G2 Esports' ongoing development and roster stability could enhance Western competitiveness in global esports, emphasizing long-term growth.

The post G2 Esports’ BrokenBlade discusses team’s growth ahead of MSI appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

England's right-back crisis could hinder their defensive stability and attacking versatility, impacting their World Cup progression and strategy.

The post England faces right-back crisis ahead of DR Congo World Cup clash appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

China's growth hinges on AI-driven exports, but weak domestic demand and property woes highlight an uneven recovery, impacting policy moves.

The post China’s June factory activity rises to 50.3, beating expectations on AI-driven export strength appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Pulisic's rise could redefine US soccer's global standing, inspiring future talent and increasing the sport's popularity in America.

The post Christian Pulisic poised to become greatest USMNT player at 2026 World Cup appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tottenham's hefty investment in Fernandes underscores the escalating financial stakes in Premier League transfers, impacting club strategies.

The post Tottenham Hotspur signs Mateus Fernandes from West Ham United for £85M appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

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.

Bitcoin Magazine

UK Sets Landmark Crypto Rules in Race to Become Global Hub

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority published a landmark crypto regulatory framework this week, establishing capital requirements, market abuse controls, and stablecoin standards for the country’s digital asset industry ahead of a mandatory authorization regime that takes effect in October 2027.

The package represents the most expansive expansion of the FCA’s oversight in years. Legislation passed in February 2026 brought cryptoassets within the regulator’s remit for the first time.

The framework covers a wide range of activities: crypto trading platforms, custodians, stablecoin issuers, lending and borrowing providers, staking firms, and certain decentralized finance firms where an identifiable controlling entity exists.

Under the new regime, all regulated crypto firms must meet prudential requirements, including minimum capital buffers and annual stress tests. Unlike banks, which receive specific scenarios from the Bank of England, crypto companies will design their own tests based on internal risk models and submit results to the FCA each year. 

Each firm determines how much risk sits on its balance sheet — a figure that sets the level of capital it must hold.

In other more layman terms, crypto firms operating in the UK must hold capital against their riskiest assets and run annual stress tests of their own design. This is a looser standard than banks face, but a first for the sector.

The framework introduces market abuse rules covering insider trading and market manipulation, areas where the crypto sector has faced scrutiny but limited enforcement action. Large trading platform operators will follow an industry-led monitoring approach, while the scope of mandatory on-chain surveillance has been narrowed from an earlier draft. 

Eligible cryptoassets admitted to UK qualifying trading platforms will face a single 40% net risk position requirement and a 40% counterparty default volatility adjustment — replacing a two-tier classification system proposed during consultation.

Stablecoin and crypto concessions

The FCA made concessions to stablecoin issuers after pushback from the industry. The capital coefficient for stablecoin issuance was cut to 1% of the aggregate value of issued tokens, down from 2% in the original proposal. 

The reduction is designed to keep the UK competitive with the European Union’s MiCA regime and with emerging US stablecoin legislation, both of which are drawing crypto firms to rival jurisdictions.

Stablecoin firms will be allowed to hold a cash surplus of up to 5% inside their backing asset pools to manage liquidity pressures. Redemption forecasting obligations for backing assets were removed, and limited intragroup custody arrangements are permitted subject to additional safeguards.

The FCA’s authorization window

Crypto firms must obtain FCA authorization to operate under the new regime. Existing anti-money laundering registrations will not convert to authorization under the new rules — firms must apply fresh. The application window opens September 30, 2026 and closes February 28, 2027. The FCA will offer pre-application support meetings from July to help firms prepare submissions.

Until the regime takes effect on October 25, 2027, the regulator’s oversight of crypto firms remains limited to financial promotions and anti-money laundering controls.

David Geale, the FCA’s executive director of payments and digital finance, called the framework a milestone. “We’ve created a framework that doesn’t force firms to choose between regulatory certainty and room to innovate,” he said. “For consumers, it means firms will be held to similar standards to other financial providers, though we can’t regulate away risk.”

The framework arrives as the global race to regulate crypto heats up. The EU’s MiCA regime is in force, and the US is pushing through stablecoin legislation under President Donald Trump, whose administration has been a driver of crypto’s legitimization. The UK is positioning its regime as a stable, innovation-friendly alternative for firms weighing where to base their operations.

This post UK Sets Landmark Crypto Rules in Race to Become Global Hub first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy (MSTR) Surges Over 12% As Bitcoin-Linked Stocks Have Green Day

Shares of Strategy Inc. climbed 14% at times on Monday to roughly $94, their best single-day gain in weeks, after the bitcoin treasury company unveiled a sweeping capital overhaul.

The move marks a significant shift for the company once synonymous with an unrelenting bitcoin accumulation strategy. Strategy’s board approved a new Digital Credit Capital Framework that authorizes up to $1.25 billion in bitcoin sales to fund a newly created U.S. dollar reserve, cover preferred dividend obligations, and service debt. 

The company also authorized $1 billion in common stock buybacks and $1 billion in repurchases of its preferred securities.

The company raised the dividend rate on its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock, known as STRC, to 12% annually — a 50 basis point increase effective July 1.

Strategy held 847,363 BTC as of June 28, purchased for an aggregate $64.10 billion at an average price of $75,651 per coin. With bitcoin trading near $60,000 Monday afternoon, the company sits on an unrealized loss on its entire stack — context that makes the new monetization framework more than just financial engineering. 

The company said it has approximately $2.55 billion in U.S. dollar reserves, covering roughly 17 months of annual preferred dividend and interest obligations of about $1.76 billion.

The stock had been grinding lower since hitting a high near $200 earlier this year in May, pulled down by bitcoin weakness and broader risk-off pressure. Monday’s bounce, driven largely by the capital plan announcement, brought shares back above $92 intraday, with a session peak near $94.

Other crypto and bitcoin-linked stocks also started the week out strong. 

Nakamoto (NAKA) shares surged more than 10% at points during Monday’s session, among the day’s strongest movers in the crypto equity space. Strive (ASST) climbed over 3.5% at its intraday peak. Coinbase (COIN), by contrast, saw a more muted session — shares up around 2% at their high.

Strategy and bitcoin price action

Bitcoin price shed roughly 6% over the past week, pulling back from a high near $64,400 earlier in the period to trade around lows of $58,800 today — a grind lower that has tracked weakness across broader risk assets.

Bitcoin price has now dropped more than 18% on the month, with the June candle opening near $76,690 and finding no sustained bid on the way down. 

Six straight weeks of ETF outflows, totaling tens of millions in institutional selling, have weighed on the price throughout the stretch. Bitcoin remains below its key 50-month exponential moving average near $65,600, a level that technicians watch as a line between short-term recovery and deeper correction territory.

Bitcoin Magazine is published by BTC Inc, a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA)

This post Strategy (MSTR) Surges Over 12% As Bitcoin-Linked Stocks Have Green Day first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

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.

Ripple is trying to move the XRP Ledger (XRPL) deeper into institutional credit, a push that could expand the network’s role beyond cross-border payments and give XRP a broader claim on the next phase of onchain finance.

The company is backing a proposed lending upgrade that would allow institutions to borrow against assets they hold on the XRPL, including stablecoins and tokenized instruments, without forcing the blockchain to make the credit decision itself.

For XRP, the significance is less about turning the token into a lending asset overnight and more about widening the range of financial activity that can happen on the ledger where XRP is the native asset.

If the upgrade gains approval and adoption, XRPL would move further away from being judged mainly on payments activity and closer to a broader institutional infrastructure story.

XRPL lending enters crowded credit market

Ripple is trying to enter an onchain lending market already served by large DeFi protocols and private institutional networks, but its proposed XRP Ledger system takes a narrower approach than many of its rivals.

Over the years, Aave has shown that blockchain-based lending can attract large pools of capital. Private and permissioned systems have also gained traction with institutions that want tighter control over counterparties, compliance and risk.

XRPL’s proposed lending protocol is designed to sit between those models. It would keep the ledger public while allowing access to certain pools to be restricted through credentials when compliance rules require it. It would also embed the lending mechanics in the network’s core standards rather than leaving each application to design its own risk and repayment system.

The system is built around two proposed technical standards. XLS-65 would create Single Asset Vaults that pool a single asset on-chain. XLS-66 would provide the lending layer that allows those assets to be extended into fixed-term loans.

Both proposals still require approval from XRPL validators before they can go live on the main network. Ripple said developers and infrastructure providers can begin testing the features on a development network.

The design is intended to make loan execution predictable. A vault would hold a single asset. Approved borrowers would access liquidity from that pool under agreed terms. Once a loan is created, the ledger would enforce interest accrual, repayment schedules, and default procedures.

The main difference is where credit judgment takes place. In many decentralized lending markets, smart contracts, governance votes, and automated collateral rules shape the risk model.

Ripple’s proposal leaves underwriting, legal agreements, and compliance checks off-chain, while using the ledger to enforce what happens after lenders and borrowers agree to terms.

For context, a payment company holding RLUSD, Ripple’s US dollar-backed stablecoin, could use the system to bridge a short-term liquidity gap. If an expected cross-border settlement will not arrive for two days, the company could borrow from an approved pool to fund outgoing payments and repay the loan when settlement clears.

The same structure could be used by market makers financing inventory, treasury desks seeking short-term liquidity, or lenders building credit products around tokenized assets.

That approach could appeal to institutions that want clearer rules before committing capital. It could also make XRPL less flexible than more composable smart-contract networks, where developers can build and adjust lending products more quickly.

The trade-off reflects XRPL’s broader design history. The network has favored purpose-built functions over the open-ended smart-contract model used by Ethereum and other EVM networks. The lending proposal applies that same approach to credit.

Credit becomes the next test

Ripple’s timing reflects a broader shift in digital assets. Tokenization has advanced faster than the financing systems around it.

Treasuries, money market funds, stablecoins, private credit and commodities are increasingly represented on-chain. But once those assets exist on a blockchain, institutions still need ways to borrow against them, finance positions, manage liquidity gaps and allocate risk.

That is where Ripple is trying to position XRPL. The company has long marketed the network around settlement speed and payments. Lending would add another function: credit execution.

The opportunity is also tied to the recovery of crypto-backed lending after the failures of 2022. Silicon Valley Bank said loan volume across cryptocurrencies reached $67 billion in the first quarter of 2026, up nearly 50% from a year earlier.

That rebound has come with a stronger focus on collateral, transparency and institutional risk controls. Ripple’s proposal aims to fit into that environment by providing institutions with an execution layer rather than asking them to rely entirely on crypto-native lending applications like Aave.

The design could also support Ripple’s stablecoin strategy. RLUSD has grown to about $1.56 billion in market capitalization since launching in late 2024, according to CryptoSlate's data.

If XRPL gains native credit markets, RLUSD could become one of the assets used in short-term liquidity facilities, especially for payment and treasury use cases.

That would not automatically translate into demand for XRP, because RLUSD and other issued assets can move on XRPL without XRP becoming the borrowed asset.

However, every new category of activity on the ledger strengthens the case for XRPL as a venue for institutional finance, and XRP remains the network’s native token used for fees and anti-spam protection.

Ripple’s larger question is whether that infrastructure can turn into sustained onchain volume.

Garlinghouse frames the gap

Ripple Chief Executive Officer Brad Garlinghouse recently said the company’s acquired businesses process about $16 trillion in annual payments and clearing activity, while digital assets account for close to zero percent of that volume.

That figure does not mean $16 trillion is ready to move through XRP. It includes traditional payments and clearing activity across businesses Ripple has acquired. But it shows the scale of the market Ripple is trying to convert.

Garlinghouse has framed that gap as an opportunity: to bring traditional finance onto blockchain rails using Ripple’s stablecoin, payments, custody, treasury, and prime brokerage infrastructure.

The lending proposal fits that strategy. Payments alone can move value. Credit can make those assets usable in financing, collateral and liquidity management. That represents a broader institutional pitch than the older XRP narrative, which focused heavily on cross-border settlement.

However, the market has not yet rewarded the shift. XRP is trading around $1.04 as of press time, down about 6% over the past week, according to CryptoSlate's data. The token has been pressured by the broader crypto downturn and remains far below its cycle highs.

That weakness makes the lending proposal more important for Ripple’s long-term growth trajectory. The company needs to show that XRPL can support institutional activity beyond speculative trading and payment corridors.

Security review clears major hurdle

The lending push follows a re-audit by blockchain security firm Halborn, which reviewed the protocol after significant code changes.

Halborn’s report, updated June 12, found five issues and no critical or high-severity vulnerabilities. The findings included one medium-risk issue, two low-risk issues, and two informational items.

Halborn said all reported findings had been addressed, though that category includes issues that were solved, acknowledged, or accepted as risk.

The most serious item involved a vault maximum-assets bypass through loan interest, which could have allowed a vault to exceed a configured exposure limit. Halborn marked that issue as solved.

The review also flagged edge cases around cascading defaults, vault freezes, grace periods, and cover-rate settings.

Those issues point to the main risk in the protocol’s design: the ledger can enforce agreed rules, but it cannot guarantee that the credit judgment behind a loan was sound.

That leaves investors and users with a clear distinction. The protocol can standardize execution. However, it does not remove borrower risk, administrator risk, or liquidity risk.

If a loan broker misjudges a borrower, vault participants can still lose money. If too much of a vault’s capital is locked in active loans, withdrawals could become difficult. If first-loss capital is too small, senior lenders may still face losses after a large default.

Those risks make the lending protocol more similar to traditional credit markets than retail DeFi yield products. Losses depend on underwriting, concentration, liquidity management, and legal recovery, not only on code.

The post Ripple bets XRPL lending can give XRP a future beyond payments as price struggles 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.

Ethereum treasury firm Sharplink purchased around $16 million worth of ETH last week, marking its first crypto buy since last year.

Prosecutors asked a Rotterdam court to wind up the unlicensed exchange, which has locked some 30,000 customers out of their crypto.

Strategy's stock price started sliding again on Tuesday, one day after breaking a nine-day losing streak.

MetaMask is packaging stablecoin yield, payments, and trading into a single self-custody account as crypto firms compete to make digital dollars more useful.

Michael Saylor's Strategy is rolling out some major changes to how it handles Bitcoin going forward. And so far, the market likes it.

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.

Wall Street is rapidly souring on Strategy’s highly leveraged Bitcoin accumulation strategy.

Key Takeaways

• RZLV shares advance 9.42% following shareholder endorsement of $300M share repurchase authorization

• Company anticipates UK Court clearance by mid-September 2026

• Rezolve Ai maintains FY26 revenue projection of approximately $360 million

• Company aims for minimum $500 million annual recurring revenue by year-end 2026

• Repurchase program provides board discretion without mandating specific share quantities

Rezolve AI PLC (RZLV) shares climbed 9.42% to reach $2.8450 following shareholder authorization of a substantial share repurchase program. The stock experienced an early jump after market open and maintained strength throughout the session near session highs. This approval provides the company with a strategic mechanism to address what management views as a market valuation disconnect.

Rezolve AI PLC, RZLV

Annual Meeting Delivers Buyback Mandate

During the company’s Annual General Meeting, Rezolve Ai shareholders voted to authorize both capital reduction and share repurchase capabilities. This mandate permits the board to execute buybacks totaling up to $300 million. The initiative still requires customary UK Court confirmation before any share repurchases can commence.

This authorization grants Rezolve Ai operational latitude to acquire ordinary shares in accordance with UK Companies Act 2006 provisions. Management anticipates completing the court approval process by mid-September 2026. Following judicial clearance, the company intends to initiate repurchases when market dynamics align with strategic board determinations.

According to Rezolve Ai’s announcement, the repurchase program may leverage open market acquisitions, block transactions, or private negotiations. The company noted it may occasionally repurchase shares from BTIG. Importantly, the program establishes no obligation to purchase any predetermined share volume.

Company Connects Repurchase Plan to Expansion Trajectory

Rezolve Ai characterized the shareholder vote as validation of its strategic direction and expansion prospects. Management stated that current market capitalization fails to capture the company’s operational scale. The company also highlighted accelerating commercial traction within its enterprise client portfolio.

The firm disclosed it currently supports over 1,000 enterprise clients worldwide. Additionally, Rezolve Ai reported approximately $60 million in preliminary revenue for the first quarter of 2026. Management reiterated its full fiscal year 2026 revenue target of roughly $360 million.

This projection represents approximately 7.5 times the company’s fiscal 2025 revenue baseline. Rezolve Ai also forecasts exiting 2026 with no less than $500 million in annual recurring revenue. Consequently, the buyback authorization coincides with an aggressive growth narrative the company continues to advance.

Brain Suite Platform Powers Digital Commerce Strategy

Rezolve Ai competes in the AI-powered commerce sector through its Brain Suite platform. This technology assists retailers, consumer brands, and financial services organizations in optimizing digital sales workflows. The platform facilitates search functionality, customer interaction, product suggestions, and transaction completion.

The company markets Brain Suite as foundational infrastructure for instantaneous commerce intelligence. It serves enterprises requiring accelerated product discovery and enhanced customer personalization. Accordingly, Rezolve Ai attributes its growth trajectory to rising enterprise adoption of automated commerce solutions.

RZLV’s rally demonstrated robust investor response to the buyback authorization combined with refreshed growth indicators. The stock’s 9.42% appreciation renewed market attention following the shareholder decision. Nevertheless, the repurchase program remains contingent upon court confirmation and board execution.

The post Rezolve AI (RZLV) Stock Climbs After Shareholders Back $300M Share Repurchase Program appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Over 140 corporations including Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe support the OUSD stablecoin initiative
• Consortium-driven governance replaces traditional single-issuer control structure
• Zero-fee minting and redemption model eliminates direct transaction costs for businesses
• Primary focus includes corporate payment systems, settlement operations, and treasury management
• Major South Korean corporations like Samsung, Dunamu, and Shinhan participate in the initiative

On June 30, 2026, Open Standard unveiled OUSD with endorsement from Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and over 140 corporate partners. This initiative focuses on enterprise-scale payment infrastructure and settlement solutions, employing a collaborative governance framework rather than centralized control. The platform offers zero-cost token issuance and redemption, potentially streamlining stablecoin adoption across corporate environments.

Collaborative Governance Model Defines OUSD Framework

Open Standard unveiled OUSD as a consortium-driven digital dollar initiative. The alliance encompasses payment processors, financial institutions, tech enterprises, cryptocurrency exchanges, and blockchain service providers. This launch bridges conventional finance with digital asset ecosystems through unified operational infrastructure.

Unlike traditional stablecoins controlled by singular entities, OUSD operates through a partner-governed board system for strategic oversight. This framework provides member organizations with meaningful input on governance matters and strategic development.

The model distributes reserve income among participating organizations following operational expenses. Consequently, partners obtain tangible financial incentives tied to broader market penetration. This arrangement encourages active promotion since member firms benefit directly from ecosystem expansion.

Leading Payment Processors Anchor Extensive Corporate Coalition

Among Open Standard’s supporters, Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe represent the most prominent payment industry players. Their participation establishes robust connections to worldwide payment infrastructure and commercial networks. This involvement reflects growing institutional appetite for stablecoin-based settlement mechanisms.

Additional consortium members feature BlackRock, BNY, Coinbase, Google, IBM, Ripple, OKX, and Standard Chartered. The roster extends to BBVA, DBS, Mizuho, MoonPay, Rakuten Group, and Crypto.com. OUSD launches with comprehensive backing spanning banking, payment processing, technology sectors, and cryptocurrency services.

South Korean members comprise Samsung Electronics, Hanwha Group, Dunamu, and Shinhan Financial Group. The Korean contingent also features K-Bank, KB Kookmin Card, Samsung Card, BC Card, and Hana Card. Hyundai Card, NH Nonghyup Card, and Woori Card complete the regional partnership lineup.

Corporate Settlement Infrastructure Emphasizes Cost Efficiency

Open Standard architected OUSD for cost-effective, high-capacity stablecoin operations. Organizations can create and redeem tokens without transaction charges, based on release specifications. This characteristic holds particular significance for payment processing, treasury functions, and settlement workflows.

The platform eliminates predetermined supply caps. OUSD circulation can grow proportionally with rising commercial demand. This methodology seeks to accommodate substantial transaction volumes without imposed supply constraints.

OUSD deployment remains planned for late 2026. Upon launch, it will compete directly with dominant stablecoins like USDT and USDC. Open Standard frames OUSD as collaborative enterprise infrastructure rather than a centrally controlled financial instrument.

The post Major Payment Giants Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe Unite Behind New OUSD Stablecoin appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Dish DBS, EchoStar’s satellite television division, is expected to enter chapter 11 bankruptcy protection this week, potentially by Tuesday.
• A pre-negotiated restructuring agreement has secured support from bondholders representing over 82% of approximately $10 billion in Dish DBS obligations.
• The parent company shoulders approximately $25 billion in aggregate debt while hemorrhaging subscribers—losing about 177,000 pay TV customers in the latest quarter.
• Awaited spectrum transactions with AT&T (valued at $22.65 billion) and SpaceX (valued at $17 billion) remain incomplete, preventing debt reduction.
• On Monday, SATS stock started trading at $103.80, carrying a consensus Hold recommendation with analysts projecting an average target of $137.71.

Shares of EchoStar (SATS) began Monday’s session at $103.80, slipping 0.1% as the company moves forward with plans to file chapter 11 bankruptcy for its Dish DBS satellite television division, the Wall Street Journal reports.

EchoStar Corporation, SATS

The bankruptcy petition could be submitted as early as this Tuesday. The move addresses close to $10 billion in Dish DBS liabilities that have burdened EchoStar’s balance sheet.

Underpinning the bankruptcy strategy is a restructuring framework negotiated earlier this year. Bondholders controlling more than 82% of Dish DBS debt have already committed to the arrangement.

The proposal seeks to reduce outstanding obligations, resolve bondholder litigation, and provide EchoStar with increased financial flexibility for future strategic transactions. White & Case has been retained for legal representation, while FTI Consulting serves as financial advisor for Dish DBS.

Financial Deterioration Drives Restructuring

EchoStar’s traditional pay television operations continue to deteriorate. The segment generated $2.26 billion in revenue during the most recent quarter, representing a year-over-year decline exceeding $260 million.

Customer attrition compounds the revenue challenge. Approximately 177,000 net pay TV subscribers departed during the quarter, reducing the total customer base to slightly above 6.6 million.

The company’s consolidated debt burden stands at roughly $25 billion. This substantial leverage poses increasing challenges for an enterprise confronting what EchoStar characterized as “intense and increasing competition” across video, broadband, and wireless markets.

This restructuring represents EchoStar’s latest attempt to stabilize its financial position. A proposed 2024 merger between Dish Network and DIRECTV ultimately failed after bondholders rejected a mandatory debt exchange.

Those creditors contended the transaction would improperly transfer billions in assets to entities controlled by EchoStar founder Charlie Ergen. That contentious episode clearly influenced the negotiation approach for the current restructuring plan.

Spectrum Asset Sales Remain Incomplete

Regulatory pressure from the FCC regarding 5G network deployment commitments has also complicated EchoStar’s situation. To resolve compliance issues, the company arranged spectrum asset sales to AT&T for $22.65 billion and to SpaceX for $17 billion.

Both transactions remain unconsummated. The combined proceeds are intended to substantially reduce EchoStar’s debt burden once the sales finalize.

The extended timeline has already created operational disruptions. EchoStar defaulted on interest obligations for multiple bonds scheduled for June 1 payment, attributing the missed payments to delayed AT&T transaction proceeds.

By mid-June, EchoStar announced that Dish DBS would satisfy those delinquent interest payments. This temporary solution maintained operational continuity while the comprehensive restructuring advanced.

Regarding operational performance, EchoStar reported a quarterly loss of $0.51 per share, underperforming analyst projections by three cents. Quarterly revenue reached $3.67 billion, marginally exceeding the $3.65 billion consensus estimate and representing improvement from the $0.71 per-share loss recorded one year prior.

Analyst sentiment toward SATS stock remains divided but generally cautious. The consensus recommendation stands at Hold, with price objectives spanning from Weiss Ratings’ sell recommendation to TD Cowen’s $155 buy-rated target.

CEO Hamid Akhavan executed a sale of 52,586 shares on June 5 at an average price of $121.00 per share, generating proceeds exceeding $6.36 million. The transaction occurred pursuant to a predetermined trading arrangement and reduced his holdings by 5.73%, though company insiders collectively maintain 55.90% ownership.

The post EchoStar (SATS) Stock Falls Amid Dish DBS Bankruptcy Preparations appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average maintained its position near 52,000 following Monday’s historic breakthrough above that threshold.
• The Nasdaq Composite surged approximately 1% to 2% during early market hours, outpacing other major benchmarks.
• The S&P 500 advanced between 0.3% and 0.5% as Tuesday’s trading concluded both Q2 and the year’s first half.
• Semiconductor equities have doubled in value during the last six months, driving the technology sector’s momentum.
• Crude oil values declined as shipping through the Strait of Hormuz normalized ahead of schedule, alleviating supply concerns.

American equity markets advanced on Tuesday, marking the conclusion of 2026’s opening six months. The Dow Jones Industrial Average maintained stability following its inaugural close beyond 52,000 during the previous session. Both the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite extended their positive momentum.

The Nasdaq demonstrated the strongest performance among major benchmarks. The technology-focused index reversed initial flat trading to climb steadily as market participants adjusted their holdings before the quarter’s conclusion.

What’s Driving The Rally

Technology equities have dominated market narratives throughout 2026. Semiconductor manufacturers have experienced valuations more than doubling across the preceding six-month period.

This exceptional performance has largely fueled the wider market’s appreciation. Industrial and materials sectors also posted gains Tuesday, whereas real estate, healthcare, and consumer staples sectors underperformed.

Market participants also digested a Supreme Court decision preserving the Federal Reserve’s autonomy for the present. This ruling eliminated a significant uncertainty factor as trading enters the year’s second half.

Diplomatic prospects in the Middle East also brightened sentiment. Scheduled negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Qatar on Tuesday helped reduce geopolitical tensions that had pressured markets recently.

Oil Prices And The Dollar

Oil prices retreated as supply disruption concerns diminished. Transit volumes through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical petroleum passage, rebounded more quickly than market forecasts anticipated.

This development shifted market focus from potential shortages toward oversupply scenarios. Brent crude exchanged hands near $74 per barrel, with US crude hovering just above $71. Both reference prices tracked toward quarterly losses.

The greenback continued its appreciation versus competing currencies. Its strength drove the Japanese yen to four-decade lows, increasing prospects for Tokyo intervention to stabilize its monetary unit.

HSBC strategists indicated the dollar’s ascent could accelerate should the Federal Reserve hint at additional rate increases. This cautionary note tempered an otherwise bullish trading session for equities.

Regarding economic indicators, May’s job openings data exceeded market projections. The employment rate, conversely, remained subdued.

This contrasting information will likely influence Federal Reserve policy expectations. Market watchers now anticipate Thursday’s June employment report, which could further shape interest rate projections.

In company-specific developments, Nike prepared to release quarterly earnings on Tuesday. The athletic apparel giant continues navigating inventory management and consumer demand headwinds.

As trading progressed, the Dow hovered near 52,300, registering approximately 0.2% daily gains. The S&P 500 approached 7,470, advancing roughly 0.4%, while the Nasdaq Composite neared 26,034, showcasing the session’s most robust performance among the three primary indexes.

The post Semiconductor Stocks Power Nasdaq to Gains as Markets Cap Strong First Half of 2026 appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Alphabet has limited Meta’s usage of Gemini AI technology because of insufficient computing capacity.
• Analyst Matt Bryson from Wedbush notes that AI computing demand continues exceeding available supply.
• Meta previously utilized Gemini for operations including scam detection and content moderation.
• The social media company is now pivoting toward its internal Muse Spark AI model to reduce external dependencies.
• Bryson highlights potential vulnerabilities for firms relying on rival companies for computational resources.

Alphabet has implemented access limitations for Meta Platforms regarding its Gemini artificial intelligence technology. The Financial Times broke this story over the weekend, with Wedbush Securities subsequently analyzing the implications for investors.

The core issue is straightforward: available computing resources cannot meet demand, even among the world’s largest technology corporations.

The Reason Behind Google’s Decision

Alphabet, Google’s parent corporation, has implemented usage caps across multiple clients due to capacity limitations. Meta stands among the companies most significantly affected by these restrictions.

Alphabet Inc., GOOGL

These limitations have affected several of Meta’s internal operations. The company has instructed its workforce to exercise greater caution when utilizing AI capabilities moving forward.

Meta had been leveraging Gemini for particular internal functions. These operations included moderating content and identifying fraudulent activity, domains where Google’s artificial intelligence technology apparently outperformed Meta’s proprietary solutions.

With restricted access now in place, Meta is transitioning additional workloads to its proprietary AI technology. The organization is increasing its reliance on the internally developed Muse Spark model.

This strategic pivot aims to minimize Meta’s dependence on external AI service providers such as Google. Establishing this type of self-sufficiency has emerged as an increasingly important objective throughout the technology sector.

Industry Analyst Perspectives

Matt Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, offered his assessment of these developments. He characterized this situation as further evidence that computing power requirements persistently exceed available capacity.

Bryson emphasized this point despite significant capital expenditures by technology firms to expand AI infrastructure. The investment levels have proven insufficient to match the accelerating pace of demand growth.

He identified an additional concern worth noting. Bryson suggested the circumstances illustrate the hazards of depending on companies that simultaneously serve as competitors for resource distribution.

He particularly noted potential implications for other AI developers. Organizations such as Anthropic and Meta that utilize Google’s cloud platform or its specialized chips, called TPUs, might encounter comparable challenges in the future.

The fundamental challenge is clear: Developing AI models demands enormous quantities of computing power, and that power remains scarce.

Technology corporations have invested billions in data infrastructure and processing chips throughout the current year. Nevertheless, requirements for AI model training and deployment continue rising more rapidly than companies can expand capacity.

This generates a complicated dynamic for organizations dependent on competitors for portions of their AI infrastructure. When a rival controls necessary resources, that rival can restrict access whenever its own requirements intensify.

Meta’s strategic shift toward its Muse Spark model reflects a wider industry trend. Numerous companies are working to develop proprietary AI capabilities to avoid reliance on external providers.

This situation continues to evolve. Google has not released an official public response to the Financial Times reporting at this time, and the duration of Meta’s access limitations remains uncertain.

The post Google Cuts Meta’s Gemini AI Access Amid Computing Power Crunch appeared first on Blockonomi.

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.

The largest cryptocurrency exchange will perform wallet maintenance later this week, disrupting certain vital operations.

The company has also faced severe regulatory challenges in the European Union and could be forced to stop servicing clients in the region from next month.

What Users Need to Know?

The maintenance is scheduled for July 1, and to support the procedure, Binance will briefly suspend deposits and withdrawals on the Bitcoin (BTC) network. The process is expected to last about an hour, after which operations will resume. 

The company assured that it will handle the technical requirements for all users and said that trading tokens on the aforementioned network will not be affected. 

It is important to note that such endeavors are frequent and typically cause no significant complications for clients. In May, the exchange temporarily paused ETH deposits and withdrawals due to wallet maintenance, and there were no reports of major issues.

Prior to that, Binance took similar actions to support improvements across various ecosystems, including Cardano, BNB Chain, and others. Last summer, it executed a live upgrade to its wallet infrastructure, briefly pausing deposits and withdrawals on all networks for about 15 minutes. 

The Problems in Europe 

Perhaps the main issue surrounding Binance as of late is its regulatory hurdles in the European Union. Last week, it announced that it had withdrawn its MiCA license application with the Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) in Greece and would, indeed, pursue authorization in another EU member state.

The EU watchdogs have put July 1 as the deadline for all crypto exchanges to comply with the rules, and it seems like Binance will fall behind. The company’s clients in Europe are left in the dark, as no official guidance (at least as of now) has been provided on how to proceed. 

Meanwhile, crypto X is flooded with users commenting on the hot topic. Satoshi Club recently shared a conversation between an EU-based Binance client and the exchange, in which the support team clarified that operations in all countries in the bloc (except France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Belgium, and Sweden) will, for now, remain unaffected.

In comparison, Polish, Spanish, French, Italian, and other users have reportedly received withdrawal instructions.

The post Binance Will Temporarily Pause BTC Deposits and Withdrawals: What You Need to Know appeared first on CryptoPotato.