The former Silvergate Bank chief risk officer has shed new light on the bank’s winding-down and the terms of a 2024 SEC settlement, saying she agreed to a civil penalty and a multi-year ban to avoid a protracted court battle over assertions that the bank misled investors about its anti-money-laundering rules and how it monitored crypto customers. In her first public remarks since the settlement, Kate Fraher indicated that no regulator had proven AML controls had failed, and that she chose to settle to “move forward.”

Fraher’s disclosures come as the U.S. securities regulator’s enforcement stance on the crypto sector continues to shape the industry’s access to traditional banking services. The former executive confirmed that the SEC’s action led to a civil penalty of $250,000 and a five-year ban from serving as a company executive or board director. She also highlighted the personal toll of the enforcement process, noting that she was de-banked and faced immediate credit-line closures as part of the broader pressure on crypto-related firms.

The comments arrive just after the SEC signaled a new openness in settlements by rescinding a long-standing gag rule earlier this week. Fraher, speaking after the gag rule’s removal, said she found the prohibition on discussing regulatory actions “unconstitutional” and welcomed the ability to speak more freely about the experience and its long-term personal and professional costs. Her remarks were circulated in part via social media posts, including a link to her public statements on X.

The wind-down of Silvergate, a lender that several crypto firms relied on for several years, was not framed by Fraher as a simple consequence of a bank run. While the bank did experience a deposit outflow—reported at around 70% during the wind-down—she argued that the decision to close operations in the first place stemmed from broader regulatory and administrative pressures targeting the digital asset industry, which in her view made operating a crypto-friendly business untenable in the prevailing climate. The timing followed the fallout from FTX’s collapse in late 2022 and the ensuing liquidity strains across the sector.

In the crypto policy discourse, Fraher’s account intersects with a widely discussed if loosely defined narrative often referred to as “Operation Chokepoint 2.0”—a label used by industry observers to describe efforts to restrict banking access for crypto businesses by tightening upstream financial-services channels. While the exact mechanisms and aims of such pressure remain contested, the broader takeaway from Fraher’s account is that regulatory strain, more than a single market shock, played a decisive role in Silvergate’s decision to wind down and exit the business.

Key developments around Fraher’s settlement and the gag policy

Fraher’s public comments assert that the SEC’s case did not establish a failure of Silvergate’s AML controls. She said she settled to avoid a “multi-year battle” and to move forward rather than litigate the allegations to verdict. The terms of the settlement—$250,000 civil penalty and a five-year ban from serving as an officer or director—are consistent with many enforcement actions where the regulator seeks accountability while offering a clear exit path from ongoing proceedings.

The renewed capacity to speak publicly follows the SEC’s decision to rescind the gag rule on Monday, a move Fraher framed as a step toward greater transparency in enforcement actions. Critics have argued that gag rules stifle important disclosures about regulatory actions and market practices, while supporters say restrictions can protect sensitive or confidential information. Fraher’s account, while centered on her own experience, also touches on a broader debate about how much participants in the crypto sector should be able to discuss settlements, findings, and internal risk assessments in the wake of enforcement actions.

Fraher also drew attention to the role of regulatory pressure in shaping the crypto banking landscape. She acknowledged that Silvergate weathered the initial shock of the FTX collapse and subsequently restructured with “appropriate capital levels” and a leaner workforce to operate more safely. Yet she emphasized that the drawdown of crypto-friendly banking options was driven in large part by the regulatory environment, not solely by market volatility or a single incident.

Regulatory momentum and what it means for the sector

Silvergate’s case is one notable thread in a broader pattern of regulatory risk that continues to reshape how banks interact with crypto businesses. The closures of other crypto-friendly lenders in 2023—such as Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank—illustrated the fragility of services available to crypto companies amid liquidity stress, depositor concerns, and the broader contagion from high-profile collapses in the sector. Fraher’s remarks underscore the tension between risk controls, enforcement expectations, and the practical needs of crypto firms seeking reliable banking relationships.

From an investor and builder perspective, Fraher’s comments illuminate several important dynamics. First, even settlements without a finding of AML failure can carry meaningful reputational and operational costs for executives and their firms. Second, the gag-rule reversal signals a potential shift toward greater candor in discussing enforcement actions, which could influence how future cases are perceived by the market. Finally, the persistent regulatory headwinds suggest that stable on- and off-ramp banking solutions for crypto firms will continue to hinge on evolving policy frameworks, not just market conditions.

As the sector digests these developments, observers will be watching for further clarity on how regulators define acceptable risk controls in crypto banking, and whether any formal guidelines emerge that explicitly address AML practices, customer monitoring, and the governance standards expected of financial institutions serving digital assets. Fraher’s experience—alongside ongoing enforcement activity—will likely influence how industry players assess compliance investments and risk-management priorities in the near term.

For readers tracking the policy front, the next note to watch is whether the SEC or other regulators publish additional guidance or reforms aimed at balancing enforcement with the practical realities of crypto-business models. Market participants will also want to monitor any new actions or settlements that signal how aggressively regulators plan to police AML controls, customer screening, and the surveillance of crypto-related activities as the industry seeks steadier banks and clearer operating rules.

Fraher’s disclosures offer a rare, candid glimpse into the personal and corporate calculus at the intersection of crypto banking and regulation. The broader question remains: how quickly, and through what contours, will the regulatory framework evolve to either shrink or stabilize the path for compliant, crypto-friendly financial services?

As the sector navigates these headwinds, investors and builders should stay attuned to policy shifts, enforcement posture, and the practicalities of banking access for digital assets. The coming months are likely to reveal whether the current climate yields a more resilient and transparent framework or further consolidation among banks willing to serve crypto clients under tighter scrutiny.

The U.S. Treasury has sanctioned two networks linked to the Sinaloa Cartel over allegations that they used cryptocurrency transactions to move fentanyl trafficking proceeds.

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the sanctions announced Wednesday were carried out through a coordinated operation led by the Homeland Security Task Force with support from the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration would continue targeting cartel-linked financial operations tied to fentanyl trafficking. In a statement released by the Treasury, Bessent said the government would not allow “narco-terrorists” to use financial networks to move drug-related proceeds into the United States.

Among those added to the sanctions list was Armando de Jesus Ojeda Aviles, whom the Treasury accused of helping convert cash into cryptocurrency on behalf of the Sinaloa Cartel. The department also identified Jesus Alonso Aispuro Felix as an associate allegedly involved in transferring drug trafficking proceeds through blockchain-based transactions.

At the same time, the Treasury attached six Ethereum wallet addresses to the sanctions designation. Five of those addresses were linked to Ojeda Aviles, according to the department’s release.

Blockchain activity tied to the listed wallets showed limited recent movement. Data referenced in the Treasury announcement indicated that five of the six Ethereum addresses had remained inactive for years. One address ending in “e27cb,” however, reportedly sent $894 worth of Tether’s USDT stablecoin on April 27 after more than a year without recorded activity.

Treasury expands cartel-linked crypto enforcement

Treasury officials said the sanctions were issued under two executive orders focused on combating illicit drug production and organizations designated as terrorists or supporters of terrorism.

In its statement, the Treasury described the Sinaloa Cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization responsible for trafficking significant quantities of fentanyl into the United States. The department said the drug continues to contribute to tens of thousands of deaths annually across the country.

Federal agencies have previously linked cryptocurrency networks to cartel financing operations across Latin America. A July 2025 report from the U.S. Department of Justice said the DEA had seized more than $10 million in crypto assets connected to the Sinaloa Cartel.

Elsewhere in the region, Brazilian authorities have also investigated organized crime groups accused of using digital assets to launder illicit funds. In August 2024, civil police in São Paulo dismantled a money laundering operation allegedly tied to the Primeiro Comando da Capital, or PCC, one of Brazil’s largest criminal gangs.

According to CNN Brasil, investigators said the group operated a cryptocurrency exchange that handled nearly 500 million Brazilian reais, or about $88.6 million at the time. Authorities reportedly seized 55 million reais in checks during raids linked to the investigation, while police arrested 13 individuals connected to the scheme.

Earlier investigations in Brazil pointed to similar patterns. In June 2023, the country’s Special Department of Federal Revenue raided six cryptocurrency exchanges accused of laundering roughly $380 million in illicit funds. A separate federal police operation in 2024 dismantled another crypto-linked laundering network that authorities valued at about $2.6 billion.

A 2023 report cited by regional investigators had already identified the growing use of cryptocurrency among organized crime groups in Latin America, including the Sinaloa Cartel and MS-13. Despite those cases, crypto adoption in Brazil continued to rise, with local trading volumes climbing 30% in 2024 while regulators advanced digital asset oversight measures.

For the past two decades, the internet has increasingly shifted toward a subscription-driven economy. From software and entertainment to cloud storage and productivity tools, users are now conditioned to pay recurring monthly fees simply to access digital services. The Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model became one of the dominant business frameworks of the modern web, creating predictable revenue streams for companies but also locking users into ecosystems they rarely control.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) introduces a radically different possibility: a financial system where infrastructure is open, services are composable, and participation is based on ownership and usage rather than perpetual subscription payments.

As blockchain networks mature, DeFi may become the foundation of a broader subscription-free digital economy.

The Rise of Subscription Fatigue

The modern internet is increasingly expensive to maintain as a consumer.

Users pay subscriptions for:

• cloud software
• streaming platforms
• productivity tools
• payment processors
• trading platforms
• banking services
• premium APIs

While subscriptions create stable cash flow for companies, they also create friction for users. Over time, the internet has evolved into a fragmented collection of recurring payments where access is temporary and conditional.

In traditional systems, users rarely own the platforms they depend on. They rent access.

This model creates several long-term problems:

• centralized control over infrastructure
• limited user ownership
• increasing platform lock-in
• rising costs for digital participation
• monetization through advertising and data extraction

DeFi challenges these assumptions by rethinking how financial infrastructure itself can operate.

Open Financial Rails Instead of Closed Platforms

At its core, DeFi is not simply an alternative banking system. It is an open financial coordination layer built on programmable blockchains.

Traditional financial services rely on closed networks:

• banks control accounts
• payment processors control transfers
• brokerages control market access
• Software providers control the infrastructure

DeFi replaces these siloed systems with open financial rails that anyone can access.

Protocols operating on networks such as Ethereum, Solana, and Avalanche allow developers to build financial applications without needing permission from centralized intermediaries.

This changes the economics of digital finance.

Instead of companies charging recurring subscription fees for access to financial services, protocols can monetize through:

• transaction fees
• liquidity incentives
• network participation
• protocol-owned assets
• optional premium tooling

The infrastructure itself becomes publicly accessible while monetization occurs at the usage layer.

The Emergence of Pay-Per-Use Economics

One of DeFi’s most important innovations is the shift from subscription models toward pay-per-use economics.

In traditional SaaS:

• Users pay whether they actively use the service or not
• Access disappears when payments stop
• Pricing is determined centrally

In DeFi:

• users interact directly with protocols
• Fees are often proportional to actual activity
• Access remains open to anyone with a wallet

This model resembles internet-native utility infrastructure more than corporate software licensing.

For example:

• Decentralized exchanges charge trading fees only when trades occur
• Lending protocols generate yield through borrowing demand
• cross-chain protocols monetize through routing activity
• stablecoin systems earn from settlement flows

Users pay for economic activity rather than platform membership.

This distinction matters because it lowers barriers to participation while creating more efficient capital allocation across networks.

Protocol-Owned Infrastructure Changes Incentives

A major weakness of traditional digital finance is that infrastructure ownership remains concentrated among corporations.

DeFi introduces the concept of protocol-owned infrastructure:

• liquidity pools owned by protocols
• decentralized validator networks
• community-governed treasuries
• shared execution environments
• open-source financial primitives

Instead of maximizing shareholder extraction, many DeFi systems attempt to align incentives between:

• users
• liquidity providers
• developers
• token holders
• network participants

This does not eliminate profit motives, but it redistributes how value flows through the ecosystem.

In many cases, users are not simply customers. They are stakeholders.

That distinction could reshape the future relationship between individuals and digital platforms.

Ownership Versus Subscription

The philosophical divide between traditional finance and DeFi may ultimately center around a simple question:

Should users rent digital access, or should they own part of the systems they use?

In Web2 platforms:

• Users generate value
• Corporations capture most of the upside
• Participation rarely translates into ownership

DeFi experiments with a different structure:

• governance tokens
• community treasuries
• revenue-sharing mechanisms
• decentralized voting systems
• permissionless participation

While governance systems remain imperfect, the broader shift is significant.

Ownership transforms users from passive consumers into active economic participants.

This is one reason why many DeFi communities resemble digital economies rather than traditional customer bases.

Internet-Native Finance

The internet was originally designed as an open communication network. DeFi extends that philosophy into financial infrastructure.

Internet-native finance operates differently from legacy banking systems because it is:

• global by default
• interoperable
• programmable
• continuously accessible
• composable across applications

A developer in the Philippines can integrate decentralized liquidity, lending, payments, and settlement into an application without negotiating with banks or payment processors.

This dramatically reduces coordination costs.

As these systems improve in scalability and user experience, financial services may increasingly resemble open internet protocols rather than private corporate products.

The implications extend far beyond crypto trading.

Potential applications include:

• global creator economies
• machine-to-machine payments
• decentralized AI marketplaces
• tokenized real-world assets
• borderless business infrastructure
• autonomous digital organizations

DeFi may eventually function as the invisible financial layer powering internet-native economic activity.

Challenges Still Facing DeFi

Despite its potential, DeFi remains early and highly experimental.

Several major obstacles still limit adoption:

User Experience Complexity

Wallet management, gas fees, private keys, and cross-chain interactions remain difficult for mainstream users.

Security Risks

Smart contract exploits and protocol failures continue to undermine trust across the industry.

Regulatory Uncertainty

Governments are still determining how decentralized systems fit into existing legal frameworks.

Scalability Constraints

Many blockchain ecosystems still struggle with throughput, fragmentation, and interoperability.

Sustainable Monetization

Not all DeFi protocols have viable long-term economic models.

The transition toward subscription-free finance will require infrastructure that is not only decentralized but also reliable, intuitive, and economically sustainable.

The Bigger Economic Shift

The deeper significance of DeFi may not be speculative assets or token prices.

Its real importance could lie in redefining how digital economies are structured.

The current internet economy is dominated by:

• rented access
• platform dependency
• centralized monetization
• recurring subscriptions

DeFi proposes an alternative:

• open infrastructure
• composable services
• user ownership
• usage-based economics
• permissionless participation

If these systems mature successfully, they could reduce reliance on centralized financial gatekeepers and create a more open framework for global economic coordination.

Conclusion

DeFi is often described as an alternative financial system, but its broader impact may be far larger.

It challenges the idea that digital infrastructure must always operate through subscription-based access controlled by centralized companies.

By combining open financial rails, protocol-owned infrastructure, and internet-native economics, DeFi introduces a model where users interact directly with transparent systems rather than renting access from intermediaries.

The long-term outcome remains uncertain. Many protocols will fail, regulations will evolve, and infrastructure must continue improving.

Yet the underlying concept is powerful:

Finance may become less about permissioned platforms and more about open networks.

If that transition succeeds, DeFi could become one of the foundational layers of a more open digital economy — one where access, ownership, and economic participation are no longer restricted to centralized institutions.

Key Highlights

• Alphabet’s Google is committing $15 billion to Missouri infrastructure development, featuring a major data center facility in New Florence within Montgomery County.
• The development will generate thousands of construction positions during the building phase and hundreds of long-term employment opportunities.
• Google has secured more than 1 gigawatt of fresh power generation in Missouri, with an additional 500 megawatts being developed alongside utility provider Ameren.
• According to 2025 Missouri law, Google must fund 100% of electricity and infrastructure expenses associated with the data center operations.
• A new $20 million Energy Impact Fund will be established by Google to assist in lowering residential energy expenses across nearby counties.

Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet (GOOGL), has announced a $15 billion investment in Missouri infrastructure, marking one of the most substantial technology investments the state has ever witnessed.

Alphabet Inc., GOOGL

The investment focuses on constructing a cutting-edge data center in New Florence, located in Montgomery County. At the time of the public announcement, GOOGL stock experienced a 0.32% increase.

The development will create thousands of employment opportunities for construction workers throughout the building period. After completion, the facility is expected to maintain hundreds of full-time staff positions.

Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe praised the announcement, noting it reinforces the state’s emerging position as a major destination for technology and innovation investments. In recent years, Missouri has been steadily attracting substantial infrastructure projects.

Google President and Chief Investment Officer Ruth Porat indicated the company intends to combine the infrastructure expansion with workforce training initiatives and energy cost reduction programs.

Regarding power arrangements, Google has already secured contracts for over 1 gigawatt of additional generation capacity throughout Missouri. The company is collaborating with Ameren to develop another 500 megawatts of capacity.

Martin Lyons, Ameren’s Chairman and CEO, characterized the project as the most significant economic development undertaking in the utility’s Missouri operations — a notable declaration considering Ameren’s extensive presence throughout the region.

According to Missouri legislation enacted in 2025, Google must assume 100% of the electricity costs and infrastructure investments directly tied to the data center’s functions. This requirement protects local utility customers from shouldering these expenses.

$20 Million Fund for Community Energy Relief

In conjunction with the infrastructure investment, Google is establishing a $20 million Energy Impact Fund focused on communities within Montgomery, Clay, and Platte counties.

A portion of these funds will support residential weatherization and energy efficiency improvements administered through the North East Community Action Corporation. The remaining resources will finance construction apprenticeship programs and skilled trades education initiatives throughout Missouri.

The data center design prioritizes water conservation. Google states the Montgomery County installation will incorporate sophisticated air-cooling technologies, limiting water usage primarily to standard non-industrial applications such as kitchen facilities.

Artificial Intelligence Fueling Infrastructure Expansion

The magnitude of this investment demonstrates the escalating power and computing requirements driven by artificial intelligence technologies. Major cloud providers — Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta — have been allocating billions toward data center infrastructure throughout the United States.

Utility companies across the Midwest and Southeast regions have reported increased electricity demand projections directly attributed to this infrastructure expansion.

Google’s Missouri investment represents part of the broader competition to establish computing capacity before market demand exceeds available supply.

Ameren’s Lyons reaffirmed that this project stands as the largest economic development initiative in the utility’s Missouri operational history, emphasizing the facility’s substantial scale once it reaches full operational capacity.

Key Highlights

• SpaceX submitted its S-1 registration statement to the SEC, pursuing a valuation reaching $1.8 trillion
• The Starlink division delivered $11.4 billion in sales during 2025, representing roughly 50% growth compared to the prior year
• SpaceXAI and xAI operations recorded a $6.36 billion operating deficit in 2025, offsetting gains elsewhere
• Investment in Starship development has exceeded $15 billion, surpassing initial projections
• Elon Musk controls approximately 42% of SpaceX equity; a successful offering could elevate his wealth beyond $1 trillion

SpaceX has submitted its S-1 registration document to the Securities and Exchange Commission, formally launching its journey toward becoming a publicly traded entity on the Nasdaq exchange with the ticker symbol SPCX. The investor roadshow is scheduled to commence on June 5.

The aerospace manufacturer recorded $18.67 billion in total sales during 2025, while simultaneously reporting a net deficit of $4.9 billion. The opening quarter of 2026 showed $4.69 billion in revenue alongside a $4.3 billion net loss.

SpaceX maintains $102 billion in total assets against $60.5 billion in outstanding liabilities.

The organization is pursuing a market capitalization of up to $1.8 trillion, positioning it as potentially the most significant initial public offering in American financial history.

Elon Musk maintains ownership of approximately 42% of the company. Should SpaceX achieve a $1.6 trillion market value, his holdings alone would propel his personal wealth beyond the $1 trillion threshold, establishing him as humanity’s first trillionaire.

Starlink Powers Financial Performance

The Connectivity division, predominantly composed of Starlink operations, represents the primary revenue driver. This segment delivered $11.39 billion in sales throughout 2025, marking nearly 50% annual expansion, while generating $4.42 billion in operating profit.

During the first quarter of 2026, Starlink alone produced $3.26 billion in revenue with $1.19 billion in operating earnings.

As of March 2026, SpaceX maintained more than 9,600 satellites in orbital deployment serving 10.3 million paying customers.

The launch services operation, designated as the Space segment, contributed $4.09 billion in revenue throughout 2025 but operated at a $657 million deficit.

SpaceX has committed over $15 billion toward Starship development, its advanced heavy-lift launch vehicle, beyond original cost estimates. The Starship program is preparing for its twelfth test flight this week.

Artificial Intelligence Operations Drain Resources

The artificial intelligence division, designated as SpaceXAI and incorporating xAI technology, continues burning through capital rapidly. This unit recorded a $6.36 billion operating loss during 2025 and accumulated an additional $2.47 billion deficit in Q1 2026 alone.

Musk has indicated intentions to eliminate xAI as a separate entity and integrate AI capabilities directly under SpaceX corporate structure.

The registration document revealed that Anthropic, creator of the Claude AI assistant, has committed to $15 billion in annual payments for utilizing data center infrastructure connected to xAI facilities.

SpaceX and Tesla unveiled Terafab, a collaborative initiative focused on establishing internal semiconductor manufacturing capabilities to supply SpaceX satellite systems, Tesla automotive platforms, and xAI computing requirements.

The IPO documentation highlights numerous legal exposures, including litigation claiming Grok, xAI’s conversational AI system, enabled deepfake creation, along with intellectual property disputes, European Union content regulation proceedings, and cybersecurity breach allegations.

The forthcoming roadshow will provide SpaceX and its investment banking partners opportunity to present the offering to major institutional capital allocators before final pricing determination and commencement of public trading.

Fundamental Background

On 14–15 May, a high-level US–China summit took place in Beijing, where both sides discussed the potential easing of trade tensions and certain mutual concessions. Against a backdrop of positive expectations, the S&P 500 closed above 7,500 points for the first time, while the Dow Jones returned to the psychologically significant 50,000 mark.

At the same time, markets continue to feel pressure from US debt-related risks: the country’s credit rating remains below the highest tier, while the growing federal budget deficit and accumulated debt burden are increasing investors’ sensitivity to fiscal risks. The combination of trade optimism and budgetary vulnerabilities is creating a mixed and more volatile fundamental backdrop for the S&P 500.

Technical Picture

Since March 2026, the S&P 500 has remained in a medium-term uptrend, and between 29 April and 14 May it formed a new trending leg within the broader trend, reaching a peak around 7,520. The trend was subsequently broken, while trading volume increased noticeably, signalling heightened market participation. As a result of the standoff between equally matched buyers and sellers, the index has shifted into sideways movement and is currently determining its future direction.

The POC zone within the profile is concentrated around 7,385–7,390 — this is where the main area of confrontation is forming.

At present, the price remains above this zone (POC), but below the upper profile boundary at 7,425. Should the price resume its trend movement, the red resistance level at 7,455 may act as a limiting factor. The green support level at 7,345 remains a potential reference point should quotations move below the profile. RSI + MAs currently show readings of 51, 46 and 51 — the oscillator indicators remain in neutral territory, with no clearly defined directional momentum.

Key Takeaways

The index has completed its short-term bullish impulse and moved into sideways consolidation. RSI readings near neutral levels, without a pronounced directional impulse, reflect the current balance in the market — investors are weighing uncertainty surrounding trade negotiations against the backdrop of continued sensitivity to fiscal risks.

Trade global index CFDs with zero commission and tight spreads (additional fees may apply). Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading index CFDs with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Singapore’s central bank has pulled the crypto payment license of Bsquared Technology Pte. Ltd., stripping the firm of its right to provide digital payment token services after uncovering a series of breaches.

In a Wednesday announcement, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said it revoked Bsquared’s Major Payment Institution Licence after an on-site inspection found weaknesses in the company’s risk management practices and conflict-of-interest policies, as well as failures to comply with the regulator’s outsourcing guidelines.

MAS said Bsquared provided false or misleading information on multiple occasions, from its initial license application through the inspection itself.

Bsquared, also known as BSQ, obtained its license 16 months ago after receiving approval to offer digital payment token services under Singapore’s Payment Services Act 2019.

Related: Singapore’s OCBC launches tokenized gold fund on Ethereum and Solana

MAS orders Bsquared to submit a closure certificate

The company is required to submit a closure certificate from its auditors confirming that all customer funds have been returned to their recipients. Bsquared told MAS it held no outstanding customer assets.

“MAS takes a serious view of the breaches committed by BSQ, and is reviewing the responsibilities of key officers of BSQ,” the central bank added.

MAS revokes Bsquared’s license. Source: MAS

MAS has granted 37 digital payment token services licenses so far, and revocations remain uncommon. Last year, MAS rejected an application from AmazingTech, the operator of Tokenize Xchange, and the Commercial Affairs Department subsequently launched a probe into the company.

Related: Crypto dispute over Resupply exploit lands in Singapore harassment court

Singapore pushes deeper into digital asset infrastructure

Singapore has built a reputation as one of Asia’s leading crypto hubs, home to regional offices of Coinbase and Ripple, as well as the global headquarters of Crypto.com.

The city-state is also cementing its position as a leading hub for integrating traditional finance with digital assets.

Last month, Singapore Gulf Bank launched a service allowing institutional clients to mint and redeem stablecoins directly from their bank accounts via the Solana blockchain, enabling 24/7 settlement between fiat and digital assets.

Magazine: Guide to the top and emerging global crypto hubs — Mid-2026