Crypto World
Crypto ATM Bans Advance in Delaware, New Jersey
Delaware and New Jersey have both advanced legislation to ban cryptocurrency ATMs in what is becoming a growing trend across US states, with lawmakers concerned that the kiosks are overwhelmingly used for scams.
The Delaware House Economic Committee on Tuesday passed House Bill 441 to the full chamber, which would ban owning, installing, or operating a cryptocurrency kiosk.
It followed the New Jersey Senate Commerce Committee’s unanimous vote on Monday to send its bill banning crypto ATMs to the full chamber.
At least three other US states — Indiana, Tennessee and Minnesota — have passed total bans on crypto ATMs in response to their use for scams.
The FBI said in May that it received nearly 13,500 complaints about crypto ATMs in 2025 involving over $388 million in losses, a 23% increase in complaints and a 58% increase in losses from 2024. Over half of the complaints involved people aged over 50, with losses exceeding $302 million.
Cyndie Romer, a representative who sponsored the bill in Delaware, said crypto ATMs “reduce digital currency to a predatory cash grab.”
“Regular crypto traders generally do not use crypto ATMs due to their much higher fees, which can be upwards of 20% of the value of the transaction, versus the 0.4% to 1% in fees for online exchanges,” she added. “There is no reason to support a business structure that enables scammers to extort money from our most vulnerable populations.”
A crypto ATM at a service station in Dover, Delaware’s capital. Source: Coin ATM Radar
Delaware’s bill would also ban fiat-to-crypto sales that “replicate or substitute” crypto ATMs, such as through point-of-sale systems or cashiers. It also mandates that any crypto ATMs must be removed within 90 days after the bill is signed into law.
The bill outlines penalties of up to $10,000 for violations, and if a kiosk is found to be operating, it must refund its fees to all users or pay into a consumer protection fund if users can’t be found.
New Jersey’s bill would similarly ban owning, controlling, installing, managing, selling, or offering to sell a crypto ATM due to “a significant rise in scams associated with their use.”
It outlines penalties of up to $10,000 for a first offense, doubling to $20,000 for subsequent offenses.
Bitcoin ATM operators push back
Indiana became the first US state to ban crypto ATMs with a law signed in March. Tennessee followed with its ban in April, while Minnesota passed a ban in May.
Some US cities have also passed or are weighing ordinances banning crypto ATMs, while some states, including Arizona and California, have capped the value of transactions allowed by crypto ATMs.
Related: Canada proposes crypto ATM ban over scams and money laundering
Bitcoin Depot, once the largest operator of crypto ATMs in the world with over 9,000 kiosks, cited regulatory pressure as a major reason it filed for bankruptcy last month.
However, crypto ATM operators have long claimed they are not at fault for scams through their machines, and many have put in place on-screen scam warnings or self-imposed transaction limits to curb illicit transactions.
Bitcoin Depot had told an ICIJ investigation on crypto scams in December that it “cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of third-party scammers” and said it had “robust warnings and safeguards” on its machines and during transactions.
Magazine: When privacy and AML laws conflict: Crypto projects’ impossible choice
Digital Asset Holdings LLC, best known as the entity behind the Canton Network, has raised another $355 million in a new funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz’s main crypto fund.
The US-based privately held venture capital firm, founded by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, contributed $100 million. Other notable names that participated in the funding round include heavyweights like Citadel Securities, Apollo, BNP Paribas, CME Ventures, Coinbase Ventures, and HSBC.
Digital Asset Holding built the Canton Network, a layer-1 smart-contract blockchain with configurable privacy and controls. It aims to become a household name in the rapidly growing sectors of Real-World Assets (RWA) and TradFi institutions.
It uses a two-tier consensus mechanism that allows unlimited horizontal scalability of the network. It also maintains full smart contract interoperability.
According to reports, the Canton Network has already supported $6 trillion in tokenized issuance, while the proceeds from the latest funding round will be channeled toward partnerships, M&A, and ecosystem expansion.
It’s worth noting that this is the second major funding round closed by Digital Asset Holdings. In the previous round, announced a month ago, the entity raised $300 million at a near-$2 billion valuation, and a16z was once again at the forefront.
In 2025, it raised $50 million from major backers such as Nasdaq and Bank of New York Mellon.
The post Digital Asset Holdings Secures Another $355 Million in Funding Round Led by a16z appeared first on CryptoPotato.
A federal bank charter, a European passport, a growing stablecoin, and a ledger upgrade cycle in full swing. The company has never looked stronger. The token is down nearly half this year. The gap between those sentences is the most important question in the XRP market.
Summary
- Ripple’s regulatory and stablecoin wins strengthen the company, but they do not automatically create XRP token demand.
- XRP’s supply pressure, escrow releases, whale selling, and weak ETF demand have kept the chart under pressure.
- RLUSD supports Ripple’s payments business but narrows XRP’s original bridge-asset narrative.
- XRP’s next durable rally likely depends on mechanical demand channels such as lending, burn, escrow reform, and ETF flow recovery.
Picture two screens side by side. On the left, Ripple’s 2026: conditional approval for a national trust bank from the OCC, a stablecoin passport covering 30 European countries, regulatory wins from London to Abu Dhabi, a lending protocol moving through ledger governance, transaction counts on the XRP Ledger at a two-year high, and a quantum-security roadmap stretching confidently to 2028.
On the right, XRP’s 2026: a token that opened the year near $2.10, touched multi-year highs in the spring, and now trades around $1.10 after a week in which it lost roughly 17%, sitting below its 50-day moving average near $1.38 and its 200-day near $1.62.
Six years ago, the explanation would have been easy: the SEC lawsuit was strangling the company, so of course the token suffered.
The lawsuit’s shadow has mostly lifted, the regulatory environment is the friendliest in the asset’s history, and the divergence has only widened.
Holders are asking the question with increasing irritation, and they deserve a better answer than market manipulation memes or bagholder cope.
There is a real answer. It has several parts, none of them flattering to the simple thesis that corporate success must eventually pull the token upward, and a few of them hopeful in ways the frustrated crowd is currently ignoring.
The answer, compressed
Five forces explain the gap, and the rest of this piece unpacks them in order.
First, Ripple’s wins accrue to Ripple’s equity, and XRP is not equity; nothing in a bank charter or a license buys the token.
Second, supply runs on its own clock: the escrow drips up to a billion XRP a month into the market while large early holders have spent the spring selling into every bounce.
Third, the company’s flagship product now competes with the token’s original thesis, because RLUSD does the bridge-asset job without the volatility.
Fourth, the ETF demand channel turned out to be cyclical, chasing strength instead of creating it.
Fifth, a market-wide crash hit a high-beta token with extra sell pressure attached harder than most.
None of these forces is mysterious. What they share is that no press release fixes any of them, and the channels that could—lending, burn, escrow reform—are still under construction.
The win column, taken seriously
Start by giving the left screen its due, because the corporate run is real and remarkable.
In December 2025, the OCC conditionally approved Ripple National Trust Bank, putting a crypto-native company inside the federal banking perimeter and opening a path toward reserves held directly with the Federal Reserve.
In late January 2026, the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority granted an electronic money license; days later, Luxembourg finalized an EMI license that passports RLUSD issuance across the entire European Economic Area under MiCA.
Swiss approval reached advanced review in March. Gulf regulators in Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Bahrain signed off on RLUSD for regulated use.
The stablecoin itself crossed $1 billion within 11 months of launch and now holds around $1.5 billion with reserves attested above the float.
The ledger side has been just as busy.
The XLS-65 and XLS-66 amendments, which would build native vaults and fixed-rate lending into the protocol, entered validator voting in January after a $200,000 security Attackathon.
The EVM sidechain has grown to roughly $180 million in locked value.
The core software is being rebranded from Rippled to XRPLd with a major performance release attached, RippleX has begun threading AI through the development pipeline, and a four-phase plan aims to make the ledger quantum-resistant by 2028.
Transactions recently touched their highest levels in two years. Central bank pilots continue to run on Ripple infrastructure. Any one of these items would have produced a double-digit rally in 2021.
In 2026, the market shrugged at all of them. That is not because the market is broken. It is because the market is answering a different question than the one holders are asking.
The question the market is actually answering
The core of it is uncomfortable. Ripple’s wins accrue, first and most directly, to Ripple, a private company whose equity captures the value of its licenses, stablecoin business, and enterprise relationships.
XRP is not equity.
Holding the token gives no claim on Ripple’s revenue, no share of RLUSD’s reserve interest, and no dividend from the trust bank.
The token’s value rests on demand for the token itself: as bridge liquidity, as the ledger’s native asset, as collateral, and as a speculative vehicle.
The implicit thesis behind the divergence frustration is that corporate success must convert into token demand.
Sometimes it does, through real channels this piece will get to.
But the conversion is neither automatic nor proportional, and 2026 has made the gap brutally visible because the corporate wins have come faster than the token-demand channels can absorb.
A bank charter does not buy XRP. A stablecoin passport does not buy XRP. A quantum roadmap does not buy XRP.
Each one makes the company more valuable and the ecosystem more durable, and each one leaves the token’s daily demand-supply balance where it was.
Equity markets understood this distinction long ago, which is why the perennial Ripple IPO chatter cuts deeper than it first appears.
If Ripple ever lists, investors will finally have a direct way to own the win column, and the market will be forced to price, openly, how much of the company’s success the token was ever going to capture. The realistic range of answers starts at less than holders hope.
The announcement rally died of overuse
Some market history explains why the win column stopped working. Half of crypto Twitter still trades as if the old regime were alive, so the story bears retelling in full. From 2017 through 2021, XRP was the announcement-rally token par excellence.
A bank partnership, a new RippleNet corridor, a MoneyGram deal, or an exchange listing in a new country: each headline produced a pop, because the holder base was overwhelmingly retail, the float available on exchanges was thinner, and the surrounding market treated every institutional gesture as confirmation of the bridge-asset destiny.
Traders learned to buy rumors of announcements, then to buy rumors of rumors. The reflex was so reliable that it became infrastructure; entire accounts existed to catalog Ripple partnership hints. Regimes like that die in a specific way.
Each announcement that fails to change the underlying demand for the token teaches a cohort of traders that the pop is for selling, and the selling arrives a little earlier each cycle, until the pop stops forming at all.
The MoneyGram partnership was the canonical lesson: a flagship deal, celebrated for two years, that ended with the disclosure that the partner had been selling the XRP it received as fast as it arrived.
By the time the 2026 win column began stacking up, the market had a decade of training data showing that Ripple’s corporate milestones convert to token demand weakly and slowly when they convert at all.
The OCC charter announcement in December produced barely a candle. That was not apathy. That was memory.
The practical implication runs against instinct: the next durable XRP rally will almost certainly not begin with a Ripple announcement, and a trader waiting for the catalyst headline is watching the wrong screen.
It will begin, if it begins, in the boring data series this piece keeps returning to: vault deposits, burn rates, flow tables, where changes compound quietly long before they trend.
The supply side never sleeps
Demand is only half of any price, and XRP’s supply side runs on a schedule that no corporate achievement alters.
Every month, Ripple’s escrow releases up to one billion XRP, with the unused portion re-locked into new contracts.
In practice only a fraction enters circulation, but the headline figure is what traders price, and the mechanism guarantees a steady drip of potential supply from a single large holder into a market that must absorb it.
Years of debate have not changed the basic optics: the largest beneficiary of XRP sales is the company whose successes holders are waiting to be paid for.
Watchers have pressed for a more transparent release regime, and the CLARITY Act’s progress has revived speculation that disclosure standards might force one.
Until then, every rally runs into the same arithmetic. The nearer-term pressure has come from whales.
On-chain trackers through late spring flagged sustained distribution from large wallets, with sizeable cohorts selling into every bounce, and the past week’s slide came with whale selling named repeatedly as the proximate cause.
Some of that is profit-taking from addresses that accumulated in 2024 at a fraction of current prices, behavior that is rational, predictable, and indifferent to press releases.
Distribution of this kind ends in one of two ways: sellers exhaust, or demand arrives that absorbs them. The win column produces neither directly. A caution on reading all this.
A falling price during heavy distribution tells you about the sellers’ positioning, not about the asset’s prospects, and conflating the two is how investors talk themselves out of positions at lows and into them at highs.
The current chart is ugly. The current chart is also exactly what a transfer from early large holders to a wider base looks like, when it is that. The data cannot yet say which it is.
The IPO wildcard cuts both ways
Hovering over all of this is the listing question, which resurfaces every quarter and usually gets argued with less precision than it needs.
An eventual Ripple IPO would be a genuine event for the token, in two opposite directions at once. The supportive direction runs through disclosure.
A public Ripple must publish audited financials, and audited financials would put hard numbers on things the XRP market has guessed about for a decade: the size and pace of XRP sales, the carrying value of the company’s holdings, the actual revenue contribution of products that use the token versus products that bypass it.
Forced transparency would close the trust discount that escrow opacity built, and a successful listing would carry validation effects no private milestone can match, with the equity’s reception telling the world how serious institutions price the whole Ripple complex.
The adverse direction runs through substitution. Every investor who wanted exposure to Ripple’s regulatory empire and bought XRP for lack of an alternative would suddenly have the real thing.
The token’s role as a proxy for the company, always analytically wrong but behaviorally real, would end on listing day, and demand built on that proxy logic would migrate to the stock.
Circle’s market history offers the template: its IPO gave investors a direct claim on stablecoin economics, and nobody needed to hold a token to participate.
The likeliest net effect is a repricing in which XRP trades more purely on its own mechanical demand, which is healthy in the long run and could be violent in the short run, in either direction, depending on what the disclosures reveal.
No filing exists, and post-CLARITY rules would shape the timing.
But the scenario belongs in any serious map of the divergence, because it is the one event that would force the market to answer, in public and with money, exactly how much of the win column the token was ever entitled to.
The stablecoin ate the story
There is a deeper, slower force underneath the supply mechanics, and it is the one the XRP community least enjoys discussing. RLUSD competes with the original XRP thesis.
The bridge-asset argument that powered every XRP bull case since 2017 held that institutions moving money across borders would prefer a fast, neutral intermediary asset over pre-funded foreign accounts.
The argument was sound. What it did not anticipate was that the winning intermediary might be a stablecoin: an asset with the same settlement speed, on the same ledger, with none of the volatility that makes treasurers flinch.
Ripple built that asset itself, wrapped it in more licenses than any competitor, and now leads its corporate communication with it.
Inside Ripple’s payment flows, the two assets do cooperate, with XRP providing bridge liquidity in thin corridors while RLUSD provides the stable leg.
But at the level of narrative, the company’s regulatory triumphs of 2026 are stablecoin triumphs, and every one of them strengthens the case that regulated tokenized dollars, not volatile bridge assets, are what institutional payments were waiting for.
The market is not stupid. It watched the company’s center of gravity move and repriced the token’s role accordingly.
This, more than any single sale or unlock, explains why announcements that would once have ignited the chart now pass through it.
The announcements are about a future in which XRP’s job description has narrowed. The token keeps the ledger’s fee and anti-spam functions, its DEX and collateral roles, and its bridge niche in exotic corridors.
Those are real. They are simply smaller than the world-reserve-bridge dream that old prices were built on, and markets reprice dreams without sentimentality.
The ETF era arrived, and it was not enough
Spot XRP ETFs were supposed to be the demand channel that finally connected institutional interest to the token itself, and their story this year is a microcosm of the whole divergence.
The products exist now, after the post-lawsuit regulatory thaw turned filings into listings.
Flows through their first stretch have been positive but modest, a topic this publication has covered in depth, and nothing close to the Bitcoin ETF tidal wave that the most excited projections borrowed their math from.
The shortfall is informative. Bitcoin ETFs succeeded because they let a vast, pre-existing pool of fiduciary money express a view it already held.
XRP ETFs offer access to a view that institutions, evidently, hold with less conviction, and access without conviction produces shelf space, not flows.
Spring’s price action made the problem circular. ETF allocators chase strength and momentum. A token down sharply on the year with visible whale distribution gives a portfolio committee every reason to wait, and their waiting removes the bid that would have stopped the slide.
None of this makes the ETF channel worthless. It makes it cyclical, a demand amplifier that will matter enormously in the next genuine uptrend and contributes little during a markdown.
The steady institutional bid arrives when the price story improves, which is backwards from what holders hoped ETFs would do.
The macro made everything worse
Fairness requires the context that XRP’s slide did not happen in a vacuum.
The broader crypto market has spent recent weeks in a brutal selloff, with hundreds of billions wiped from total capitalization, Ethereum dragged toward levels not seen in years, and Bitcoin well off its highs even as equity markets sat near records.
The decoupling of crypto from stocks has been one of the stranger features of the season, and it has hit high-beta large caps like XRP harder than the leaders.
XRP’s relationship with Bitcoin this year has been its own study in decoupling.
Through the spring, the token traded its own calendar of legal and regulatory catalysts, sometimes rallying against a flat market, which felt like strength.
The same independence cuts the other way in a downturn: idiosyncratic supply pressure means XRP can fall harder than its beta predicts, and the past month delivered it, with the token breaking the $1.20 to $1.25 support zone that had held through earlier scares and probing toward the $1.05 to $1.10 region that technicians flag as the next meaningful floor.
The concentration of XRP’s spot volume on Asian retail venues, particularly in South Korea and Japan, adds a final amplifier.
Retail-heavy order books are momentum machines in both directions, quick to chase highs and quick to abandon support, and they make XRP’s drawdowns sharper than its institutional-era story would suggest.
The microstructure of who actually trades this token has changed far less than the company behind it.
What Ripple itself could do tomorrow
One actor in this story has tools nobody else holds, and the discussion rarely puts them on the table plainly.
Ripple could publish a binding, transparent escrow release policy: fixed schedules, advance disclosure of intended sales, and reporting that lets the market price supply instead of fearing it.
The cost would be flexibility; the benefit would be retiring the single oldest discount on the asset.
Hyperliquid showed the opposite lever in 2025, showing the whole industry how mechanically routing protocol revenue into open-market token purchases can re-anchor a price to a business.
While Ripple’s corporate structure makes a direct copy awkward, nothing prevents the company from committing a defined slice of payments or stablecoin revenue to programmatic XRP acquisition for operational reserves.
Even a modest, audited program would invert the market’s core assumption that the company is a permanent net seller of the asset its community holds.
The fact that none of this has happened is itself information. Ripple’s incentives point toward funding the regulatory land grab, and selling escrowed XRP remains the cheapest funding desk on earth.
Holders waiting for the company to defend the chart are waiting for it to act against its own treasury logic, which companies do rarely and only when the asset’s weakness starts costing them something they value more: ecosystem credibility, validator goodwill, or an IPO narrative.
Watch for that pain threshold. The day defending XRP becomes cheaper for Ripple than ignoring it is the day the win column finally gets a direct conduit to the price, and that day is more likely to be chosen in a boardroom than discovered on a chart.
The channels that could reconnect company and token
Diagnosis without prognosis is just complaint. The constructive version is a list of specific, watchable channels through which the win column could start paying the chart.
The first is the lending protocol. If XLS-65 and XLS-66 activate and vault deposits grow, XRP gains its first native yield and its first protocol-level supply sink.
Locked tokens earning underwritten credit yield are tokens off the order books, and the analyst threshold of $500 million in vault value is a reasonable line for when the effect becomes visible.
The second is fee burn at scale. Every XRPL transaction destroys a sliver of XRP; transaction counts at two-year highs make the burn real but still tiny, and only an order-of-magnitude rise in ledger activity, of the kind tokenization and lending could bring, turns it into a pricing factor.
The third is escrow reform. A credible move to a transparent, rules-based release schedule, whether volunteered or regulation-forced, would remove the single largest standing discount on the asset.
The fourth is the ETF flywheel reversing polarity, which requires a price uptrend to start it but compounds once started.
The four channels share one trait. Each converts ecosystem activity into token demand mechanically, without requiring anyone to believe a narrative.
That is the actual lesson of 2026 for XRP: narrative channels are exhausted, mechanical channels are under construction, and the chart will reconnect with the company when the mechanics, not the press releases, say so.
Reading the divergence honestly
The divergence supports two readings: a broken token attached to a thriving company, or a mispriced one.
The bearish reading is coherent. The company’s success has migrated to assets and business lines that holders do not own, supply pressure is structural and scheduled, the flagship demand thesis was partially cannibalized in-house, and the token now trades as a high-beta large cap with extra sell pressure attached.
Under this reading, the divergence is not an anomaly to be corrected but a discovery of how things always were, and rallies are for selling until a mechanical demand channel proves itself at scale.
The bullish reading is also coherent, and it is not cope.
Ripple is constructing the most heavily regulated financial stack in crypto, every layer of it runs on a ledger whose native asset is XRP, and the conversion channels—lending, burn, collateral, ETF flows—are months rather than years from testable.
Prices set during indiscriminate whale distribution and a market-wide crash are the worst possible estimate of what a demand structure will look like after those channels open.
Under this reading, 2026 is the year the market punished XRP for the gap between announcement and mechanism, and the punishment is creating the entry that the mechanism era will reward.
What a careful observer cannot do is split the difference lazily.
The two readings make different predictions on visible timelines: vault deposit growth, burn rates, escrow policy, ETF flow direction.
Within two or three quarters, the data will start choosing between them.
Until then, the only defensible position is the uncomfortable one: the company’s win column is real, the chart’s verdict is real, and the bridge between them is under construction with no completion date on the permit.
As of June 11, 2026. Prices and on-chain figures move quickly; verify current data before trading. This article is information, not investment advice.
The debate over Strategy’s (MSTR) recent dilutive transaction resurfaced, this time featuring Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Strike and Twenty One Capital (XXI) CEO Jack Mallers, on Wednesday at BTC Prague, as the two weighed in on how investors should assess the company’s increasingly complex capital structure.
Mallers asked Saylor how he defines multiple-to-net asset value (mNAV), noting that some investors include out-of-the-money securities in their calculations and asking whether he agrees with that approach. (Strategy currently has $6.7 billion of convertible debt that is out of the money, meaning the securities are not expected to convert into equity at the current $115 share price).
Mallers also challenged Saylor’s view on dilution, asking for an example of a dilutive transaction if issuing equity for cash is not considered dilutive.
Saylor responded that mNAV can be calculated by including the notional value of convertible debt, common equity and preferred equity. However, he argued that mNAV is only one valuation framework. Investors can also evaluate gross assets per share and net assets per share, which may exclude preferred equity or convertible debt from the calculation. According to Saylor, the distinction matters less when debt and preferred equity represent only a small portion of the company’s overall asset base.
On dilution, Saylor argued that issuing equity for cash is not inherently dilutive because shareholders receive a tangible asset in return, whether cash or bitcoin. He said raising capital strengthens the balance sheet, expands the capital base and improves creditworthiness. As an example, Saylor pointed to Strategy’s recent addition of approximately $100 million to its U.S. dollar reserves, bringing the total to roughly $1 billion.
AI agents are crypto’s strongest story in 2026, but DeFAI projects now have to prove they can handle user capital safely once money is moving in live markets.
DeFAI projects pitch automated trading, portfolio management, and AI-assisted token launches to users who may not fully understand the risks. Singularry is one of those projects, working on non-custodial automation, risk controls, and smart-wallet permissions.
In an exclusive interview with BeInCrypto, Singularry explained how its AI trading agent works, which dApp features are already live, and what the project needs to prove before traders treat it as a serious DeFi product.
Singularry’s AI Agent Is Built Around Portfolio Automation
Singularry’s dApp currently includes a fully autonomous, non-custodial AI trading agent designed to manage a diversified portfolio of strategies around the clock.
The platform also offers a library of 17 strategies, ranging from conservative approaches such as dollar-cost averaging, index exposure, and stablecoin vaults to more advanced delta-neutral and market-neutral strategies.
The company said the agent is designed to act as an always-on portfolio manager rather than a single-trade execution tool.
“You set the guardrails, how much it can deploy, how aggressive it should be, and which strategies it is allowed to use, and it does the rest: continuously reading the market, sizing positions to your risk profile, entering and exiting across DeFi and CEX venues, and rebalancing as conditions shift,” Singularry said.
The company added that the agent “thinks in portfolios, not one-off trades,” weighing eligible strategies, allocating capital to stronger opportunities, and learning from each outcome over time.
Permissions Are Scoped, Revocable, and Risk-Capped
A major concern around AI trading agents is permission risk. If users give an agent too much control, a faulty strategy, compromised integration, or malicious execution path can quickly become dangerous.
Singularry said its system is designed around narrow, revocable permissions rather than open-ended access.
“Users never hand over open-ended control. Permissions are scoped on four levels,” the company said.
Those levels include on-chain capability controls, approval thresholds, risk caps, and revocable signing.
In practice, the smart wallet only lets the agent interact with protocols the user has enabled, while larger trades require explicit approval. Sensitive actions such as withdrawals remain manual.
The platform also allows users to define maximum position size, the number of concurrent positions, and daily spending limits. Execution authority can be revoked on-chain at any time.
“You grant narrow, revocable permissions. Not the keys to your funds,” Singularry said.
Security Goes Beyond Audits
Singularry said its security model relies on several safeguards beyond formal audits. These include pre-trade simulation, stale-data protection, circuit breakers, integration safeguards, and restricted custody flows.
Transactions are simulated before being broadcast. If they cannot be safely validated, they are blocked. Price and market data that exceed freshness thresholds are flagged, and the agent refuses to trade on degraded inputs.
Circuit breakers can halt activity when daily-loss limits or drawdown thresholds are reached. Singularry also said that if a connected service or signing path behaves unexpectedly, the system locks execution rather than attempting to continue.
“Keys are never held in the open; signing happens in a secure delegated environment, and destinations are restricted,” the company said.
Singularry also said its smart contracts have been audited by Fairyproof, and that all known issues have been remediated.
Risk Profiles Are Designed for Different User Types
Singularry’s risk profiles come in three presets: conservative, balanced, and aggressive. Each preset defines how capital is split across risk tiers, position limits, and approval thresholds.
The company said the agent reacts to changing market conditions through market-regime detection, volatility-aware position sizing, automatic drawdown pauses, and daily-loss breakers. It also continuously re-ranks strategies based on real outcomes.
Still, Singularry acknowledged that its system is built for disciplined portfolio management rather than ultra-fast trading.
“One honest note: the agent operates on a regular evaluation cycle, so it is built for disciplined risk management, not millisecond reaction,” the company said.
The platform currently appears most suited to intermediate DeFi users: people who already understand wallets, self-custody, and risk settings, but want to automate portfolio execution.
“Today, Singularry naturally resonates most with intermediate DeFi users: those confident enough to define their own risk parameters, smart enough to value automation, and looking for exposure to proven, conservative strategies without unnecessary complexity,” Singularry said.
Over time, the company wants beginners to grow into more advanced strategies while experienced traders use Singularry alongside existing trading systems.
The AI Launchpad Needs Quality Controls
Alongside its managed-strategy product, Singularry also has an AI Launchpad for AI-assisted token creation and bonding-curve launches. This introduces a separate challenge: preventing the launchpad from becoming a low-quality token factory.
Singularry gave a direct answer on this point.
“A bonding-curve launchpad with AI generation is structurally a memecoin factory unless quality gates are deliberately added,” the company said.
According to Singularry, better controls would include token-security screening at launch, graduation requirements based on liquidity and holder thresholds, creator reputation tied to on-chain identity.
And also a clear separation between the speculative launchpad and the audited managed-strategy product.
The company also said teams should avoid marketing quality controls before those controls are actually built.
The Market Will Judge DeFAI by Live Performance
For Singularry, the next six months will ultimately be judged by real product metrics: live capital deployed by agents, funded active users, net ecosystem growth, risk-adjusted returns, retention, re-funding behavior, fund safety, and the long-term survival rate of launchpad projects.
The company believes autonomous DeFi agents must prove they can operate safely, intelligently, and economically under real market conditions. Not just in theory, but at scale and over time.
“Narratives alone are easy in crypto. Sustainable execution is not” Singularry said. “At the end of the day, live performance, user trust, and continuous execution will determine who survives this market cycle. We believe the future of DeFi will be increasingly managed by autonomous AI agents interacting directly on-chain, optimizing strategies, allocating capital, and operating across ecosystems in real time.”
The post Singularry Says DeFAI Must Prove Itself in Live Markets appeared first on BeInCrypto.
It has been nearly two months since the pivotal elections in Hungary, in which Viktor Orban’s 16-year tenure finally came to an end, as the country showed a clear shift toward the West.
The new government has taken numerous steps to neutralize some of the controversial policies undertaken by the former administration, and the local cryptocurrency space could be among the beneficiaries.
The rules against cryptocurrency trading were introduced by the Orban administration in 2025. They required approved validation for transactions converting digital assets to traditional currency and for crypto-to-crypto exchanges. Even more controversially, the rules included possible prison sentences in some extreme cases of violations.
A Forbes report at the time claimed that transactions for over $140,000 (50 million forints) carried a possible prison sentence of up to three years. Largest transactions for over $1.4 million (500 million forints) could lead to five years behind bars.
Numerous popular trading platforms were forced to leave the country or restrict their services for locals to a large extent. Although the European Union opened an investigation to determine whether these restrictions complied with its regulations, the local trading volumes plunged before the administration change earlier this year.
According to a new report from Bloomberg, the new government has decided to lift the threat of jail time and criminal charges for using unauthorized exchanges or conducting non-compliant crypto-to-crypto and crypto-to-fiat transactions.
Government spokeswoman Anita Kobol said that Hungary will dismantle the transaction-level ‘validation certificate’ requirement and plans to align the local market with the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework.
The post Hungary Plans to Decriminalize Cryptocurrency Trading After Orban’s Departure (Report) appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Crypto World
As SpaceX IPO approaches, Polymarket, Ventuals assign $2 trillion valuation: Crypto Daily
Elon Musk’s SpaceX sets the price of its Friday IPO on Nasdaq later today. While the company is currently valued at roughly $1.77 trillion, blockchain-based pre-IPO price discovery derivatives and prediction markets seem to think that’s too low.
That gap is evident from three markets: Onchain perpetuals futures offered by Ventuals and trade.xyz, both running on Hyperliquid, and Polymarket’s implied first-day close. These have all converged on the $1.8 trillion-$2.1 trillion range, according to data source Allium.
Right now, traders on Polymarket, a decentralized betting platform, assign a 64% chance that SpaceX will close its first trading day above a $2 trillion valuation. A close above $3 trillion? Polymarket gives a 5% chance.
In other words, the market expects a strong debut, but not a blowout.
For bitcoin traders, the IPO serves as a real-world test of the dominant narrative: that the offering has been draining risk capital from crypto, contributing to the recent price decline.
If that theory holds, capital should flow back into bitcoin and crypto once the IPO is out of the way and the initial allocation frenzy subsides. Stay alert!
Read more: For analysis of today’s activity in altcoins and derivatives, see Crypto Markets Today . For a comprehensive list of events this week, see CoinDesk’s “Crypto Week Ahead.”
What’s trending
Today’s signal
The chart compares bitcoin’s daily price moves with Nasdaq-100 E-mini futures since March.
The strong positive correlation between the two broke down in May, as the Nasdaq rallied sharply while bitcoin fell. However, Nasdaq has turned lower this month, hinting at a potential realignment.
The key question is whether bitcoin can hold steady — having already absorbed significant losses — in the face of a potential Nasdaq selloff. Trading firm Wintermute noted last year that the correlation between the two assets is particularly strong during Nasdaq declines. If that dynamic still holds, BTC risks sliding below $60,000.
Bitget, the world’s largest Universal Exchange (UEX), has launched Universal Cup, a global football-themed community campaign that invites users to compete for a share of a 250,000 USDT prize pool through an interactive mini-game inspired by one of the biggest sporting events this year.
Built around the “Don’t Just Watch. Rule the Game,” Universal Cup transforms spectators into participants through a global competition where users represent nations, score points, climb leaderboards, and unlock rewards throughout the tournament.
Players can choose from 48 countries and participate in a penalty shootout challenge featuring moving targets representing Crypto, Stocks, and CFDs. Individual scores contribute to national rankings, creating a live global leaderboard that evolves throughout the competition. Users can continue participating across every stage of the tournament, even if their original nation is eliminated simply by switching countries. The tournament runs from June 11, till July 19 2026.
The campaign includes a total prize pool of 250,000 USDT distributed through daily rewards, leaderboard rankings, lucky draws, and championship prizes. Top participants will compete for rewards throughout each tournament phase, with additional prizes available to members of the eventual winning nation.
“For years, sports fans have been some of the most passionate audiences in the world, but mostly as spectators,” said Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget. “Crypto changes that dynamic by making participation part of the experience. Universal Cup brings together competition, community, and engagement around a global sporting moment while giving users a fun introduction to the Universal Exchange ecosystem.”
Universal Cup builds on Bitget’s long-standing connection with the global football community. The company previously partnered with football icon Lionel Messi and currently serves as an official regional partner of LALIGA across Eastern, Southeast Asian, and Latin American markets. Through the Universal Cup, Bitget brings that relationship one step further, creating an interactive experience where football fans and traders can participate together rather than simply follow the action from the sidelines.
Don’t just watch. Rule the Game. Join the Universal Cup.
About Bitget
Bitget is the world’s largest Universal Exchange (UEX), serving over 125 million users and offering access to over 2M crypto tokens, 100+ tokenized stocks, ETFs, commodities, FX, and precious metals such as gold. The ecosystem is committed to helping users trade smarter with its AI agent, which co-pilots trade execution. Bitget is driving crypto adoption through strategic partnerships with LALIGA and MotoGP™. Aligned with its global impact strategy, Bitget has joined hands with UNICEF to support blockchain education for 1.1 million people by 2027. Bitget currently leads in the tokenized TradFi market, providing the industry’s lowest fees and highest liquidity across 150 regions worldwide.
Risk Warning: Digital asset prices are subject to fluctuation and may experience significant volatility. Investors are advised to only allocate funds they can afford to lose. The value of any investment may be impacted, and there is a possibility that financial objectives may not be met, nor the principal investment recovered. Independent financial advice should always be sought, and personal financial experience and standing carefully considered. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Bitget accepts no liability for any potential losses incurred. Nothing contained herein should be construed as financial advice. For further information, please refer to our Terms of Use.
The post Bitget Launches Universal Cup With 250,000 USDT Prize Pool appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Monero jumped by double digits on June 11 as privacy-coin demand returned after two fresh ecosystem updates.
Summary
- Monero rose above $350 after double-digit daily gains pushed XMR back toward breakout resistance.
- Cake Wallet’s Passport Prime integration supports self-custody access after exchange delistings reduced XMR availability.
- Taylor Hornby adding Monero to his audit queue brings fresh attention to privacy-coin security.
According to crypto.news market data, XMR traded near $351 to $354, rising more than 10% over 24 hours.
Meanwhile, the move came after Cake Wallet expanded Monero support through FOUNDATION’s Passport Prime hardware wallet. Traders also reacted to security engineer Taylor Hornby saying he would add Monero to his audit queue.
Monero price rebounds from demand zone
Monero traded near $351.53, with a 24-hour range between $308.46 and $355.88. Its daily volume stood near $142.36 million, while its market cap was about $6.59 billion.
The token remains down 13.25% over the past month, but the latest move has turned short-term momentum back toward buyers. XMR also remains above its recent demand zone near $266 to $320.
The daily chart shows XMR recovering after a sharp correction from its January spike toward $800. Price is now moving closer to the descending trendline that has capped rebounds for months.
Analyst Lucky said the setup is “finally cooking” and added that XMR is moving toward a possible historic breakout. The view appears tied to price pressing near the downtrend line.
Cake Wallet support helps self-custody narrative
Cake Wallet’s integration of Monero into FOUNDATION’s Passport Prime matters because XMR users often focus on self-custody. Hardware wallets help users store assets away from centralized platforms.
That point carries more weight for Monero after exchange delistings reduced access in several markets. Binance previously removed XMR due to compliance concerns, while other exchanges have also limited privacy-coin support.
When major exchanges delist a privacy asset, holders often move toward wallets and peer-to-peer tools. That makes secure custody more important for users who still want to hold or transact in XMR.
The Passport Prime integration gives Monero holders another storage option. It also supports the wider privacy theme that has remained central to Monero since launch.
Security audit news adds another catalyst
The second driver comes from Taylor Hornby, the security engineer who found a critical Zcash Orchard privacy-pool flaw. The bug had reportedly gone undetected since May 2022.
In theory, that flaw could have allowed counterfeit ZEC to be created without easy detection. Shielded Labs pushed an emergency fix before the issue became public.
Hornby later said he would review Monero and other privacy coins. When asked on X if he would look at Monero, he replied, “Absolutely! I’ll add Monero to my queue of things to audit.”
The audit plan creates a mixed signal for the market. A clean review could support confidence in Monero’s design, while any discovered weakness could create volatility.
That is why traders may treat the audit update as a watchpoint rather than a simple bullish event. Privacy coins depend heavily on user trust in their cryptography and transaction design.
XMR technical indicators improve, but $400 remains key
The XMR/USDT daily chart shows price moving back toward the major downtrend line. A daily close above the trendline and the $360 to $400 area would support the breakout case.
The $380 to $400 zone is the next key resistance. XMR must clear that region before buyers can claim stronger control.
The demand zone near $300 to $320 remains the main support area. As long as XMR holds above that range, the recovery structure stays active.
A drop below $300 would weaken the setup. It would also suggest that the latest rally was only a short-term bounce from oversold levels.
The RSI sits near 50.03, while its average line is around 42.81. This shows momentum has improved from the recent weak zone and has returned to neutral.
For stronger confirmation, RSI needs to hold above 50 and move toward 60. That would show buyers are gaining clearer momentum.
The MACD remains below the zero line, with the MACD line near -15.86 and the signal line around -14.98. This means the wider momentum picture is still weak.
However, the histogram is narrowing. That suggests bearish pressure is slowing, even though the trend has not fully flipped bullish.
Volume sits near 6.56K XMR on the chart. It supports the bounce, but it does not yet show the kind of strong demand normally seen during major breakouts.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Hungary has moved to remove prison penalties tied to cryptocurrency trading after restrictions introduced in 2025 led to a slump in trading activity and prompted several platforms to scale back services in the country.
Summary
- Hungary plans to remove criminal penalties tied to cryptocurrency trading after restrictions introduced in 2025 disrupted the local market.
- Rules requiring validation certificates for crypto transactions prompted platforms including Revolut to suspend services in the country.
- The government is reversing the measures as the European Union examines whether the restrictions complied with bloc regulations.
Government spokeswoman Anita Kobol told reporters on Thursday that Hungary plans to reverse measures adopted under former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s administration, which imposed criminal liability on certain crypto-related transactions and service providers.
The restrictions required approved validation for transactions converting cryptocurrency into traditional currency and for crypto-to-crypto exchanges.
According to Kobol, the European Union has opened an investigation into whether those rules complied with bloc regulations.
The rollback follows Hungary’s April 2026 parliamentary election, which brought the pro-European Tisza Party to power. Subsequently, newly appointed Minister of Innovation and Technology Zoltán Tanács described the previous framework as “excessive and politically driven.”
Rules that reshaped Hungary’s crypto market
Legislation introduced in 2025 created two offenses around abuse of crypto assets by users and the provision of unauthorized crypto asset exchange services by operators.
Under the framework, every crypto-to-fiat and crypto-to-crypto transaction required a compliance certificate from a licensed local validator. Transactions completed without that certificate were considered legally invalid.
A Forbes report published after the law took effect said individuals could face up to two years in prison for unauthorized crypto transactions, with penalties rising for larger transaction sizes.
Transactions exceeding 50 million Hungarian forints, approximately $140,000, carried prison terms of up to three years, while transactions above 500 million forints, about $1.4 million, carried penalties of up to five years.
Service providers also faced criminal exposure. According to the Forbes report, operators that failed to secure approval under Hungary’s validation regime risked prison sentences of up to three years, while businesses handling particularly large crypto volumes could face penalties of up to eight years.
Industry participants warned that the measures created uncertainty for both users and companies. Local estimates cited by Forbes suggested roughly 500,000 Hungarians were involved in cryptocurrency activities when the legislation was introduced.
Market participants responded quickly after the rules came into force. Revolut suspended cryptocurrency services in Hungary, while other digital asset firms reportedly explored relocating operations to jurisdictions such as Estonia and Lithuania. Trading volumes for digital assets also declined following implementation of the restrictions.
With the criminal provisions now set to be removed, the government is seeking to bring Hungary’s approach closer to the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework.
This is a developing story.
An AI security researcher going by the moniker “Pliny the Liberator” says he jailbroken Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5 within 48 hours of its launch. Fable 5 is described by Anthropic as a safety-tuned version of the Mythos model, which the company previously said was too dangerous to release widely. The claim spotlights ongoing tensions between guardrails meant to curb misuse and researchers eager to probe the limits of advanced AI.
Pliny’s posts describe using a jailbroken Opus 4.8 and a suite of techniques intended to bypass the model’s built-in safeguards. He asserts that after circumventing safety layers, Fable 5 could respond to prompts that would normally be blocked, including requests for restricted information. The broader context is one in which crypto and cybersecurity communities have watched closely for how AI safety features interact with real-world abuse vectors.
Key takeaways
- Jailbreak claim: Within 48 hours of Claude Fable 5’s release, a researcher claimed to have bypassed its guardrails, underscoring perceived fragility in safety layers at launch.
- Safety vs. access: Fable 5 is marketed as a safety-tuned variant of Mythos, a model Anthropic described as dangerous enough to limit public release, raising questions about how much guardrails can, or should, be bypassed.
- Techniques disclosed: Pliny cites methods including Unicode and homoglyphs, long-context framing, narrative framing, and a decomposition–recomposition approach, aided by a jailbroken Claude Opus 4.8.
- Decomposition–recomposition: He credits this backend technique as particularly effective at piecing together harmless-sounding prompts into actionable results for the model.
- Industry reaction: Critics argue the guardrails impede legitimate research; observers highlight the tension between enabling innovation and preventing harm, especially given crypto-security concerns.
Breakthrough, or breach of guardrails?
Pliny’s public posts describe a layered approach to defeating Claude Fable 5’s safeguards. He attributes part of the success to a jailbroken Opus 4.8 and a set of prompt-tuning tactics designed to slip past the safety net Anthropic installed on Fable 5. He notes that “Perhaps the most effective is decomposition + recomposition in the backend.” In practical terms, this means breaking questions into small, seemingly innocuous parts, then reassembling the responses in ways that bypass the filter logic when considered as a whole.
The jailbreak discussion isn’t new in AI circles. Pliny rose to prominence around 2024 by developing and openly sharing jailbreak prompts for models such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok, often posting “jailbreak alerts” soon after new models launch. In this latest episode, he cites a combination of tactics—Unicode tricks, long-context framing, and a narrative framing that keeps prompts within a harmless-seeming veneer—as the path to success.
One illustration that accompanied the claims involved a demonstration allegedly showing how to obtain meth synthesis guidance by querying about the Birch reduction. The content is presented as a proof of concept for how easily guardrails can be sidestepped; it also underscores why such demonstrations provoke concern among researchers and practitioners who rely on AI for legitimate, safety-conscious work.
Industry response and the safety debate
From the outset, Claude Fable 5 faced backlash for its strict guardrails. When asked for sensitive topics—ranging from bioweapons to cybersecurity—Fable 5 is designed to issue a warning and then redirect the conversation to a less capable model. The debate around these guardrails has been heated, with critics arguing that overly restrictive safety layers stifle legitimate research and innovation.
“This is one of the first times that an AI company has rolled out a guardrail, and there has been uniform disdain. It has led to a lot of justified anger,” said Sayash Kapoor, AI researcher at Princeton University, according to coverage from the Wall Street Journal.
Pliny added his own perspective, suggesting that the community’s frustration stems from a belief that guardrails impede progress. “The consensus seems to be that this has been one of the most disappointing model drops of all time, effectively preventing legitimate researchers from contributing their talents to our collective advancement,” he remarked.
Anthropic said it conducted an external bug bounty as part of its vetting process for Fable 5. The program reportedly did not uncover any universal jailbreaks in more than 1,000 hours of testing. Cointelegraph reached out to Anthropic for comment but did not receive an immediate reply. The company’s stance remains that guardrails are essential for safety, even if early launches provoke controversy among researchers and users alike.
Beyond the immediate jailbreak narrative, crypto-focused researchers have long warned that AI with weak or incomplete safeguards could become a vector for attacks on protocols and software. A contemporaneous Cointelegraph explainer highlighted the potential for AI-enabled agents with crypto access to complicate security and governance in decentralized ecosystems.
Related coverage from Cointelegraph Magazine also examines the broader risk landscape, including how AI-driven exploits could threaten DeFi unless projects adopt proactive security measures. For readers seeking a broader treatment of AI security implications in crypto, that analysis provides additional context about the kinds of threats that guardrails are designed to prevent.
As the dialogue continues, observers will be watching not only for formal responses from Anthropic but also for how developers, auditors, and crypto projects adapt to a landscape where powerful AI systems remain potentially exploitable despite safety layers. Researchers and builders alike will need to weigh the trade-offs between accessibility and protection as AI goes increasingly central to security, development workflows, and user experience.
Anthropic’s outreach efforts and any forthcoming product updates will shape the next phase of this debate. In the meantime, the incident serves as a reminder that safety controls, while essential, invite persistent scrutiny from a community eager to test the boundaries of what AI can do—and what it should do.
What happens next could influence both AI governance and crypto security strategies. Watch for further disclosures from Anthropic about guardrail improvements, as well as any new research from the community detailing safe, responsible ways to explore model capabilities at scale.
Further reading on related AI–crypto risk themes is available in Cointelegraph Magazine’s exploration of how AI-driven hacks could affect DeFi and the steps projects can take now to harden their systems.
Explained: How SpaceX’s $75 billion IPO could create opportunity for Inox India shareholders
‘So what?’ Farage says about Kenyon’s lewd comments
Dolphins vs Sydney Roosters Tips, Odds, Teams & Predictions – NRL Round 15 2026
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Evereve – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World6 days agoJensen Huang Approves Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron for NVIDIA (NVDA) HBM4 Memory Supply
-
Entertainment4 days agoThe Best Mystery Series of All Time Is Surging on Streaming 30 Years After It Ended
-
Crypto World3 days agoAnatomy of the June crypto crash: Fed, Iran, Saylor
-
NewsBeat3 days agoAlexander Zverev wins the French Open to finally earn a 1st Grand Slam title
-
Tech5 days agoSuspicious Polyfill login prompts pop up on Toshiba, Muji websites
-
Crypto World5 days agoSenator Cynthia Lummis Calls CLARITY Act the Most Consequential Financial Legislation of This Generation
-
Tech4 days agoMicrosoft unveils seven homegrown AI models in new bid for ‘long term self-sufficiency’
-
Tech6 days agoMicrosoft launches MXC, an OS-level sandbox for AI agents, with OpenAI and Nvidia already on board
-
Business6 days ago(VIDEO) Justin Bieber Delivers Surprise Happy Birthday Serenade to Diners at Los Angeles Mexican Restaurant
-
Business4 days agoThe Pain Points Taking a Fragile Tech Rally Down a Notch
-
Business3 days agoHigh Stakes for Wembanyama as New York Pushes for 3-0 Lead
-
Crypto World3 days agoEli Lilly (LLY) Stock Surges 4% Following Breakthrough Sleep Apnea Trial Results
-
Tech5 days agoVon der Leyen’s AI envoy pick draws conflict-of-interest fire
-
Crypto World6 days ago
LBank Surpasses 25 Million Users Worldwide as AFA Partnership Continues to Drive Global Growth
-
Tech6 days agoMeta steals a tactic from Tesla and builds data centers in tents
-
Tech5 days agoHackers now exploit SolarWinds Serv-U flaw to crash servers
-
Crypto World4 days agoTrump’s AI Ownership Plan Could Benefit Anthropic at OpenAI’s Expense
-
NewsBeat4 days agoAlexander Zverev conquers demons and outlasts Flavio Cobolli to win French Open for first major title
-
Sports2 days agoBangladesh beat Australia after 20 years in ODIs, register only their second win over six-time world champions | Cricket News
You must be logged in to post a comment Login