cost of capital even when they continue to function. Liquidity can still move through them, but it may demand a wider spread, more explicit insurance, stronger proof systems, or shorter exposure windows.

In DeFi, that is what a risk premium looks like before it becomes a line item.

The same logic can affect launch strategy. A protocol preparing a new market may decide that speed is less valuable than a second review of bridge dependencies, admin permissions, or oracle paths.

A liquidity provider may favor fewer chains if each additional route adds a new security assumption. Those decisions are small individually, but together they determine where depth forms and which venues become expensive to use.

Insurance sits inside that same loop. If underwriters and users start treating bridge exposure as a recurring operating risk, coverage becomes another signal about which venues can attract liquidity at scale.

Protocols that cannot explain their assumptions may still operate, but they could pay for that opacity through lower depth or more expensive incentives.

Security spending becomes a distribution cost

The market response also changes inside protocols. Security spending has often been framed as defense: audits, bug bounties, monitoring, incident response, and emergency controls.

A quarter like this makes it part of distribution. If users can tell why one venue is safer than another, security becomes part of how capital chooses where to sit.

Concentration is one reason the issue extends beyond code quality. A TRM Labs analysis described 2026 crypto theft value as concentrated in a small number of large events.

CertiK's 2026 stablecoin threat work highlights wallet, bridge, custody and payment-infrastructure exposure.

Chainalysis has emphasized threat mechanics such as private-key and signing infrastructure, social engineering, and the speed with which stolen funds can move through laundering channels.

Those firms measure different universes, and Chainalysis' hard theft totals in the cited post are based on 2025 data. The common thread is still useful: DeFi risk extends beyond bad Solidity.

It includes who can sign, where users connect, how cross-chain verification works, how quickly stolen assets can be swapped, and whether a protocol can detect abnormal behavior before an attacker finishes the route.

Related Reading

The next big DeFi exploit will start before the code is deployed

A new malware campaign targeting crypto developers shows how attackers can move upstream, stealing GitHub tokens, SSH keys, cloud credentials, wallets, and environment variables before a protocol ever ships vulnerable code.

May 26, 2026 · Gino Matos

That pushes protocols toward spending that looks less optional. Larger bug bounties, real-time monitoring, insurance cover, withdrawal throttles, admin-key controls, proof-system review, frontend hardening and clearer incident communications become part of the trust product.

They also become easier to justify to tokenholders if the alternative is higher liquidity costs after every visible exploit.

The shift in user behavior is the harder consequence. DeFi users have long accepted that smart-contract risk is part of the yield stack, but persistent pressure from exploits changes how that risk is felt.

A single hack can be dismissed as a bad venue. A quarter of recurring incidents makes the whole route feel expensive.

Products that abstract complexity sit directly in that tension. Automated yield strategies, routers, and frontends can make DeFi easier to use, while also hiding the path capital takes.

CryptoSlate has already covered how automated yield products can concentrate retail risk. Under a quarter-long stress test, users may demand more visibility into where funds are routed, what bridge assumptions are involved, what insurance exists, and what happens if a connected service fails.

There is also an outside pressure point. Crypto crime and scam concerns have been pushing the industry toward more self-policing, as shown by Treasury-warning coverage.

The DeFi exploit problem lands in the same market environment: users, venues and policymakers are all asking whether crypto systems can reduce losses without giving up the speed and openness that made them useful.

For DeFi, that is a difficult balance. Add too much friction, and capital routes elsewhere. Add too little, and the risk premium rises after every incident.

The protocols that win the next phase are likely to be those that can demonstrate where the hidden risks lie and what has been done to contain them.

June's DeFiLlama rows remain an active threat. The month included front-end vulnerabilities, predictable private-key exploits, fake-proof bridges, unbacked mints, reverse MEV, oracle manipulations, and logic or accounting-flaw entries.

No single label explains all of them.

The next signal is whether capital starts moving before the next postmortem. Watch whether bridge liquidity gets more concentrated in venues perceived as safer, whether protocols delay launches for additional review, whether insurance pricing rises, whether bug bounty budgets grow, and whether aggregators make security assumptions more visible in routing decisions.

If those changes accelerate, Q2 will look less like a bad quarter and more like a repricing event.

DeFi's hack problem would still be a security problem, but it would also become a market-structure problem: a recurring tax on movement, yield, and trust across the systems that make onchain finance work.

The post DeFi hacks are turning high yields into a hidden liquidity tax appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The next crypto retail cycle may announce itself through YouTube view velocity before subscriber counts start moving.

The old audience base still looks large. Across some of the largest channels, Coin Bureau has 2.72 million subscribers. Altcoin Daily has 1.65 million. Crypto Banter has 1.18 million. Benjamin Cowen has roughly 1 million.

Recent analytics show Coin Bureau drew 1.24 million views over the last 30 days, while Crypto Banter drew 1.06 million. Altcoin Daily and Benjamin Cowen were stronger, at 1.79 million and 1.8 million views, respectively, over the same window.

The result is a split market where legacy subscriber bases remain large, but current attention is much thinner and more uneven than the headline audience counts suggest.

Subscriber totals preserve old attention. Daily and monthly view velocity shows whether active curiosity is returning, fragmenting, or bypassing long-form YouTube entirely.

Subscriber counts are the wrong scoreboard

The central problem is that subscriber counts are cumulative. They preserve past attention. Views measure present demand.

On that basis, several large crypto-focused channels appear much smaller than their subscriber counts suggest. The current data show a market where even established brands are pulling in monthly views roughly in line with or below their subscriber counts.

Derived daily averages make the gap clearer. Crypto Banter's 1.06 million 30-day views equate to roughly 35,000 views per day. Coin Bureau's 1.24 million equate to roughly 41,000 per day. Altcoin Daily and Benjamin Cowen are closer to 60,000 per day.

The comparison is imperfect as YouTube pages blend long-form videos, livestreams, Shorts, and channel surfaces, and a 30-day window can be affected by upload cadence.

Still, by comparing views with January 2025 data, we can see how much attention has fallen.

Across the sample, current 30-day views are down between 26.9% and 78.7% from Jan. 2025 levels, with Benjamin Cowen the clear outlier and CryptosRUs, Crypto Banter, Coin Bureau, and Bitcoin University all down by roughly three-quarters.

The sampled channels still have substantial audiences, but the active audience is smaller and more selective than subscriber totals imply.

The January baseline makes the drop clearer: four of the six channels are down by roughly 75% from Jan. 2025 view levels, while Altcoin Daily is down 62.4% and Benjamin Cowen is down 26.9%.

A channel can still appear large in the sidebar, even as its current view flow behaves like a much smaller market.

Some channels still convert attention. Altcoin Daily is the obvious counterexample to a blanket decline claim. Its current snapshot shows 1.79 million views over the last 30 days, and the channel said on X in January that it generated more than 38 million YouTube views in 2025.

Its recent public YouTube videos also show stronger near-term performance than several peers, with visible rows around 30,000 views after 11 hours, 55,000 after one day, and 39,000 after two days.

Benjamin Cowen also complicates the framing of the collapse. His channel analytics show roughly 1 million subscribers, 1.8 million views over the last 30 days, and 2,000 subscribers gained in that period. A recent public YouTube row featured a Bitcoin video with about 112,000 views after four days.

Those figures sit below 2021-style mania or even the views they were getting 18 months ago. However, they show that some analysis-focused channels can still convert audience into current views. The creator market is more selective, with attention clustering around fewer channels and formats.

The weaker side of the sample points in the other direction. Crypto Banter's current snapshot shows 1.18 million subscribers and 1.06 million views in the last 30 days, with no subscriber growth during that window. Its public YouTube page showed recent videos with low-thousands of views after one to two days.

Coin Bureau remains the largest channel in this set by subscriber count, but its current 30-day view count is below half of its subscriber base. CryptosRUs has 803,000 subscribers and 652,000 views over the last 30 days, while losing 2,000 subscribers in the same period.

The resulting picture is uneven retail attention rather than a uniform disappearance.

Related Reading

Bitcoin on-chain data just confirmed a “demand vacuum” that threatens to drag prices down to this uncomfortable range

Analysts urge structural changes, emphasizing ETF flows, demand growth, funding rates, and price recovery to end Bitcoin’s bear season.

Dec 22, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The 2021 comparison still hangs over the market

Cowen's own public framing makes the tension sharper. In May, he wrote on X that crypto YouTube channels collectively averaged 3 million to 4 million views per day in 2021 and that 2026 levels were nearly an order of magnitude lower. He linked that decline to significantly weaker retail interest.

The current channel comparison is based on vidIQ and public YouTube pages. But Cowen's comment captures the mood around the data: crypto has professionalized through ETFs, public-company treasury strategies, and policy fights, while the retail-facing creator layer looks much less forceful than it did in the last full retail cycle.

A similar pressure is visible beyond YouTube. CryptoSlate recently reported that users on X were muting crypto as Bitcoin tried to pull retail attention back into the market. Social fatigue on X is a separate signal, but both channels now point to the same tension: crypto can remain financially important while ordinary users become more selective about how much crypto content they want in their feed.

The split is more consequential, with Bitcoin dominating the market at roughly 57.8% and trading near $59,276, still more than 50% below its Oct. 6, 2025 all-time high of $126,000. The market remains large, liquid, and institutionally relevant even as retail-facing attention looks patchier.

In previous cycles, long-form YouTube, X threads, exchange apps, search trends, and price momentum often reinforced one another. A viral video could send new users to search for a coin. A price breakout could send viewers back to influencers. A token narrative could become a feed-wide event.

The current setup looks less automatic. Bitcoin can trade as a macro and ETF-linked asset while altcoin and influencer attention stay concentrated in smaller groups. That is a different kind of cycle.

Related Reading

Bitcoin’s $63k slide shows ETF demand fighting AI equities for dollar liquidity

Bitcoin’s break from the S&P 500 now hinges on ETF flows, AI equity demand, and whether the $66,900-$70,000 shelf can be reclaimed.

Jun 4, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Crypto Banter shows the measurement caveat

Crypto Banter illustrates both the trend and the limits of the available evidence. Its current view velocity is much lower than its subscriber count would suggest, while the historical Social Blade comparison is less reliable because the pages were blocked during normal retrieval.

That limits how precisely earlier monthly-view peaks can be described. The current numbers are still meaningful.

VidIQ shows the channel has 1.18 million subscribers, 190.98 million total views, an estimated $5,460 in monthly AdSense earnings, no subscriber growth in the latest 30-day period, and 1.06 million views in the latest 30-day period. That current pace is far below what the channel's subscriber count might suggest to a casual reader.

Crypto Banter illustrates the broader measurement problem. A channel can retain name recognition and subscriber scale even as current attention shifts. If the next retail impulse is real, it should show up in the current-attention layer before it appears in subscriber totals.

The next test is whether those channels regain view velocity before the rest of the retail stack starts flashing. If 30-day views rise sharply while subscriber counts barely move, that would suggest dormant audiences are reactivating.

If daily upload performance improves across multiple channels at once, that would suggest retail curiosity is broadening rather than clustering around a few resilient creators. If the opposite happens, long-form YouTube could become a later signal in the next retail cycle.

Exchanges, token teams, media brands, and analytics platforms still depend on retail attention moving through channels that users trust enough to revisit. A market driven mainly by ETFs, public-company balance sheets, and policy headlines can lift Bitcoin without recreating the same retail media cycle that defined 2017 or 2021.

Related Reading

Bitcoin ETFs flips back to inflows after $3.8B exited — signaling a potential return of institutional buyers

Bitcoin ETFs just put up their longest outflow streak since early 2025.

Mar 1, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

For now, the evidence points to a more modest conclusion. Crypto YouTube still has large audiences and some resilient channels. But the real retail attention signal is hiding in current view velocity, not in legacy audience size.

The next cycle may start when those monthly and daily view numbers begin moving before the subscriber counts do.

The post Crypto YouTube views collapse in 2026 as viewers turn off crypto channels appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Financial Conduct Authority finalized its UK crypto rulebook on June 30, setting the stage for the next phase of regulation and turning it into a race for firms seeking to maintain full market access when the regime begins in 2027.

The shift is now operational, as the FCA says firms that want to carry out new regulated cryptoasset activities will need authorization under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or a variation of permission if they are already authorized for other regulated business.

That requirement reaches firms already registered with the FCA under anti-money-laundering rules. Existing AML registration does not automatically convert to authorization under the future regime.

In practice, it is a new commercial filter: exchanges, custodians, stablecoin issuers, and other crypto firms have to decide whether the UK warrants a deeper authorization process, earlier compliance work, and ongoing supervision after approval.

The commercial question has expanded beyond whether a firm can meet current AML registration standards. It now includes a question of whether the firm can persuade the FCA that its business model, controls, products, customer base, and regulated activities are ready for a regime expected to start on Oct. 25, 2027.

The FCA gateway resets the access test

The FCA's gateway guidance is blunt on the point that affects existing crypto firms. Firms seeking to undertake new cryptoasset-regulated activities will need FSMA authorization and the relevant permissions.

Firms already authorized under FSMA for other activities will need to vary their existing permissions. Firms registered under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017 face the same requirement for the new regime.

The regulator reiterates this separation in its MLR registration guidance, stating that MLR registration does not guarantee FSMA authorization and that MLR application forms cannot be converted into FSMA applications.

For firms already active in the UK, this creates a practical break between being within today's AML perimeter and being permitted to conduct future regulated cryptoasset activities. AML registration may show a firm has passed one set of checks. It gives limited comfort for the new permission gate.

That is the core filter. A firm that sees the UK as strategically important will need to prepare a full authorization case. A firm that sees the UK as marginal must decide whether the documentation, governance work, and supervisory exposure are justified.

The answer may vary significantly among global exchanges, custody providers, stablecoin issuers, payments-linked businesses, and smaller firms that serve only a limited UK customer base.

The formal application period is expected to open on Sept. 30, 2026, and close on Feb. 28, 2027, according to the FCA's gateway page and its application-period direction.

The same direction sets the window from 9:00 a.m. on Sept. 30, 2026, to 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 28, 2027.

Preparation begins earlier. The FCA says crypto firms considering operating under the new regime can request a pre-application meeting through its pre-application support service, known as PASS. Those meetings are expected to take place starting in July 2026, with scheduling as requests come in.

PASS is optional and free, with a high information threshold. Firms requesting a meeting must provide meaningful supporting information about their proposed business model, products and services, customer types, and analysis of the regulated activities they intend to apply for.

The FCA says it may ask for supporting legal advice and will reject requests that lack meaningful information. It also says pre-application meetings do not guarantee a successful application.

That makes PASS an early readiness test. A firm can apply without a meeting, but a firm that wants one must already understand which activities it plans to carry out and why those activities fall inside the new perimeter.

The firms best placed for the formal window are likely to be those that have already mapped products, permissions, governance, safeguarding, financial crime controls, and customer obligations before the gateway opens.

The FCA has given no indication of capped application numbers or of a strict first-come, first-served process. The bottleneck is more practical. Authorization is a detailed assessment process, and firms that arrive late receive no faster treatment as the regime approaches.

Timing determines the access risk

The gateway creates different outcomes depending on when and whether a firm applies. The important point for market access is that each route carries a different ability to keep or grow UK business once the regime starts.

For in-window applicants, the FCA says it expects to determine applications before the new regime begins. If that assessment remains unfinished, the Treasury's statutory instrument includes a saving provision that can allow a firm to continue providing cryptoasset services until the application is finally determined.

The FCA also notes caveats, including circumstances in which it may direct a firm into the transitional provision instead.

Late applicants face a different problem. The FCA says firms can apply outside the application period, but a late submission will receive no expedited assessment. If a firm applies after the window closes but before the regime starts, and lacks authorization by commencement, it will enter the transitional provision by operation of law while the application is determined.

That transitional route falls short of full access. The FCA says firms under the transitional provision will only be able to conduct new UK-regulated cryptoasset activities to the extent necessary to perform pre-existing contracts.

They cannot enter into new contracts with existing UK customers or new UK customers.

For a consumer-facing exchange, that could mean the difference between maintaining parts of a legacy book and competing for new UK users. For a custodian, it could affect whether new mandates can be signed.

For a stablecoin issuer or related service provider, UK planning could become a question of whether the business can secure the required permissions before the market becomes harder to access.

Firms that do not intend to apply, or that ultimately fail to apply before commencement, face the clearest route out. The FCA says they must wind down their UK cryptoasset business before the new regime commences.

Firms that fail to do so could risk conducting unauthorized business or, for firms already authorized under FSMA, acting without permission.

That makes the application window a point of sorting. Some firms may treat the UK as a core market and move early. Others may limit product offerings, pause expansion, or prepare for run-off if the authorization burden is too high relative to the available UK opportunity.

FCA guidance supports a readiness race shaped by timing, evidence, and assessment, with practical pressure coming from the impact of late status on new business.

Supervision is part of the access decision

The authorization race also carries weight because approval keeps the process open. The FCA says authorized cryptoasset firms will be subject to supervision.

It describes supervision as oversight of firms and individuals controlling firms to reduce actual and potential harm, with a focus on areas where harm is greatest and firms that pose higher risks to its objectives.

The FCA's authorization, supervision and enforcement guidance also states that once authorized, crypto firms will be subject to enforcement powers.

Under FSMA, those powers include financial penalties, public censure, prohibition on individuals from engaging in regulated activity, and prosecution. The FCA says it will apply the same enforcement approach to firms and individuals carrying out new cryptoasset-regulated activities as it does to other regulated firms.

That changes the business case for UK access. The decision includes whether a firm wants to operate in the UK as a supervised financial services business, with the associated controls, documentation, governance, and conduct expectations.

That may favor larger firms with established compliance teams, experience in regulated markets, and sufficient UK revenue to absorb the operational burden. It may push smaller or more lightly staffed firms toward limited activity, delayed entry, or exit.

It may also force global firms to decide whether the UK deserves early internal priority alongside other regulatory projects.

The UK has tried to position its crypto regime as a way to bring activity into a clearer financial-services framework rather than leaving it on the fringes. The gateway is where that policy becomes operational.

Firms that want UK access will need to turn policy monitoring into application preparation, and application preparation into a case the FCA can assess.

The next meaningful signal will be whether crypto firms treat the UK application window as a strategic priority before it opens. A firm that requests PASS with a mature business model analysis is sending a different signal from a firm still trying to decide which activities need permission.

A firm that applies during the window may preserve more optionality than one that waits until the new regime is near. A firm that does not apply is effectively choosing a UK run-off path unless its business falls outside the new regulated activities.

That is why the FCA gateway is consequential now, even though the full regime is expected in 2027. The deadline that shapes commercial behavior includes the preparation cycle before the application window, the window itself, and the access risk that follows for firms that arrive late.

For UK crypto users and counterparties, the result may be a more selective market. For firms, it is a capital-allocation question: spend early effort to compete under FSMA authorization, accept a constrained route if timing slips, or decide the UK is outside the plan for the full process.

The FCA frames the gateway as an authorization process. Its guidance points to something more durable for the market: access will depend on authorization readiness alongside existing AML registration.

By 2027, the firms still competing for UK crypto business may be the ones that treated the gateway as a race long before the starting line became visible.

The post FCA finalizes UK crypto rules as firms face 2027 access deadline appeared first on CryptoSlate.

US regulators have started the compliance clock for stablecoin issuers, with a proposed customer-identification rule that would make direct minting, redemption, and account relationships look more like bank onboarding.

The bigger fight begins after that first customer check. Stablecoins can be bought, transferred, and used across exchanges, wallets, DeFi venues, and smart contracts long after a token leaves the issuer's direct relationship.

A joint proposal from FinCEN, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, and the NCUA would require permitted payment stablecoin issuers to run a written Customer Identification Program, or CIP, as part of their anti-money-laundering controls.

The Federal Register notice, published June 22, sets up a comment period that runs through Aug. 21.

Related Reading

Treasury’s first GENIUS rule tightens Washington’s grip on who can scale stablecoins

The proposal leaves states with a narrow lane while pushing large stablecoin issuers toward federal control.

Apr 2, 2026 · Gino Matos

The agencies are treating the rule as more than a fringe compliance update. In the official notice text, they say roughly 99% of stablecoin transaction activity occurs in the secondary market and that nearly all users of payment stablecoin products are secondary-market users.

That single fact turns a technical CIP rule into a market-structure fight.

The proposed rule would formalize identity checks where an issuer has a direct account relationship with a customer. As drafted, it leaves exchange trades, wallet transfers, DeFi swaps, and smart-contract interactions outside a direct issuer KYC event when no formal issuer relationship exists.

That leaves stablecoins facing a two-layer future: a regulated gate where tokens are minted, redeemed, or held through issuer-facing relationships, and a transfer layer where most usage happens through exchanges, wallets, ledgers, and smart contracts that may sit outside the issuer's direct control.

Issuer relationships are becoming bank-like

The proposed rule follows the GENIUS Act's direction to treat permitted payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. The agencies want issuers to maintain a written CIP appropriate to their size and business, with risk-based procedures to verify customer identity.

In practical terms, issuers would need procedures designed to form a reasonable belief that they know the true identity of each customer. For individuals, that points toward familiar information such as legal name, date of birth, address, and an identification number.

For legal entities, it points toward comparable identifying information and verification procedures.

Those requirements are familiar in banking, broker-dealer, and money-transmission contexts. They are less straightforward with stablecoins because the token can continue to circulate after the initial customer relationship ends.

Related Reading

Stablecoin regulation converts issuers into psuedo-banks while adding a barrier to entry for smaller players

Stablecoin regulation is giving issuers legal clarity, but compliance costs may leave the market to the biggest firms.

Jun 21, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The proposal's account definition does a lot of work. It focuses on a formal relationship with the issuer to obtain financial services or products, including minting, redeeming, custody, or other services offered directly by the issuer.

It also excludes activity in which no formal relationship is established with the issuer, including activity that does not directly involve the issuer as a transaction party, other than through a smart contract.

That distinction turns issuer compliance into a gatekeeping rule instead of a universal identity layer for every token movement. A user who mints directly with an issuer is in a different position from a user who buys the same stablecoin from another trader, an exchange balance, a wallet transfer, or a DeFi pool.

That gatekeeping model also explains why the proposal is more than a checklist for issuers. It determines where stablecoin compliance can be confidently attached: at the point where a company recognizes a customer, records a relationship, and can maintain procedures over time.

The harder question starts when that same dollar token is circulating among people and venues the issuer may never see.

The secondary market is where the pressure builds

The agencies acknowledge the secondary-market problem directly. Their notice discusses the potential benefits of collecting customer information beyond direct issuer relationships, but also says doing so would be practically challenging because issuers have limited ability to collect information once stablecoins move away from direct interactions.

That is the unresolved fight at the center of the proposal. If the compliance perimeter stops at issuance and redemption, issuers become more like regulated doors into and out of the stablecoin system.

If regulators later push identity expectations into secondary-market flows, the effect could land on exchanges, hosted wallets, DeFi front ends, payment processors, analytics vendors, or issuer-controlled smart-contract infrastructure.

Related Reading

Congress on verge of making regulated dollar stablecoins act almost like digital cash

The GENIUS act has already defined what a legal payment stablecoin looks like. Now lawmakers are trying to make those digital dollars practical to use.

Apr 18, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The rule text keeps those venues distinct. It describes secondary-market activity as including on-chain blockchain transactions and off-chain ledger or book transactions at third-party exchanges, and notes that most retail trading occurs off-chain.

That distinction is important for readers who might assume the debate is only about DeFi.

DEXs and smart contracts are the most visible edge case because they test whether compliance can follow token movement without an intermediary account relationship. But the larger question also extends to centralized trading venues, app-based wallets, payment flows, custody products, and internal exchange ledgers, where users may never interact with the issuer.

A bank-style CIP requirement at the primary layer is administratively familiar. A secondary-market identity regime would be a different kind of project, because it would have to decide which actors are responsible for collecting information, which transfers are covered, and how far the obligation follows a token after issuance.

The safest reading of the proposal is that regulators are starting where the issuer relationship is clearest. Direct minting and redemption already create a customer-facing gate. The issuer can request identity information, verify it, maintain records and lists, and design procedures for the relationship.

Permissionless transfer flows work differently. A stablecoin may move through a smart contract, a liquidity pool, a self-custody wallet, a centralized exchange book, or a payment app without the issuer having to open a new account for each holder.

The proposal does not, on its face, make the issuer responsible for identifying every secondary-market user.

The agencies' own discussion points to the next regulatory battleground. If almost all transaction activity occurs in the secondary market, then primary-market CIP rules can make issuer doors more bank-like while still leaving open how far identity checks should travel into the places where stablecoins are actually used.

For DeFi, the question is especially sensitive because a broader rule could pressure interfaces, wallet providers, or protocol-adjacent services even if the smart contract itself has no conventional customer file.

For centralized venues, the question is more likely to concern coordination among regulated intermediaries, issuer reliance, data sharing, and whether existing exchange or money-services compliance covers the policy gap regulators are worried about.

The proposal therefore creates a compliance split rather than closing the debate. Issuers get a clearer path for direct customers. Secondary-market platforms and users receive a signal that regulators see the activity, understand its scale, and are asking where to draw the line next.

The comment window is the next market signal

The live deadline gives the industry a short runway. Comments are due Aug. 21, 60 days after the Federal Register publication.

That creates a concrete window for issuers, exchanges, wallet companies, DeFi developers, banks, consumer groups, and compliance vendors to argue over where the stablecoin identity perimeter should stop.

The key question is where identity checks should end. The proposal strongly points toward direct customer identification at the issuer gate.

The open issue is whether the final rule, guidance, or future rulemaking maintains compliance there or begins building a bridge to secondary-market activity.

If the final rule keeps the current structure, stablecoins may evolve with a more bank-like primary layer and a still-contested transfer layer.

Issuers would face clearer obligations when customers come directly to mint, redeem, or maintain accounts, while most user activity would continue to be governed through exchanges, wallets, DeFi interfaces, and other intermediaries under their own legal frameworks.

If regulators move further, the stablecoin market could face a more consequential redesign. Identity checks could become less about who enters through the issuer and more about which venues, interfaces, and service providers must police token movement after issuance.

The proposal extends beyond the compliance department, as stablecoins are useful precisely because they can move across platforms.

Regulators are now formalizing customer checks at the issuer's door, while the largest share of activity occurs outside that door. The next fight is whether that split remains a practical compromise or becomes the starting point for a broader stablecoin identity regime.

The post US starts clock to bring in ID checks for converting dollars to stablecoins but DeFi stays outside the rules appeared first on CryptoSlate.

JPMorgan has warned that Congress could create new gaps in financial oversight if it moves too quickly to write new rules for the crypto industry.

The warning comes as Senate leaders try to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a broad bill that would divide federal oversight of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The measure has become one of the crypto industry’s top priorities after years of enforcement actions and regulatory disputes.

While JPMorgan did not name the CLARITY Act or take a formal position on the bill, its warning landed as the same issues it flagged, including market oversight, stablecoin incentives, developer exemptions and anti-money laundering tools, are about to shape the Senate vote count.

JPMorgan frames the fight around safeguards

JPMorgan’s intervention turns on one central argument: as digital assets begin to resemble traditional financial products, Congress should regulate them based on what they do, not the technology behind them.

In a Monday post, Umar Farooq, JPMorgan’s global co-head of payments, and Peter Muriungi, chief executive officer of Digital Assets and Blockchain Solutions, said digital assets are moving deeper into payments, settlement, trading and products that increasingly overlap with familiar financial services.

They said tokenization and programmable money could reduce payment friction, shorten settlement cycles and make markets more efficient. But those gains, they argued, depend on rules that preserve safeguards around investor protection, consumer balances and illicit finance.

The bank said a tokenized product should not be exempt from existing obligations simply because it is issued or traded on a blockchain.

If a token behaves like a security, investors should expect disclosure, custody and market integrity standards to apply. If a decentralized platform performs broker or exchange-like functions, it should carry obligations that support fair and transparent markets.

They wrote:

“When guardrails are weak or unclear, risk doesn’t disappear. It shifts and concentrates.”

That concern is sharpest in payments, where stablecoins have become one of crypto’s most commercially important use cases.

JPMorgan said stablecoins and tokenized money could support faster settlement, especially across borders.

However, the bank warned that payment products can drift into shadow banking when issuers or platforms offer rewards, cashback, or yield-like incentives for holding balances, without the capital, liquidity, supervision, and consumer protection rules that apply to traditional deposits.

That argument has become a central demand from banks as Congress writes crypto rules. Traditional lenders say crypto firms should not be allowed to compete with bank deposits while avoiding the costs and oversight attached to regulated banking.

JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has been one of the most visible critics of stablecoin yield. Although lawmakers rejected the banking industry’s push for an outright ban during earlier negotiations, banks continue to seek tighter limits.

Jaret Seiberg of TD Cowen reportedly said he does not expect major changes to the bill’s stablecoin yield provisions, a sign that crypto supporters believe they can pass the legislation despite bank opposition.

Meanwhile, JPMorgan’s warning also extends beyond deposits. The bank said digital asset legislation should preserve anti-money laundering and law enforcement tools, arguing that exemptions for core parts of the crypto ecosystem could create blind spots around illicit finance, opaque ownership and market manipulation.

The firm paired that caution with a reminder that it is already building in the sector. JPMorgan pointed to Kinexys by J.P. Morgan, its blockchain business, and JPM Coin, a deposit token used for near-instant, 24/7 settlement among institutional clients.

That gives the bank’s warning its sharper edge. JPMorgan is making the case for digital assets to expand within a framework that preserves the oversight that supports existing markets.

July push turns CLARITY into a test of crypto’s Washington muscle

The cautious approach advocated by JPMorgan is colliding with a coordinated effort by congressional leaders, the White House, and digital asset advocates to move the CLARITY Act through Congress before lawmakers leave for their August recess.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott is pushing for a July vote, arguing that formal rules are needed to protect consumers while keeping digital asset development in the US. His urgency is echoed by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has urged the chamber to take up crypto market structure legislation before the August break.

The executive branch has also reinforced the compressed timeline. Patrick Witt, who directs the president’s digital assets council, framed the coming weeks as an important moment for US crypto policy, casting the legislation as part of a broader effort to strengthen American leadership in global financial markets.

That push reflects how much the bill has come to represent for a sector worn down by years of legal battles, enforcement actions, and recurring disputes over whether digital tokens should be treated as securities or commodities.

For many crypto firms, the CLARITY Act is the most realistic near-term path to a federal market structure framework.

Despite the momentum, proponents face a narrow legislative window to resolve difficult disagreements.

While the Senate Banking Committee approved the bill with a 15–9 vote in May, that initial victory did not settle the disputes now confronting leadership.

Negotiators still need to determine whether the framework can survive floor amendments, attract enough Democratic support to clear procedural hurdles, and coordinate with the House before the summer deadline.

As part of that broader push, the House Financial Services Committee has scheduled a field hearing in New York for July 17 to highlight the legislation’s potential to support financial innovation.

Still, market strategists say the calendar remains one of the bill’s biggest obstacles. Seiberg indicated that formal Senate consideration could begin during the week of July 13, setting up possible floor action during the week of July 20. He identified July 24 as a key deadline because the House is expected to leave Washington for its August recess.

According to him, missing that window could complicate the bill’s path, as the fall session is likely to be shaped by midterm election campaigns. Lawmakers may be less willing to take politically difficult votes on complex regulatory issues shortly before facing voters, making a post-recess revival uncertain.

That uncertainty is already changing expectations. Galaxy Digital recently cut its estimate of the odds that the CLARITY Act will become law in 2026 to 50%, citing a shrinking Senate calendar and unresolved policy disputes.

Related Reading

CLARITY Act chances of passage this year falls to 50% after Trump’s new demands

The CLARITY Act is losing momentum as lawmakers juggle housing, elections, defense and surveillance battles.

Jun 29, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Those deadlines would be difficult even for a settled bill. They are more difficult now because the CLARITY Act is moving toward the floor with its most politically sensitive dispute still unresolved.

Ethics fight threatens the 60-vote path

The steepest hurdle to securing the requisite 60 votes in the Senate is an intensifying clash over government ethics.

Democrats are seeking restrictions on cryptocurrency business activity by public officials and their families, including the president.

The demand has become one of the bill’s main obstacles because Republicans may have to vote down those amendments to preserve the legislation, even as some members of their own conference face political risk in doing so.

Seiberg said GOP leaders are unlikely to take that risk unless they are confident President Donald Trump will sign the final bill.

That confidence has weakened, he said, after Trump recently refused to sign a housing bill negotiated by his own administration and said he would not sign legislation until Congress passes the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

Seiberg said it is not clear that Republicans have the votes to defeat an ethics amendment, pointing to moderate and retiring GOP senators, including Thom Tillis, Mitch McConnell, Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, as lawmakers to watch.

In view of this, Jake Chervinsky of the Hyperliquid Policy Center said the bill’s fate remains unusually uncertain for major legislation in Washington. He said negotiators are still working, but there is no final deal, and the ethics issue remains the main blocker.

According to him:

“The challenge is that there likely won't be a clear “yes” without putting the bill on the floor for a vote, but it's hard to justify using limited floor time on a bill that might not pass.”

Still, he characterized July as a “now or never” scenario despite the unusual level of unpredictability surrounding the legislation.

The post JPMorgan warns rushed US crypto rules could create market loopholes as Senate races toward July CLARITY Act vote appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The crypto market is bleeding again, but the biggest story may not be the Bitcoin crash itself.

Bitcoin has slipped below the $59,000 level, Ethereum is trading near $1,560, and most major altcoins are flashing red. Dogecoin, TRON, XRP, BNB and Litecoin are all under pressure, while only a few names such as Zcash, Stellar and Hyperliquid are showing relative strength.

At first glance, this looks like another risk-off day for crypto. But behind the sell-off, a much bigger shift is taking place: some of the world’s largest financial and payment companies are moving deeper into stablecoins.

A new initiative called Open Standard has launched a global dollar-backed stablecoin named Open USD, with major names including Visa, Mastercard and Coinbase involved. Reports also point to backing or participation from companies such as BlackRock, Google and Stripe, making this one of the most important stablecoin stories of the year.

The result is a strange but important contradiction: crypto prices are falling, but crypto infrastructure is becoming more institutional than ever.

What Is Open USD?

Open USD is a new U.S. dollar-backed stablecoin designed to make digital dollar payments cheaper, easier and more scalable for businesses.

According to Reuters, the project is being launched by a consortium of more than 140 participating businesses under the Open Standard initiative. The stablecoin is designed to be freely minted and redeemed by businesses, with no volume restrictions. The model also includes shared reserve earnings for participating consortium members after a management fee.

That detail is important.

Stablecoins are already one of the most useful parts of crypto. They allow users and businesses to move dollars onchain without relying on traditional banking rails for every transfer. But the market is still dominated by a small number of players, mainly Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC.

Open USD appears to be targeting that dominance by offering a more open, business-friendly model. Instead of just creating another dollar token, the project seems designed as a shared infrastructure layer for companies that want access to stablecoin payments without building everything from scratch.

Why Visa and Mastercard Entering Stablecoins Matters

For years, stablecoins were seen as a crypto-native product. Traders used USDT and USDC to move between exchanges, avoid volatility and park liquidity during market swings.

Now, the biggest payment networks in the world are no longer watching from the sidelines.

Visa and Mastercard entering deeper into stablecoin infrastructure suggests that the payment industry sees digital dollars as a long-term part of global settlement. This does not mean stablecoins will replace credit cards tomorrow. But it does mean the biggest players in payments are preparing for a world where money moves faster, cheaper and across borders with fewer intermediaries.

Mastercard has already been expanding settlement capabilities to include stablecoins, intraday transfers, weekend settlement and holiday settlement options. That shows the company is not treating stablecoins as a temporary trend, but as part of the next payment infrastructure cycle.

This is why the Open USD launch matters more than a normal token launch. It is not a meme coin. It is not another speculative altcoin. It is a sign that traditional finance and crypto payment rails are moving closer together.

Could Open USD Challenge USDT and USDC?

The real question is whether Open USD can compete with USDT and USDC.

USDT remains the largest stablecoin in crypto and is deeply integrated across global exchanges. USDC, meanwhile, has stronger regulatory and institutional positioning, especially in the United States. Together, they dominate the digital dollar market.

But Open USD has one major advantage: distribution.

If Visa, Mastercard, Coinbase, Stripe, BlackRock and other major companies support the same stablecoin infrastructure, Open USD could gain faster access to businesses, wallets, exchanges, payment platforms and fintech apps.

That does not guarantee success. Stablecoins need trust, liquidity, regulatory clarity and deep integrations. Traders and businesses do not switch stablecoins just because a new one launches. They switch when the new option is cheaper, safer, faster or more useful.

Still, the launch could pressure both USDT and USDC. If Open USD succeeds, the stablecoin market could become less about crypto exchanges alone and more about payments, business settlement and mainstream financial infrastructure.

Why This Is Happening While Bitcoin Is Crashing

The timing is what makes this story powerful.

Bitcoin is showing weakness below $59,000, and technical sentiment across the market looks fragile. Many major coins are trading with “sell” or “strong sell” signals, while altcoins remain under pressure.

Normally, a Bitcoin crash dominates the crypto news cycle. But this time, the market is split between short-term price fear and long-term infrastructure adoption.

That is the key point: prices can crash while adoption continues.

In previous cycles, crypto infrastructure often slowed down during bear markets. This time, payment giants, banks and asset managers are still building. JPMorgan has also been talking about digital assets moving closer to the core of the financial system, especially through tokenization and programmable money.

This creates a very different market narrative.

Retail traders may be asking whether Bitcoin is heading to $55,000 or lower. Institutions, meanwhile, appear to be asking how stablecoins, tokenized assets and digital settlement systems can become part of the financial system.

Is This Bullish for Crypto?

Open USD is not automatically bullish for Bitcoin in the short term.

A new stablecoin does not mean BTC will reverse today. It also does not mean Ethereum, Solana, XRP or BNB will immediately recover. The market is still dealing with weak momentum, low confidence and heavy selling pressure.

But from a structural perspective, this is bullish for the crypto industry.

Stablecoins are one of the clearest real-world use cases in crypto. They are used for payments, trading, settlements, remittances, cross-border transfers and onchain liquidity. If major global companies are now competing to build stablecoin infrastructure, that supports the argument that crypto is not disappearing — it is becoming more embedded in traditional finance.

The market may be crashing, but the infrastructure layer is expanding.

That is why this story matters.

The Bigger Picture: Stablecoins Are Becoming the Mainstream Crypto Use Case

For years, Bitcoin was the face of crypto. Then came Ethereum, DeFi, NFTs, meme coins and ETFs. But stablecoins may now be the sector’s most important bridge to the real world.

They do not need users to believe in price appreciation. They do not need people to speculate. They simply need to be useful.

Businesses want faster settlement. Payment companies want cheaper rails. Fintech apps want global dollar access. Crypto exchanges need deep liquidity. Institutions want tokenized cash equivalents that can move across blockchain networks.

Stablecoins sit at the centre of all of that.

That is why Open USD could become one of the most important launches of the year. Not because it will pump like a meme coin, but because it shows that the stablecoin race is entering a new phase.

Final Thoughts

The crypto market looks weak today. Bitcoin is below $59,000, Ethereum is struggling, and most large-cap altcoins are trading in the red.

But the launch of Open USD tells a different story.

While traders focus on the crash, Visa, Mastercard, Coinbase, BlackRock and other major players are moving deeper into stablecoins. That means the next crypto battle may not only be about Bitcoin price predictions or altcoin pumps. It may be about who controls the future of digital dollars.

If Open USD gains adoption, the stablecoin war could become one of the biggest crypto narratives of the year.

For now, Bitcoin may be falling. But the financial giants are still building.

It's been a brutal week across the crypto market, but some tokens got hit far harder than others. While $Bitcoin and $Ethereum bled on macro pressure, a handful of altcoins suffered eye-watering collapses — led by a meme-coin platform that lost three-quarters of its value in a matter of days.

Here are the 5 cryptos that crashed hardest over the past 7 days, ranked by their losses, along with the reason behind each drop.

5 Cryptos That Crashed Hardest This Week 

1. MemeCore ($M): down 75.75%

The week's undisputed worst performer is MemeCore, which cratered a staggering 75.75% over 7 days, now trading around $0.6894 with a market cap of roughly $909M. Notably, it's actually up 16% on the day — a small dead-cat bounce after the carnage.

This was a textbook thin-liquidity implosion. MemeCore's token price fell from $3 to $0.50 in less than 30 minutes on Wednesday evening, with low trading volume and concentrated insider ownership making it vulnerable to a sudden crash. The structural red flags were there all along. Most of the supply is held by a handful of insiders, and the token carried allegations of insider-driven market price manipulation, limited trading volume, and listings on just a handful of exchanges.

The trigger remains murky, but the mechanics are clear. It's unclear what started the drop, but with minimal active bidding, it didn't take much to consume MemeCore's available market liquidity. The one silver lining: the crash cleared out most of the excess leverage, with nearly $8 million in long positions liquidated, and price has since shown early signs of stabilization around the $0.65 level.

2. Ethena ($ENA): down 63.58%

Ethena's ENA token was the second-worst performer, down a brutal 63.58% YTD and bleeding 8.20% on the day, now trading near $0.07270 with a $675.7M market cap.

ENA's problem is structural and well-flagged: token unlocks. ENA remains exposed to token unlock pressure, where a large portion of supply has already been unlocked while the remaining supply continues to vest — and these unlocks can limit price recovery by creating steady selling pressure even when the underlying project has strong adoption. The core challenge is one of demand. ENA still has to prove that protocol growth actually translates into token demand, and until that becomes clearer, it remains a token with weak near-term momentum.

It's not all bleak, though — there are genuine catalysts brewing. Ethena-backed StablecoinX completed its merger with TLGY Acquisition Corp and is set to begin trading on Nasdaq under the ticker USDE, expanding its stablecoin infrastructure business. 

3. Mantle ($MNT): down 56.08%

Mantle is next, down 56.08% over the period and trading around $0.4224 with a $1.39B market cap. It was also among the day's biggest losers. Mantle (MNT) fell 13.19% in 24 hours to around $0.43, with trading activity near $62.62 million, ranking it among the top losers of the day. -

Mantle's decline has been less about a single scandal and more about the broader risk-off rotation hammering mid-cap altcoins. As capital flees to safety and Bitcoin dominance climbs, ecosystem and Layer-2 tokens like MNT tend to suffer outsized drawdowns with little token-specific news to cushion the fall.

4. Worldcoin ($WLD): down 25.75% (7d)

Worldcoin, now trading around $0.4179 with a $1.46B market cap, fell 25.75% over 7 days. But unlike MemeCore's panic implosion, WLD's drop looks far healthier. Worldcoin's decline looks more like a cooldown after a strong multi-week run — it had rallied for five straight weeks, putting plenty of short-term holders into profit, so profit-taking was always on the cards.

That distinction matters: a pullback driven by profit-taking after a sustained rally is a very different animal from a liquidity-driven collapse. WLD is still up 1.03% on the hour, hinting at some stabilization.

5. Cosmos ($ATOM): down 21.30% (YTD)

Rounding out the list is Cosmos, trading around $1.51 with a $782.5M market cap, down 21.30% YTD and 13.70% over 7 days. Like Mantle, ATOM's weakness is largely a victim of the broader environment rather than any single headline.

As an established Layer-0 ecosystem token without a fresh catalyst, ATOM has been swept up in the same risk-off tide pulling capital out of altcoins and into Bitcoin. With sentiment firmly in "Bitcoin Season," even fundamentally solid projects like Cosmos struggle to attract buyers, leaving them to drift lower alongside the broader altcoin market.

Why are Altcoins Down?

None of these drops happened in a vacuum. The entire market has been under heavy pressure, and the macro backdrop explains why speculative altcoins fell hardest. Capital has been running toward safety rather than risk, with Bitcoin dominance climbing above 58% and the Altcoin Season Index deep in "Bitcoin Season" territory.

The drivers are familiar: a hawkish Fed, ETF outflows, and broad risk aversion. Markets are now pricing in a rate hike in 2026 after previously expecting cuts, sustained Bitcoin ETF outflows have added pressure, and capital is rotating toward AI narratives and institutional partnerships rather than memecoins and speculative tokens.

The biggest fear hanging over markets right now isn't a crypto problem at all — it's artificial intelligence. A growing chorus of analysts is warning that the AI boom has inflated into a bubble, and that an AI bubble crash could send shockwaves straight into Bitcoin ($BTC) and the broader crypto market.

Here's the uncomfortable part: the early warning signs analysts flagged have already played out. Crypto has been bleeding for months as capital rotated out of digital assets and into AI stocks — Bitcoin has already fallen from above $100K to around $60K. So the real question now isn't "what if there's a small AI wobble." It's: what happens if the AI bubble actually crashes from here, on top of an already-weakened market?

What is the AI bubble — and why are analysts warning about it?

The "AI bubble" refers to the fear that valuations across AI stocks and infrastructure have inflated far beyond what the underlying economics justify. The warning signs are flashing in institutional surveys. In a Bank of America survey, 45% of fund managers flagged an "AI bubble" as the market's biggest tail risk, up from just 11% two months earlier, and more than half said they believe AI stocks are already trading in bubble territory due to huge spending and poor return on investment.

The core problem is a massive mismatch between spending and revenue. Financial analyst HedgieMarkets warned the AI boom risks a far harsher crash than the 2000s dot-com bubble, arguing the sector spent roughly $400 billion to generate just $60 billion in revenue in 2025, with most firms seeing no returns. Worse, the way it's been financed makes it fragile. Unlike the equity-funded dot-com era, today's AI expansion is debt-driven, raising the risk of cascading failures across private equity, banks, insurers and already-stressed consumers if growth expectations collapse.

The scale of the liquidity involved is staggering. Arthur Hayes estimates roughly $1.5 trillion in debt was issued by hyperscalers and AI infrastructure companies between November 2022 and mid-2026 — almost exactly matching the $1.5 trillion rise in M2 money supply over the same period — leading him to argue "AI sucked up all created dollars."

The correction analysts warned about has already started

This is the key context most coverage misses. Back in late 2025, when analysts first sounded the alarm, $Bitcoin was trading above $100K, and the warning was that an AI-driven risk-off move could drag it down toward $60K–$75K.

At the time, that was the bear case. Analysts warned Bitcoin could fall to the $60,000–$75,000 range if the AI bubble pops, with institutional support helping limit losses compared to past crashes. There was even a fundamental floor argument. Analyst Nomad Bullstreet suggested Bitcoin's price may not decline below its average production cost, estimated around $71,000–$75,000.

But here's the thing: the market has already fallen into that zone. Bitcoin slid from above $100K all the way to around $60K — and the driver was exactly the dynamic analysts described. The warning was never about AI directly attacking crypto code — it's about capital, the vast rivers of speculative money that have flowed into both sectors. A loss of faith in AI valuations would trigger a broad risk-off panic, and digital assets, sitting on the speculative end of the spectrum, often get sold first.

In other words, the mild correction the analysts forecast isn't a future risk — it's already happened. Capital has been rotating out of crypto and into AI infrastructure all year, and Bitcoin pre-emptively priced in a lot of that pain. The old $60K–$75K "production cost floor" has already broken.

That reframes everything. The relevant question is no longer "what if AI corrects" — it's "what if the bubble actually crashes now, from a starting point that's already deep in the red?"

How would a full AI bubble crash hit crypto from here?

If the warned-about rotation was phase one, an outright crash would be phase two — and it would land on a market with far less cushion than it had at $100K.

Crypto's behavior makes it especially vulnerable. The crypto market in 2026 continues to act as a high-beta risk asset, meaning it tends to amplify broader market sentiment, particularly in response to tech and AI-linked equity volatility — and a crash could trigger an outsized initial drop even if crypto fundamentals haven't changed.

There's also a forced-selling dimension that accelerates everything. Institutional funds and quantitative traders that allocate across both tech stocks and crypto may cut both simultaneously in times of stress, while leveraged positions in crypto futures and perpetuals can trigger cascading liquidations that accelerate the downward move. And the liquidity logic is brutal: if AI stocks collapse, no excess capital remains to flow into Bitcoin, and banks that lent against AI valuations would pull back credit, tightening conditions broadly.

It's not unanimously bearish, though. Some see a crash as ultimately bullish for Bitcoin further out. Arthur Hayes believes an AI bubble crash could create short-term pressure on Bitcoin, but his long-term outlook remains bullish because a major market shock could push governments and central banks back toward liquidity support, stimulus, and money printing — a "dump then pump" thesis.

The extreme bear case: Bitcoin at $20K, ETH at $800?

Here's the scenario circulating among the most aggressive bears — and a clear caveat upfront: these are worst-case, low-probability targets that would require a full systemic financial crisis, not just a sector correction.

But with Bitcoin already at ~$60K — having broken the old "floor" — a true AI bubble crash from current levels is what makes these deeper targets even thinkable. In a systemic unwind, where the AI bubble crashes violently, debt-driven contagion spreads to banks and credit markets, and crypto's high-beta nature plays out fully, the speculative cascade from here looks like:

• Bitcoin ($BTC) toward $20,000 — roughly another 65% down from current levels, requiring the institutional bid to evaporate entirely amid forced selling.
• Ethereum ($ETH) toward $800 — consistent with ETH's tendency to fall harder than BTC, amplified by relentless ETF outflows.
• XRP ($XRP) toward $0.30 — reflecting how altcoins typically lose multiples of Bitcoin's percentage in a deep flush.
• Solana ($SOL) toward $20 — among the most exposed, given its high-beta profile and reliance on speculative capital.

Be clear-eyed about what this requires: not just an AI correction (which has arguably already begun), but a full-blown global financial crisis with cascading credit failures. As one expert warned, economic historian Carlota Perez cautioned that an AI and crypto bust could lead to a global economic collapse of "unimaginable proportions." That's the tail risk these numbers reflect — a doomsday cascade, not the probable path.

Will the AI Bubble Affect Crypto Prices?

The framing that matters most: the correction analysts warned about has largely already happened — that's a big part of why Bitcoin fell from $100K to $60K as capital rotated into AI. What hasn't happened yet is a full AI bubble crash, and if it comes, it would hit a market that's already weakened and has far less cushion than it did six months ago.

That's what makes the extreme targets — BTC $20K, ETH $800, XRP $0.30, SOL $20 — worth knowing as a worst-case stress test. They're not a base-case forecast; they'd require systemic financial contagion, not just an AI sector wobble. But starting from $60K rather than $100K, the downside math is no longer as far-fetched as it once sounded.

The smart takeaway: respect the AI-correlation risk, keep your leverage in check, and watch the Nasdaq and AI-stock sentiment as closely as the crypto charts — because right now, that's where Bitcoin's next big move is being decided.

What Is Coinbase One?

Coinbase One is Coinbase's paid subscription membership. Instead of paying a fee on every trade, members pay a flat recurring price and unlock zero-fee trading up to a monthly cap, along with a bundle of rewards, protection, and support benefits.

The idea is simple: turn a series of per-trade costs into one predictable subscription, while layering on perks that active users tend to value. Coinbase One began in the US as a straightforward subscription that let traders pay zero trading fees up to $10,000 in monthly volume, and has since expanded in both geography and benefits. It has grown into a sizeable community — the membership has passed 600,000 members across 42 countries.

How Much Does Coinbase One Cost?

Coinbase One now comes in three tiers, so members can match their plan to how much they trade. Basic costs $4.99 monthly or $49.99 yearly, Preferred costs $29.99 or $299.99, and Premium costs $299.99 or $2,999.99.

The zero-fee trading allowance scales with each tier:

• Basic — waives trading fees up to $500 in monthly volume.
• Preferred — waives trading fees up to $10,000 in monthly volume.
• Premium — advertises unlimited zero-fee trading.

What Benefits Does Coinbase One Include?

Beyond zero-fee trading, the membership bundles several features designed to add ongoing value:

• USDC rewards. Members earn 3.5% APY on USDC balances, with daily accrual, weekly Friday payouts, no minimum balance, and the choice to receive rewards in USDC or $Bitcoin.
• Advanced trading rebate. Preferred and Premium members can receive 25% back on Coinbase Advanced spot fees in USDC, capped at $100 monthly.
• Boosted staking and onchain rewards, including free gas on Base.
• Account protection. Up to $250,000 of protection against unauthorized access to your account.
• Priority support. Preferred and Premium members get 24/7 priority support, typically connecting with a representative within minutes — and Premium members gain access to a concierge desk with a dedicated account manager.

Does Coinbase One Remove All Fees?

It's worth being clear on what zero-fee actually means. Coinbase One removes the explicit trading fee on eligible buys and sells up to your tier's cap, but it doesn't eliminate every cost. Quoted prices can still include a spread, and the zero-fee benefit is not universal across all order types or products. Understanding this distinction helps members set accurate expectations about their real all-in trading costs.

Who Is Coinbase One For?

Coinbase One is built around a simple question: will the benefits you use outweigh the subscription you pay? That makes it a strong fit for some users and unnecessary for others.

It tends to serve these groups well:

• Frequent traders who would otherwise pay recurring per-trade fees, and can offset the subscription through the zero-fee allowance.
• Long-term holders with meaningful balances, who benefit from USDC rewards and account protection.
• Active Coinbase ecosystem users who stake, use Base, or trade on Coinbase Advanced and can stack the rebate and reward perks.

The membership can pay for itself through fee discounts, USDC rewards, and card cashback for users who hold a significant amount on Coinbase or trade frequently.

When Might Coinbase One Not Be Worth It?

To keep things balanced, the subscription isn't for everyone. For casual traders who won't take full advantage of the benefits, Coinbase Advanced offers low fees for free without any subscription. If your trading volume is light and you don't hold much USDC or use the wider ecosystem, the math may not justify the monthly cost. The lower-priced Basic tier exists partly to address this, giving occasional users an entry point at a smaller commitment.

Is There a Coinbase One Card?

Yes. There's a related product, the Coinbase One Card, a US-only American Express credit card offering 2–4% Bitcoin back on spending. It's tied directly to the membership: an active, paid Coinbase One subscription is required to open and maintain the card, and if the membership lapses, the card account may be closed.

Is Coinbase One Worth It?

Coinbase One packages several perks — zero-fee trading, USDC yield, staking boosts, protection, and priority support — into a single subscription with tiers to match different activity levels. For users who trade regularly, hold meaningful balances, or lean into the broader Coinbase ecosystem, the benefits can comfortably outweigh the cost. For lighter, occasional users, the free Coinbase Advanced route may make more sense.

The practical takeaway is to estimate how much you'll actually use each benefit, then weigh that against your chosen tier's price. With the option to cancel anytime and a low-cost Basic entry point, it's straightforward to test whether the membership fits how you use Coinbase.

Disclaimers:

1. Trading in crypto is highly risky and may not be suitable for all as the entire amount invested could be lost.
2. Information is provided for informational purposes only and is not investment advice. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell a particular digital asset or to employ a particular investment strategy.
3. Coinbase offers simple and advanced trading in eligible jurisdictions. Advanced trading is for experienced traders and is subject to the Trading Rules. Fees on the two platforms vary; maker fees based on volume. 
4. Staking is available only in eligible jurisdictions and for eligible networks. Rewards rate is based on the estimated protocol rate and is subject to change. Terms apply.
5. Coinbase One zero trading fees: Coinbase Advanced, DEX fees, and derivatives excluded. Coinbase includes a spread in the price when you buy, sell, or convert cryptocurrencies. For Basic and Preferred tiers, a monthly trading volume limit (found in member home) applies. Trades over this limit incur trading fees.  

Polymarket Hack: A Major Warning for Prediction Markets

Polymarket has become one of the most talked-about platforms in crypto, especially as prediction markets continue to attract traders, political observers, sports fans and macro speculators. But the latest Polymarket hack is now testing one of the sector’s biggest questions: can prediction markets go mainstream if users still face serious security risks?

According to recent reports, hackers stole around $3.1 million from 11 user wallets after a third-party vendor connected to Polymarket was compromised. The attack reportedly allowed malicious code to be injected into the platform’s frontend for some users, leading to stolen funds before the issue was contained.

Polymarket has promised to refund affected users in full, which may help reduce the immediate damage. But the bigger issue is not just whether users get their money back. The bigger issue is trust.

Prediction markets are built on the idea that users can trade on real-world outcomes, from elections and sports to economic data and global events. But if users start worrying about frontend attacks, wallet drains and third-party vulnerabilities, the industry could face a much harder path toward mainstream adoption.

What Happened in the Polymarket Hack?

The Polymarket hack was not reported as a direct failure of the platform’s core market idea. Instead, the issue appears to have come from a compromised third-party vendor. This allowed attackers to inject malicious code into Polymarket’s website for some users.

That distinction matters.

A smart contract exploit would raise questions about Polymarket’s core settlement infrastructure. A frontend or supply-chain attack raises a different concern: even if the core protocol is secure, users can still be exposed if the website, vendor stack or software dependencies are compromised.

In this case, the reported losses reached around $3.1 million in PUSD from 11 user wallets. The stolen funds were reportedly moved from Polygon to Ethereum, showing how quickly attackers can shift assets across chains once funds are drained.

Polymarket said the incident was contained and that affected users would be refunded. That response is important, but it does not erase the reputational damage. For many users, the question now becomes simple: if a major prediction market can be hit through its frontend, how safe is the average user really?

Why This Hack Matters Beyond Polymarket

The timing of the hack is especially important because prediction markets have been gaining serious attention. Polymarket is no longer just a niche crypto platform. It has become a place where traders try to price real-world probabilities before traditional media, polls or analysts catch up.

That is exactly why the hack matters.

When a platform becomes more popular, it also becomes a bigger target. Hackers do not only attack obscure DeFi protocols anymore. They target platforms with liquidity, attention, and users who are already connecting wallets and approving transactions.

This is the risk that many crypto users underestimate. A platform can look smooth, simple and mainstream on the surface, while still carrying the same wallet-level risks that exist across Web3.

Prediction markets want to become the future of information trading. But for that to happen, they need more than exciting markets and viral screenshots. They need users to believe that the platform is safe enough to trust with real money.

The Bigger Problem: Frontend Risk in Crypto

One of the biggest lessons from the Polymarket hack is that crypto security is not only about smart contracts. Users often hear that a protocol is audited, decentralized or on-chain, and assume that means they are fully protected.

But frontend risk is different.

If a website is compromised, users may be tricked into signing malicious transactions without realizing what is happening. If a third-party dependency is attacked, even a trusted platform can become dangerous for some users. If a wallet approval is abused, funds can disappear quickly.

This is why supply-chain attacks are so serious. They do not always require breaking the blockchain. They can target the layers around the blockchain: websites, vendors, scripts, hosting services, browser wallets or software packages.

For Polymarket, the problem is not only the dollar amount stolen. The problem is that the attack reminds users that crypto platforms still depend on many off-chain systems, even when the final settlement happens on-chain.

Are Prediction Markets Ready for Mainstream Adoption?

Prediction markets have a strong argument. They can turn public opinion into tradable probabilities, often reacting faster than traditional forecasts. During major political, sports and macro events, they can become powerful real-time sentiment tools.

But mainstream adoption requires trust.

A casual user may accept price volatility. They may accept that a bet can lose. But they are less likely to accept losing funds because of a hacked vendor, malicious frontend or wallet-draining script.

This is the challenge facing Polymarket and the broader prediction market sector. The product is interesting. The demand is real. The narratives are strong. But the security model still has to become easier, clearer and safer for ordinary users.

If prediction markets remain too risky for non-technical users, they may stay popular with crypto-native traders but struggle to reach a truly mainstream audience.

Could the Hack Slow Polymarket’s Growth?

The short-term damage may be limited if every affected user is fully refunded. In crypto, quick refunds can help calm panic and show that a platform is willing to protect users.

However, the long-term impact depends on transparency.

Users will want to know how the attack happened, which vendor was compromised, what was changed after the incident, and how similar attacks will be prevented in the future. Without clear answers, the hack could become a trust problem rather than just a security incident.

The platform also faces a bigger perception risk. Polymarket’s appeal comes from being fast, sharp and ahead of the crowd. But if users start associating it with hacks, insider concerns, or wallet risks, that image could weaken.

This does not mean Polymarket is finished. Far from it. But it does mean the platform now has to prove that it can protect users at the same speed that it scales.

What Users Should Learn From the Polymarket Hack

The main lesson is simple: in crypto, the website matters as much as the wallet.

Users should be careful with wallet approvals, avoid keeping more funds than needed on active trading platforms, and regularly check which contracts have access to their assets. Hardware wallets, separate trading wallets and limited approvals can reduce risk, especially for users interacting with DeFi or prediction markets.

But this should not be only the user’s responsibility. Platforms also need stronger security monitoring, safer frontend systems, better vendor controls and clearer warnings when users are signing sensitive transactions.

If prediction markets want mainstream users, they cannot rely on crypto-native habits alone. They need security that feels simple, visible and reliable.

Final Thoughts: The Prediction Market Boom Just Got a Reality Check

The Polymarket hack does not end the prediction market story. In fact, it may prove how important the sector has become. Hackers usually follow attention, liquidity and growth. Polymarket has all three.

But the incident is still a major reality check.

Prediction markets are trying to become one of crypto’s most useful real-world applications. They offer a new way to trade information, sentiment and probability. Yet the $3.1 million hack shows that the industry still has to solve basic trust and security problems before it can fully go mainstream.

Polymarket’s promise to refund affected users is a positive step. But the real test comes next: whether the platform can convince traders that this was a contained incident, not a warning sign of deeper infrastructure risk.

For now, the prediction market hype is still alive. But after this hack, users may be much more careful before placing their next bet.

Crypto exchange Binance and its founder were sued for nearly $200 million in a new lawsuit filed in the United Kingdom.

Anthropic's new mid-tier model Claude Sonnet 5 arrives as Fable and Mythos sit boxed up under a U.S. export order.

The tokenized NYLIM Anemoy U.S. High Yield Corporate Bond Segregated Portfolio is launching in collaboration with Centrifuge.

A Michigan judge granted a restraining order preventing the prediction market from offering sports-related wagers for the next 14 days.

The forthcoming Open USD has more than 100 major supporters onboard, including Coinbase—a key backer of Circle’s USDC.

Ripple's RLUSD stablecoin continues to contract as a newly announced consortium-backed rival promises to reshape the stablecoin landscape.

Crypto treasury Evernorth breaks down why Ripple USD expansion isn’t hurting XRP, revealing how the stablecoin actually drives network activity.

OKX founder explains back story about his ordeal with Binance's founder as new accusations emerge, prolonging.

Ripple has joined an unprecedented consortium of over 140 financial, technological, and crypto heavyweights, including BlackRock, Mastercard, Google, and Visa, to adopt "Open USD."

Peter Brandt predicts that Michael Saylor’s new framework could spark a massive Bitcoin supply cascade, not limited to $1.25 billion.

TLDR

• Circle stock dropped more than 16% after Open USD was announced.
• Open USD is backed by major firms including Visa, Mastercard, and BlackRock.
• The project introduces a revenue-sharing model that differs from USDC.
• Circle and Coinbase currently earn income from USDC reserve assets.
• Open USD allows users to mint and redeem tokens without fees.

Circle stock declined sharply after a new stablecoin initiative raised competitive pressure on USDC. The market reacted quickly as Open USD entered the sector with strong institutional backing. Consequently, Circle stock faced selling pressure while Coinbase shares also moved lower.

Open USD Aims to Challenge USDC Dominance

Circle stock dropped more than 16% as investors reacted to the Open USD announcement. The new stablecoin project introduced a competing model with broad industry support. As a result, Circle stock reflected concerns about possible market share erosion.

Open Standard leads the Open USD initiative alongside major financial and technology companies. The coalition includes Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock, and Bank of New York Mellon. It also includes Coinbase, Google, IBM, and several global banks and crypto firms.

However, Circle, Tether, and PayPal did not join the consortium behind Open USD. This absence highlighted a direct competitive line between existing issuers and the new network. Therefore, Circle stock faced additional pressure as markets assessed this divide.

Open Standard confirmed Open USD will launch later this year with over 140 participating businesses. The project allows users to mint and redeem tokens without fees. Moreover, the model distributes most reserve income to network participants instead of retaining it.

Circle Stock Reacts to Shifting Revenue Dynamics

Circle stock declined as investors evaluated changes to stablecoin revenue structures. Open USD introduces a shared income model that differs from traditional issuer-controlled profits. Consequently, Circle stock reflected concerns about future earnings stability.

USDC currently holds about $73.6 billion in circulation and remains a major stablecoin. Circle and Coinbase share revenue generated from USDC reserve assets. Therefore, Circle stock links closely to stablecoin performance and associated income streams.

Coinbase relies heavily on USDC-related revenue within its subscription and services segment. This segment accounted for 44% of total first-quarter revenue. As a result, Circle stock movements aligned with broader concerns affecting Coinbase.

Circle Chief Executive Jeremy Allaire addressed market concerns following the announcement. He stated, “USDC remains the most trusted, widely adopted stablecoin globally.” He also added that the company welcomes competition in the sector.

Regulation and Institutional Backing Reshape Competition

Circle stock also reflected broader changes in the regulatory landscape supporting new entrants. Lawmakers continue advancing stablecoin legislation to define reserve and licensing requirements. Therefore, Circle stock faced pressure from both competition and policy developments.

The CLARITY Act is progressing toward a Senate vote while the GENIUS Act sets federal standards. These rules favor large institutions with strong compliance systems. Consequently, Circle stock reacted as markets priced in new competitive advantages.

Government officials also supported the Open USD initiative as regulation becomes clearer. Patrick Witt said the launch shows how clear rules unlock value in digital assets. He added that upcoming legislation will expand opportunities across the crypto sector.

USDC and USDT currently dominate about 80% of the global stablecoin market. However, Open USD represents a major coordinated effort to challenge this dominance. As a result, Circle stock continues to reflect shifting expectations across the stablecoin ecosystem.

The post Circle Stock Drops as Open USD Stablecoin Challenges USDC appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Cardone Capital increased its Bitcoin holdings to over 2,700 BTC during the recent price decline near $59,000.
• The firm funded its Bitcoin purchases using rental income from its real estate portfolio.
• Cardone Capital added 282 BTC earlier this month, valued at roughly $18 million at the time.
• The company holds about $200 million in Bitcoin alongside thousands of residential units and office properties.
• Grant Cardone stated the firm buys more Bitcoin as prices fall and focuses on consistent accumulation.

Grant Cardone accelerated Bitcoin purchases as prices hovered near $59,000, reinforcing his hybrid investment strategy. Cardone Capital increased its holdings beyond 2,700 BTC during the recent downturn. The firm continues to fund acquisitions using rental income from real estate assets.

Cardone Capital Expands Bitcoin Holdings During Market Weakness

Cardone Capital increased its bitcoin exposure as prices declined, and it maintained a steady accumulation pace. The firm added 282 BTC earlier this month, and it valued the purchase near $18 million. Cardone Capital now holds about $200 million in bitcoin alongside a large property portfolio.

Grant Cardone described the approach as disciplined and consistent, and he emphasized buying during price weakness. He said, “We improve property cash flow and buy more bitcoin as it drops.” Cardone Capital uses rental income instead of debt, and it keeps purchases steady across market cycles.

The firm integrates real estate and bitcoin within one LLC structure, and it targets returns between 22% and 32%. Cardone Capital channels recurring rental income into bitcoin purchases, and it avoids equity dilution. This model differs from corporate treasury strategies that rely on capital markets funding.

Hybrid Model Links Property Income With Bitcoin Strategy

Cardone Capital combines income-producing assets with digital assets, and it focuses on long-term accumulation. The firm directs apartment rental cash flow into bitcoin purchases, and it maintains a fixed buying schedule. This method reduces timing risk and supports consistent portfolio growth.

Grant Cardone aims to expand holdings to 3,000 BTC this year, and he targets 10,000 BTC over time. He also plans a publicly traded bitcoin-focused real estate company, and he maintains a 2026 price target. Cardone said bitcoin could reach $189,425, and he linked growth to continued accumulation.

Cardone Capital argues that its structure can outperform traditional REITs, and it highlights steady income flows. The firm avoids reliance on debt maturities, and it reduces exposure to share issuance pressures. Cardone Capital positions rental income as a stable funding source for bitcoin accumulation.

Market Risks Persist Despite Continued Accumulation Strategy

Cardone Capital remains exposed to bitcoin volatility, and price swings continue to affect treasury valuations. Bitcoin recently tested levels near $59,000, and it pressured firms with higher entry points. However, Cardone Capital treats price declines as accumulation opportunities and continues its strategy.

The firm also faces risks from real estate performance, and weaker cash flow could slow bitcoin purchases. Property value declines may impact funding capacity, and broader market conditions could influence outcomes. Cardone Capital continues operations within these constraints and maintains its accumulation model.

Grant Cardone reiterated confidence in the strategy, and he stressed consistent execution during downturns. He said the firm focuses on cash flow strength and long-term asset growth. Cardone Capital continues aligning real estate income with bitcoin purchases and sustains its hybrid investment approach.

The post Cardone Capital Tops 2,700 BTC as Bitcoin Holds Near $59K appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• The UK Financial Conduct Authority introduced new crypto rules covering trading platforms, custody, and lending activities.
• The framework requires firms to hold capital based on their risk exposure and conduct annual stress tests.
• The crypto rules extend to stablecoin issuers with reduced capital requirements set at one percent.
• The regulator introduced market abuse controls targeting insider trading and manipulation in crypto markets.
• Firms must apply for full authorization under the new crypto rules before the 2027 deadline.

The Financial Conduct Authority has introduced new crypto rules to position the UK as a global digital asset hub. The framework sets capital standards, market conduct rules, and stablecoin requirements ahead of 2027 enforcement. As a result, the UK aims to balance innovation and oversight through structured crypto rules across the sector.

UK Expands Oversight with Broad Crypto Rules Framework

The regulator now applies crypto rules to trading platforms, custodians, and lending providers across the UK market. In addition, the framework covers staking firms and certain DeFi entities with identifiable control structures. Therefore, the crypto rules extend supervision to most commercial digital asset activities.

Meanwhile, firms must meet prudential standards, including capital buffers tied to their internal risk exposure levels. Each company defines its own risk profile and submits annual stress test results to regulators. As a result, these crypto rules introduce structured financial discipline without mirroring traditional banking requirements.

However, firms will design their own stress scenarios rather than follow centralized models from authorities. This approach gives flexibility, yet it requires firms to justify their assumptions clearly. Consequently, the crypto rules aim to enforce accountability while maintaining operational independence.

Market Abuse Controls and Stablecoin Concessions Take Shape

The framework introduces crypto rules addressing insider trading and market manipulation within digital asset markets. Large trading platforms will monitor activity using industry-led systems instead of strict centralized surveillance mandates. Therefore, the regulator narrows earlier proposals while still enforcing market integrity under crypto rules.

Eligible assets on UK platforms must meet a single 40% net risk requirement and counterparty adjustment standard. This replaces the earlier two-tier classification system proposed during consultations. As a result, the crypto rules simplify compliance requirements for listed digital assets.

At the same time, the regulator eased stablecoin requirements after industry feedback on earlier proposals. The capital coefficient now stands at one percent of issued token value, down from previous levels. Consequently, these crypto rules align more closely with global standards to maintain competitiveness.

Stablecoin issuers can hold up to five percent surplus cash within reserve backing pools for liquidity management. In addition, firms no longer need to forecast redemption levels for backing assets under revised crypto rules. Therefore, the framework reduces operational burdens while maintaining financial safeguards.

Authorization Timeline and Global Competition Intensify

Crypto firms must apply for full authorization under the new crypto rules before the 2027 enforcement deadline. The application window opens in September 2026 and closes in February 2027 for all applicants. Meanwhile, regulators will offer pre-application support meetings to guide firms through compliance requirements.

Existing anti-money laundering registrations will not convert into authorization under the updated crypto rules framework. Therefore, firms must submit new applications regardless of their current regulatory status. This ensures consistent standards across all participants under the new regime.

Until implementation, oversight remains limited to financial promotions and anti-money laundering compliance measures. David Geale said the framework balances certainty with innovation under the new crypto rules.

He stated, “We created a framework that supports innovation while ensuring firms meet consistent standards.”

The UK introduced these crypto rules as global jurisdictions compete to attract digital asset businesses. The European Union enforces MiCA, while the United States advances stablecoin legislation under Donald Trump. Therefore, the UK positions itself as a stable and competitive destination for crypto firms.

The post UK Unveils Sweeping Crypto Rules to Boost Global Hub Ambitions appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Strategy introduced a new capital framework that allows potential Bitcoin sales to raise liquidity.
• Strategy stocks MSTR and STRC recorded strong gains before easing in premarket trading.
• Benchmark reaffirmed a Buy rating and said the new model improves capital flexibility.
• Strategy shifted from pure Bitcoin accumulation to a more active balance sheet management approach.
• The company authorized up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales, representing a small portion of holdings.

Strategy drew mixed reactions after unveiling a revised capital framework, even as its stocks posted strong gains. Analysts supported the changes, but some market participants questioned the long-term impact on Bitcoin holdings. The update introduces flexibility, yet it shifts Strategy away from its previous accumulation-only stance.

Strategy Gains Analyst Backing as Stocks Rise

Benchmark Equity Research reaffirmed a Buy rating on Strategy’s Class A stock MSTR with a $570 price target. The firm stated that the revised capital framework improves financial flexibility and strengthens balance sheet management. As a result, Strategy attracted renewed attention from institutional analysts.

Meanwhile, Strategy’s MSTR shares climbed 12.6% to about $92.70 during Monday trading sessions. At the same time, STRC preferred shares rose 12.2% to approximately $83.70, reflecting strong investor response. However, both Strategy stocks moved slightly lower in Tuesday premarket trading activity.

Benchmark analysts stated that Strategy no longer operates as a one-direction Bitcoin accumulator. Instead, Strategy now manages both assets and liabilities through an active capital structure approach.

They added, “Strategy is now an active manager of both sides of its capital structure.”

Strategy authorized potential Bitcoin sales worth up to $1.25 billion under its updated capital framework. This amount equals about 21,082 BTC based on current market prices, according to available data. The allocation represents nearly 2.5% of Strategy’s total holdings of 847,363 BTC.

Previously, Strategy relied mainly on issuing equity or debt to raise capital for operations. However, the new framework allows Strategy to access liquidity through direct Bitcoin sales when required. This shift reflects a broader approach to managing financial obligations and market conditions.

Strategy has executed Bitcoin sales before despite its long-term accumulation narrative. The company sold 32 BTC in May 2026 and previously sold 704 BTC in 2022. Later, Strategy repurchased a similar amount, maintaining its overall exposure to Bitcoin.

Strategy Plan Divides Market Participants

Investor Simon Dedic suggested the update could signal a local bottom for Strategy’s recent market performance. He added that some selling pressure likely reflected preparations for liquidity adjustments ahead of the announcement. His comments indicated partial confidence in Strategy’s revised approach.

Trader Scott Melker acknowledged that Strategy responded to investor concerns by increasing flexibility and cash reserves. However, he stated, “Only time will tell” whether the framework restores confidence in Strategy’s long-term outlook. His remarks reflected uncertainty about the sustainability of the changes.

Arca CIO Jeff Dorman argued that Strategy may need to sell between $2 billion and $3 billion in Bitcoin. He stated that such sales could remove persistent market overhang linked to Strategy’s large holdings.

Meanwhile, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said, “Financial engineering doesn’t drive long-term value,” criticizing Strategy’s approach.

The post Strategy Plan Sparks Debate as MSTR and STRC Stocks Jump appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Avalanche Treasury Corp told regulators it may not survive the year due to financial strain.
• The company cited “substantial doubt” about its ability to continue as a going concern.
• AVAX price declines led to major writedowns and over $26 million in quarterly losses.
• The firm’s AVAX holdings dropped to nearly half of their original purchase value.
• Shares collapsed over 90% within a month and now trade below $0.73.

Avalanche Treasury Corp told regulators it may not survive the year after a steep decline in its finances. The company disclosed material losses and liquidity pressure linked to falling AVAX prices. It also warned that current conditions raise “substantial doubt” about its ability to continue operations.

AVAX Holdings Decline and Balance Sheet Pressure

The company previously promoted a large AVAX treasury valued near one billion dollars during last year’s expansion phase. However, market conditions changed, and the value of its AVAX holdings dropped sharply over recent months. As a result, its market capitalization fell below thirty million dollars, reflecting severe investor concern.

Its operating unit reported losses exceeding twenty-six million dollars in one quarter due to AVAX writedowns. The firm bought AVAX for about two hundred sixty-five million dollars, yet the holdings fell to nearly one hundred twenty-three million dollars. This gap left the company holding assets worth far less than their original purchase cost.

AVAX prices declined forty-seven percent this year and nearly two-thirds over the past twelve months. Consequently, the treasury strategy weakened as asset values dropped and reduced the firm’s financial flexibility. The company stated that these conditions created ongoing uncertainty regarding its financial stability.

Stock Collapse Follows AVAX Treasury Strategy

Avalanche Treasury Corp completed a merger with a blank check company and entered public markets with high expectations. However, investor sentiment turned negative as disclosures revealed risks tied to its AVAX exposure and financial position. The stock fell from above ten dollars to below two dollars within days of additional filings.

Shares continued to decline and traded below seventy-three cents, entering penny stock territory. In total, the stock lost more than ninety percent of its value within one month. This decline reflected market concern over the sustainability of its AVAX treasury model.

The company also pledged a large portion of its AVAX holdings as collateral for a loan agreement. It committed nearly seven point eight million AVAX tokens from a total of thirteen point eight million holdings. This move increased financial risk as falling prices could pressure collateral requirements.

Other AVAX Treasury Firms Show Similar Declines

Other firms pursuing AVAX treasury strategies reported similar declines in value after initial expansion plans. AgriFORCE Growing Systems rebranded as AVAX One and announced a large capital raise to acquire more AVAX. The company aimed to build a significant AVAX treasury supported by strategic investors and advisors.

Despite those plans, its market value dropped sharply and now stands near forty-three million dollars. The firm’s shares declined sixty-eight percent this year and over ninety percent in the past year. These figures highlight the broader pressure affecting companies holding large AVAX reserves.

Data across the sector shows a consistent downward trend in treasury company valuations linked to AVAX exposure. Companies that accumulated AVAX during earlier market optimism now face reduced asset values and weaker investor confidence. This trend underscores the risks tied to concentrated digital asset treasury strategies.

The post AVAX Treasury Collapse Raises Doubts Over Company Survival appeared first on Blockonomi.

Trading activity in tokenized pre-IPO perpetual contracts surged sharply in May 2026 after several months of subdued activity, according to a new report by CoinGecko. Monthly trading volume climbed 1,059% from $60.51 million in April to $701.44 million in May.

Interestingly, SpaceX pre-IPO perpetuals led the market with $305 million in monthly trading volume, as it accounted for 43.5% of the total. The strong activity came ahead of the company’s highly anticipated Nasdaq listing on June 12.

SpaceX Pre-IPO Frenzy

AI companies OpenAI and Anthropic ranked second and third, respectively. All combined, contracts tied to SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic accounted for over 95% of pre-IPO perpetual trading volume recorded in May, indicating that activity was heavily concentrated in just a few assets.

SpaceX’s pre-IPO prices also showed wide differences across major exchanges before its Nasdaq listing, but eventually moved closer together as more information became available.

In the week leading up to its market debut, CoinGecko found that SpaceX perpetual contracts traded at around $170 on exchanges including Binance and WEEX, while Coinbase, Gate, and OKX priced them lower at roughly $155. As details about the initial public offering became public, prices across the major exchanges gradually converged into the $160 to $165 range by June 10.

During the final two days before the listing, prices on the leading platforms continued rising together and climbed above $180. On June 12, the day of the listing, new information about the expected listing price was reflected in pre-IPO markets, leading to sharp price swings.

Despite the volatility, pre-IPO prices ultimately closed at an average of $157, 4.67% above SpaceX’s opening price of $150.

TradFi on Crypto Exchanges

Beyond SpaceX, several prominent crypto exchanges have been steadily expanding their tokenized real-world asset offerings. Since the start of 2025, MEXC has listed the largest number of RWA products. The platform added 199 spot assets and 159 TradFi perpetual contracts for a total of 358 listings.

Next up was Gate with 224 RWA products, including 146 perpetuals and 78 spot assets, while WEEX, which was ranked third, listed 192 assets across 84 spot and 108 perpetual offerings.

Exchanges such as HTX, Binance, Crypto.com, Coinbase, and OKX focused more on TradFi perpetual listings than spot RWAs. CoinGecko found that each of these exchanges recorded only one or two spot RWA listings over the past 17 months. Overall, exchanges averaged 75 perpetual listings compared with 37 spot RWA listings during the period.

The post SpaceX Dominates as Tokenized Pre-IPO Trading Volume Surges 1,060%: CoinGecko appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The transitional grace period under the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation officially ends across the EU on July 1, 2026.

It means that any firm still operating without a MiCA license will be breaking the law.

MiCA Rules Force Crypto Firms to Adjust

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) had ordered all unauthorized digital asset providers to close their businesses before the end of the transition period. The directive formed part of the EU’s MiCA rules that require firms to obtain authorization from a national regulator to continue operating.

Pre-MiCA categorization data suggested that Europe had over 3,000 legitimate virtual asset providers, but now, several exchanges have already announced changes to their European services. For instance, Binance said that it will suspend some of its operations in the market after failing to secure a MiCA license.

In an interview with the Block, former CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) revealed that the exchange’s license application in Greece had been “fully compliant” and days away from approval before political forces reportedly forced it to be withdrawn, with journalist Gareth Jenkinson alleging that sources had informed him that Christine Lagarde, the ECB president, had asked Greek authorities not to greenlight the permit.

The company is now seeking the same approval in other EU member states such as France, Ireland, and Latvia.

According to OKX’s European CEO Erald Ghoos, who was quoted in a recent report by CoinDesk, 80% of crypto companies won’t survive MiCA and will be pushed out of the EU completely. Some corroboration was offered in the same report by Dubai lawyer Irina Heaver, who said inquiries from European founders had surged as they weighed relocating to the UAE, where licensing through the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority can take days instead of months.

For consumers, ESMA urged caution, saying that investors should verify whether their provider appears in the MiCA register and confirm which legal entity is actually holding their assets.

It also added that they should consider transferring funds if their platform remains unauthorized after July 1 since those using unauthorized providers may face reduced legal protections and a greater risk of losing access to their crypto assets.

Trading Surge Reported Elsewhere

But not every signal is pointing toward exodus. While policy analysts debate the theoretical impacts of the new framework, crypto platforms on the ground are already seeing a shift in capital deployment. Konstantins Vasilenko, co-founder and CBDO of Paybis, notes that the new rules are successfully unlocking access to larger institutional participants who require regulatory certainty before deploying capital.

Vasilenko shared directly with CryptoPotato that since securing their MiCA and PSD2 licenses in Latvia this past May, their EU trading volume has surged by 70% quarter-over-quarter, even as transaction counts held steady.

The post MiCA Deadline: New Rules Could Force 80% of Crypto Firms Out of EU appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Ethereum continues to trade within a firmly bearish market structure despite showing signs of stabilization around a major support zone. While buyers have managed to defend the recent lows, both the daily and 4-hour charts suggest that any recovery attempt still faces significant overhead resistance. Meanwhile, exchange price data indicates that institutional demand through Coinbase remains weak, reinforcing the cautious outlook.

Ethereum Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

The daily chart shows ETH extending its broader downtrend inside a well-defined descending channel. Price remains below the major moving averages, with the 100-day and 200-day averages both sloping lower overhead.

Following the sharp breakdown below the $1.85K support and a decisive retest and rejection, ETH is trading range-bound around the $1.5K support zone, which currently spans roughly $1.45K to $1.55K. This area has once again attracted buying interest and prevented further downside, making it the most important support for the buyers in the near term.

On the upside, the first notable resistance sits around $1.85K, which previously acted as support before turning into resistance after the breakdown. Above that, sellers are likely to defend the $2K to $2.2K supply zone, which also aligns with the declining moving averages and the upper boundary of the descending channel.

ETH/USDT 4-Hour Chart

On the 4-hour timeframe, Ethereum has finally broken above the descending trendline that had capped price action throughout last week’s decline. This is the first meaningful improvement in its short-term market structure. The price is now retracing for a potential retest, and if buyers successfully defend, it will increase the credibility of an upward move.

Despite this constructive development, ETH continues to trade below the key horizontal resistance at $1.75K, which remains the primary obstacle before a larger recovery can unfold. A decisive break above this supply zone could pave the way for a move toward the $1.85K resistance, where sellers are expected to become active once again.

Momentum has also improved following the breakout, with the RSI recovering toward the neutral 50 level after previously emerging from oversold conditions. While this suggests selling pressure has eased, buyers still need to reclaim the nearby resistance cluster to fully confirm a short-term bullish reversal.

As long as Ethereum holds above the broken trendline and the $1.5K support region, the probability of an extended relief rally remains elevated. However, losing these support levels would invalidate the breakout and shift momentum back in favor of the sellers.

Sentiment Analysis

The Coinbase Premium Index continues to paint a cautious picture for Ethereum. The metric has remained predominantly below the neutral line and recently dropped deeper into negative territory, indicating that ETH is trading at a discount on Coinbase relative to other exchanges.

This generally reflects weaker buying pressure from U.S.-based institutional and large-scale investors, a group that has historically played an important role during sustained recoveries. Although occasional rebounds in the premium have appeared throughout the past several months, they have failed to develop into persistent positive readings.

As long as the Coinbase Premium Index remains negative, institutional demand appears subdued, limiting the probability of a strong bullish reversal. A sustained recovery in the premium back above zero would be an early indication that larger buyers are returning to the market and could provide additional confirmation for any technical breakout.

The post Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH Defends $1.5K Support, But Weak Demand Puts Recovery in Question appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The controversial project Pi Network has been quite active lately, unveiling numerous announcements and rolling out important ecosystem updates.

However, these advancements have failed to trigger a price rally for the native token PI, which instead collapsed to a new all-time low.

Reaching New Bottom

The asset has been in a major decline over the past several months, and the community has been desperately looking for potential catalysts that could propel a long-awaited rebound. Many Pioneers have turned their attention to Pi2Day – a symbolic date celebrated annually on June 28, as it represents the mathematical constant 2π.

The Core Team did not stay quiet and introduced SoloHost, Pi Sign-in, and PiVerify – tools meant to push the ecosystem beyond native apps and into AI, digital identity, and third-party services. With these updates, Pi Network aims to evolve into a platform for Artificial Intelligence and decentralized computing rather than focusing only on blockchain features.

It seems the community was hoping for different news, and instead of experiencing a price rebound, PI dropped even further. As of press time, it trades just north of $0.11, representing the lowest level since the asset began trading. Its market capitalization has slipped to approximately $1.2 billion, making it the 57th-biggest cryptocurrency.

The crypto enthusiast Rizo highlighted PI’s drop and asked his followers whether the token is about to add another zero or if this level marks a potential bottom before a recovery. The majority of people see no hope, arguing that the coin is headed straight down to literally $0.

X user Tokocrypto also chipped in, noting that PI’s plunge mirrors the weakness in the broader crypto market and is not the result of any specific negative news surrounding the project. They wondered whether the token could stage a relief rally, pointing to the $0.0115-$0.12 area as a major support zone.

The Bullish Signs

PI’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) suggests that bears may loosen their grip in the near future. The technical indicator ratio has fallen to 14, reflecting extreme oversold territory, which has historically been a precursor to a revival. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with anything below 30 considered a buying opportunity and readings above 70 seen as pre-correction warnings.

The upcoming token unlocks are also worth mentioning. Over 127 million PI will be released in the next 30 days, which may sound substantial but is far less aggressive than those from previous months and could pave the way for price stabilization.

The post Pi Network (PI) Crashes to a New ATL: Going to Zero or Rebound Ahead? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Proprietary trading grew up around forex and futures. The funded-account model that most traders know today – a one-time evaluation fee, a profit target, strict drawdown limits, and a majority share of profits – was originally built for currency pairs, indices, and futures contracts traded with familiar market structures. Crypto arrived later, and for years, the majority of firms treated it as an extra product rather than a core market.

But by 2026, this has changed. Traders are no longer choosing between two similar prop firms with slightly different crypto offerings. They are choosing between distinct models. One is the traditional forex-first prop firm that added crypto contracts to its existing contracts. The other is the crypto-native prop firm, which is built for digital assets from the get-go.

This distinction matters because the underlying infrastructure affects almost everything: execution, pair coverage, leverage, weekend trading, payouts, and strategy fit.

Headline profit splits also matter, but they are far from being the whole story. Across more than 300,000 accounts tracked by FPFX Tech, roughly 14% of traders pass an evaluation, and only about 7% ever reach a payout. With odds like this, traders need to understand the structure behind the offer before paying for a challenge.

Traditional Prop Firms vs. Crypto-Native Prop Firms

The main difference between traditional prop firms and crypto-native prop firms is what each model was built to serve.

Traditional firms such as FTMO and The5ers grew out of forex, indices, and futures-style trading. That background gives them real advantages: long operating histories, clear rulebooks, established platforms, and proven payout records.

For example, FTMO has reported more than $500 million in cumulative trader payouts across more than 140 countries, while The5ers is widely seen as a reputable forex-first operator. For traders who want one funded account covering forex, indices, and limited crypto exposure, this model remains rather attractive.

The trade-off, however, is that crypto remains secondary, at least in most cases. On traditional platforms, digital assets are often offered as CFDs rather than positions routed to live exchange order books. Pricing comes through the firm’s platform and liquidity setup, which is not derived directly from venues such as Binance or Bybit, for example. Pair coverage also tends to be more limited, usually focused on Bitcoin, Ethereum, and some other large-cap altcoins. Leverage is usually conservative – often around 1:2 or 1:3, and some accounts require these positions to be closed before the weekend, despite the fact that crypto operates 24/7.

Crypto-native firms take the exact opposite approach. They are built around digital assets from the start. HyroTrader is one of the clearer examples. It offers live exchange execution through Bybit with access to more than 700 perpetual pairs, while its CLEO platform provides over 500 pairs, Binance-powered market data, API access, and leverage of up to 1:100. This creates a trading environment that’s closer to how crypto markets actually operate: continuous trading, broader altcoin access, exchange-based pricing, and stablecoin payouts in USDT or USDC.

The crypto-native model is better suited to those traders who specialize in digital assets, especially scalpers, altocin traders, weekend traders, and algorithmic strategies that need API access and deep pair coverage.

Of course, there are some limitations to this model as well. HyroTrader, for instance, is crypto-only. It pays in stablecoins rather than fiat, and applies stricter rules such as per-trade risk caps and trailing daily drawdown by default.

The choice is therefore not only about which model is better. Traditional firms suit traders who value reputation, regulation, and access to a range of assets. Crypto-native firms are well-suited to traders who need tailored infrastructure for digital assets.

Here’s a more concise breakdown of the inherent qualities of both models for crypto trading.

Traditional prop firms

• Execution is usually CFD-based
• Pricing may differ from exchange markets
• Short-term traders may be more affected because of pricing models
• Crypto coverage is narrower
• A limited toolkit restricts the use of specific crypto-focused strategies.
• Payouts rely on fiat rails.
• Rules reflect forex-first infrastructure.
• MT5 and cTrader remain major strengths.

Crypto-native prop firms

• Execution is exchange-based.
• Asset coverage is much broader.
• Altcoin strategies are much easier to run.
• Payouts usually settle in stablecoins.
• Fast payouts are becoming the standard.
• Rules are often designed around 24/7 crypto trading.
• Platforms are built for crypto-oriented workflows.

The Bottom Line for 2026

The difference between traditional and crypto-native prop firms matters a lot more in 2026 than it did two years ago. The old model treated crypto as an add-on to forex infrastructure. The new model treats it as its own market, with its own execution, leverage norms, payout rails, and trading behavior.

The right choice now is not just about which category sounds better – it’s about how you trade. If your strategy depends on forex, indices, and a few of the major cryptocurrencies, the traditional model might be a good fit. If your edge, however, depends on live exchange execution, deep altcoin coverage, API access, weekend trading, and more – a crypto trading prop firm built specifically for digital assets is likely the stronger match.

Disclaimer: The above article is sponsored content; it’s written by a third party. CryptoPotato doesn’t endorse or assume responsibility for the content, advertising, products, quality, accuracy, or other materials on this page. Nothing in it should be construed as financial advice. Readers are strongly advised to verify the information independently and carefully before engaging with any company or project mentioned and to do their own research. Investing in cryptocurrencies carries a risk of capital loss, and readers are also advised to consult a professional before making any decisions that may or may not be based on the above-sponsored content.

Readers are also advised to read CryptoPotato’s full disclaimer.

The post Crypto Trading Prop Firm vs. Traditional Prop Firm: What has Changed for Traders in 2026 appeared first on CryptoPotato.