For the five years leading up to June 2025, Michael Saylor posted to X thousands of times, consistently praising BTC while disparaging credit and emphasising the legacy financial system’s emphasis on debt.

However, a social media audit pinpoints the exact moment when he pivoted.

Starting in June 2025, Saylor began lavishing praise on fiat-denominated credit in a series of online posts that culminated in the launch of STRC.

From August 2020 to June 2025, Saylor posted 3,494 times to X, with 75.8% of those posts mentioning BTC. He mentioned credit in fewer than one in 100.

When he did, he referred to credit as an insult aimed at fiat money, which BTC intended to supplant.

However, once he reversed his stance, his change in tone wasn’t subtle.

Still, he argued that the Circle’s 16% selloff on Tuesday went too far.

“I think it is an overreaction,” he told CoinDesk.

He pointed to Paxos’ Global Dollar Network (USDG), another consortium-backed stablecoin that shares reserve income with partners but has yet to gain significant market share. It has grown to a $3 billion supply since its launch in late 2024, lagging far behind USDC’s $73 billion and USDT’s $145 billion, according to CoinDesk data.

“The bigger question is how OUSD can convince consumers and end users to adopt them,” Lau said. “We don’t really know the answer until it is fully launched so that we can gauge the market cap and usage.”

Hadick also cautioned that building an industry consortium is rarely straightforward.

“Consortiums are hard and they break easily,” he said. “Incentives are broad and often misaligned.”

“So while the [Circle] stock selloff seems clearly reasonable, I also don’t expect this to be an easy or straightforward road for Open Standard and expect it to be harder to get to scale than expected,” Hadick added.

Details still missing

Others cautioned that the announcement left several important questions unanswered.

Noelle Acheson, author of the Crypto Is Macro Now newsletter, said Open Standard has assembled an impressive list of partners and is led by Bridge co-founder Zach Abrams, “who knows what he’s doing.”

Nasdaq has selected Pyth, an onchain financial data network, to distribute its proprietary market data to blockchain applications and other software platforms.

The partnership initially covers Nasdaq TotalView, the exchange’s depth-of-book data feed, which includes every displayed buy and sell order across all price levels as well as order imbalance data around the opening and closing auctions. The feed is widely used by professional traders because it provides a more complete view of market liquidity than standard market quotes by displaying the full order book.

According to Pyth, the marketplace gives software applications access to first-party market data through a single integration. The company said the service is intended for blockchain applications, digital asset exchanges, prediction markets, trading systems and other software platforms.

Nasdaq joins a group of publishers on Pyth that includes exchanges Euronext and OTC Markets, electronic trading platforms Tradeweb and Kalshi, market data provider Exchange Data International, Singapore Exchange’s SGX FX and the US Department of Commerce.

Related: Coinbase lets users transfer stock portfolios as exchange expands beyond crypto

Nasdaq and ICE deepen digital asset strategies

Nasdaq’s partnership with Pyth is the latest in a series of moves by established exchange operators to expand their digital asset businesses through cryptocurrency products, blockchain infrastructure and new market services.

In March, Nasdaq has expanded its tokenization efforts through a partnership with crypto exchange Kraken and its infrastructure affiliate Backed to develop infrastructure linking traditional equities with blockchain networks. The initiative builds on the exchange operator’s broader push to integrate tokenized assets with traditional market infrastructure.

The following month, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s proposal to list Bitcoin index options tied to the Nasdaq Bitcoin Index, paving the way for trading pending approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Nasdaq also partnered with CME Group to launch cryptocurrency index futures tracking a basket of seven digital assets, including Bitcoin, Ether, Solana and XRP, expanding its regulated crypto derivatives lineup.

Other exchange operators have pursued similar initiatives. ICE, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, partnered with crypto exchange OKX in May to launch perpetual futures tied to its Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate oil benchmarks, marking the first product announced under the companies’ broader partnership.

^{Source: OKX}

Later, ICE CEO Jeffrey Sprecher called on regulators to allow traditional exchanges to offer 24/7 onchain perpetual futures, arguing regulated venues should be able to compete with crypto-native platforms already offering the products.

Magazine: Bitcoin slides to $58K, XRP hits $1 but onchain data promising: Market Moves

TLDR:

• Binance added Anchorage Digital to its Triparty Banking network for institutional crypto trading access.
• Eligible clients can trade on Binance while assets remain in segregated qualified custody off exchange.
• Institutions may pledge crypto, USD accounts, and selected tokenized assets as eligible collateral.
• The integration expands off-exchange settlement while improving capital efficiency for institutional trading.

Binance is expanding its institutional trading infrastructure through a new partnership with Anchorage Digital. The move gives eligible institutional clients another way to trade on Binance without placing assets directly on the exchange. 

The integration strengthens off-exchange settlement services while introducing another custody option for professional market participants. It also reflects the growing demand for traditional financial market structures within crypto trading.

Binance and Anchorage Expand Institutional Crypto Trading Infrastructure

Binance announced it has partnered with Anchorage Digital to integrate the company’s Atlas settlement platform into its Triparty Banking network. The exchange also confirmed the development through its official X account alongside a detailed announcement published on its website.

The partnership allows eligible institutional and professional clients to keep digital assets in qualified, segregated custody with Anchorage Digital while accessing Binance’s trading liquidity. Instead of transferring collateral directly onto the exchange, institutions can continue holding assets with an independent custodian.

According to Binance, the arrangement separates custody from trade execution, a structure widely used across traditional financial markets. The model aims to reduce operational risks associated with prefunding exchange accounts while maintaining access to crypto liquidity.

Anchorage Digital becomes the latest banking partner within Binance’s Triparty Banking framework. Binance stated that this also marks the first crypto exchange integration supported through Anchorage Digital’s Atlas settlement platform.

Binance Triparty Banking Adds Capital Efficiency for Institutions

Binance first introduced Triparty Banking in 2023 as part of its effort to develop institutional-grade trading services. The company said the latest integration expands collateral management choices available to qualified clients.

Eligible institutions can pledge crypto assets alongside yield-bearing U.S. dollar accounts as collateral while trading on Binance. According to the exchange, this structure allows capital to remain productive instead of sitting idle in exchange wallets.

The platform also supports additional institutional workflows beyond trading. Binance said settlement, lending, and collateral management form part of the broader infrastructure available through its Triparty Banking service.

Subject to eligibility requirements, institutions may also use selected tokenized real-world assets as collateral. Binance listed products including BlackRock’s BUIDL, Circle’s USYC, and Franklin Templeton’s iBENJI among supported collateral options.

Binance noted that institutional demand increasingly favors market structures already familiar in traditional finance. Anchorage Digital also indicated that institutions continue seeking stronger custody standards and lower counterparty exposure before expanding digital asset participation.

The partnership adds another custody pathway without changing access to Binance’s exchange liquidity. As institutional participation grows, exchanges continue building infrastructure designed around established financial risk management practices rather than requiring direct custody transfers.

• The SEC has launched a consultation process for innovative ETF structures and forecasting market instruments.

• Regulators are examining whether emerging fund strategies comply with current securities legislation.

• Applications for prediction market ETFs from prominent investment firms await regulatory decisions.

• The agency is considering modifications to listing requirements, transparency standards, and registration procedures.

• Broader cryptocurrency regulatory assessments proceed concurrently with legal enforcement initiatives.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has initiated a comprehensive public feedback mechanism regarding innovative exchange-traded funds and prediction market investment vehicles, launching an extensive examination of rapidly evolving financial products. This regulatory action focuses on investment instruments connected to emerging asset categories and trading approaches that fall outside conventional ETF frameworks. The timing coincides with several outstanding applications for prediction market ETFs awaiting agency determination.

Regulatory Agency Examines Framework for Innovative Fund Structures

The commission has invited industry stakeholders to provide input regarding the alignment of innovative ETF products with established regulatory requirements. The consultation encompasses investment vehicles that hold assets beyond conventional securities marketplaces. Additionally, it scrutinizes funds employing methodologies that diverge from typical index-tracking or commodity-based offerings.

Regulators are seeking perspectives on whether specific fund structures meet the criteria for investment companies under prevailing legislation. This determination carries significant weight as certain products may contain assets that existing securities regulations do not explicitly address. Consequently, the commission is soliciting opinions on whether these vehicles should undergo registration under the Investment Company Act.

The consultation further evaluates the analytical framework employed to categorize investment companies. The SEC acknowledged that ambiguity persists regarding funds predominantly concentrated in non-securities assets. As such, the agency requires more definitive feedback before implementing changes to registration protocols and evaluation criteria.

Forecasting Market Fund Applications Await Regulatory Determination

This regulatory inquiry emerges while the commission assesses prediction market ETF proposals submitted by Roundhill, Bitwise, and GraniteShares. These prospective investment vehicles would monitor contracts associated with platforms like Polymarket. Regulators must still determine whether prevailing ETF regulations can accommodate these financial instruments.

Forecasting market funds present distinctive regulatory challenges because their foundational contracts vary substantially from conventional equities, fixed-income securities, or raw materials. They may also rely on marketplace infrastructures operating beyond standard securities trading venues. Accordingly, the SEC is requesting commentary on whether current listing frameworks can adequately support these offerings.

The commission has also questioned the 75-day assessment timeline for particular ETF submissions. Present regulations can permit certain registration documents to take effect following that interval. However, unconventional strategies may necessitate more thorough examination, enhanced disclosure requirements, and reinforced market protections.

Commission Evaluates Registration Procedures and Industry Behavior

The regulatory body has also expressed apprehension regarding rivalry among ETF issuers pursuing first-to-market advantages. The agency noted that accelerated submission timelines can generate urgency before products undergo comprehensive legal and operational assessment. Such pressure may result in hastily prepared documentation, insufficient disclosures, or funds that ultimately fail to materialize.

To mitigate this concern, the SEC inquired whether establishing a baseline registration charge would be appropriate. The fee could subsequently apply toward redemptions should the product successfully launch. The agency additionally questioned whether confidential submission intervals might discourage imitative applications.

This examination forms part of a broader digital asset policy initiative at the commission. The agency has simultaneously solicited feedback with the CFTC regarding cryptocurrency perpetual futures regulations. In parallel, it has postponed tokenized securities guidance while enforcement proceedings advance through federal courts.

By the end of 2025, artificial intelligence data centers worldwide had accumulated roughly 29.6 gigawatts (GW) of power capacity—about equal to the electricity demand of New York state at peak, according to Stanford University’s annual AI Index report. The broader implication for crypto investors is straightforward: compute looks cheaper and easier to source, but grid-connected power remains the scarcest “hard” asset in the AI buildout.

One sector has been preparing for that bottleneck for years—Bitcoin miners. While the mining chips themselves cannot be repurposed for AI training or inference, miners’ larger advantage is the infrastructure around them: energized sites, power procurement, grid interconnection, and cooling capacity. As demand for AI-grade electricity accelerates, parts of the mining industry are positioning their facilities for AI and high-performance computing (HPC) work, with contracts increasingly tying valuation to compute pipelines rather than Bitcoin alone.

Key takeaways

• Stanford’s AI Index pegs AI data center power capacity at about 29.6 GW by end-2025, highlighting that power availability—not chip availability—is the binding constraint.
• AI efficiency gains have not reduced overall electricity demand; Stanford notes GPU computation costs fell sharply since 2006, while total demand grew as capacity is used for larger models.
• Miners can’t “swap” ASICs for AI, but they can potentially repurpose energized sites, power contracts, and cooling and grid infrastructure for AI workloads.
• AI-grade liquid-cooled infrastructure can be far more expensive than mining infrastructure (CoinShares estimates roughly $700,000–$1 million per MW for mining vs. $8 million–$15 million per MW for AI-grade).
• Market pricing is beginning to reward miners with AI/HPC contracts: CoinShares reports some AI-connected miners trade at materially higher revenue multiples than pure-play miners.

AI power is the bottleneck, not GPU availability

Stanford’s report frames an important mismatch in the economics of AI hardware. The cost of GPU computation dropped by more than 99% since 2006, and newer chips deliver far more work per watt than earlier generations. Yet that efficiency improvement has not translated into lower electricity use; Stanford says companies are effectively reinvesting those gains into building and training larger models, keeping pressure on the power system.

Stanford estimates that the most power-intensive training runs can consume upward of 100 megawatts (MW)—comparable to a small power plant. Capacity dedicated to AI has increased dramatically over a short window: Stanford estimates AI-focused capacity grew roughly 200-fold in three years, from under 1 GW in 2022. It also projects data center electricity demand to keep rising through 2030.

Geography matters as much as totals. Stanford says the United States hosts 5,427 data centers, more than ten times the next-highest country. But obtaining electricity is not the same as ordering servers. Stanford highlights that chips can arrive within months, whereas “energizing” a site—building the substation, securing interconnection approvals, and setting up cooling—can take years.

Looking at cumulative demand through 2024, Stanford estimates all-in AI power draw at about 9.4 GW. That figure is close to the national electricity use of Switzerland or Austria and roughly half of the estimated power consumed by Bitcoin mining, according to the report’s comparison using work attributed to de Vries-Gao and Stanford.

What Bitcoin miners can actually offer AI

Bitcoin mining isn’t interchangeable with AI at the hardware level. The ASICs used to solve Bitcoin’s hashing algorithm are purpose-built and do not translate into training or inference workloads. The potential overlap is in the surrounding infrastructure.

Mining operators already maintain sites with grid connections, power purchasing arrangements, and cooling setups designed to handle dense computing loads. For AI developers that need electricity that is already “permitted, grid-connected, ready-to-draw,” that can reduce the time and uncertainty required to stand up new capacity. Stanford’s broader theme—that the hard part is power—makes this operational advantage especially valuable.

There is also a geographic angle. Bitcoin miners often locate in U.S. regions with lower power costs, including states such as Texas and areas along the Gulf Coast—markets where AI capacity is also looking to expand. For AI firms, contracting with existing industrial power sites can be faster than starting from scratch.

At the same time, mining economics have been under pressure. JPMorgan recently estimated Bitcoin’s all-in production cost at about $78,000 per coin, while CoinGecko showed BTC trading around $53,400 at the time of writing referenced in the original coverage, implying the production cost estimate was above the market price. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that hashprice had fallen below break-even for many miners, putting about 20% of the industry in unprofitable territory.

From mining to HPC: contracts signal a valuation shift

The move toward AI and HPC has been visible in a series of large infrastructure deals involving miners and compute-focused counterparties. In November 2025, Iren signed a five-year GPU cloud agreement with Microsoft worth about $9.7 billion, served from a 750-MW campus in Childress, Texas, according to the company’s disclosure: Iren’s announcement.

In December, Hut 8 signed a 15-year lease with Fluidstack for 245 MW at its River Bend site in Louisiana, with the payments backstopped by Google, per the press release: Hut 8’s filing. TeraWulf, meanwhile, reported contracted HPC revenue of $12.8 billion and said it is earning more from leasing than mining, based on its SEC filings and investor updates: SEC disclosure and Q1 2026 results.

Core Scientific also expanded a CoreWeave agreement to $10.2 billion over 12-year terms, according to its investor materials: Core Scientific’s announcement.

CoinShares’ sector framing suggests the market is increasingly looking past near-term Bitcoin production and toward future compute contracts. CoinShares counts more than $70 billion in announced AI and HPC contracts across listed miners, while acknowledging much of that value is scheduled years out—Hut 8’s River Bend facility, for example, is not due to start commissioning until the second quarter of 2027, per the same Hut 8 press release.

Investors have responded. Reuters reported that Hut 8 shares jumped about 20% in premarket trading when the lease was announced: Reuters coverage. CoinShares also argues that valuation is differentiating inside the miner complex: it says miners with HPC contracts trade at about 12.3 times the value of their 12-month revenue, versus 5.9 times for pure-play miners. CoinShares adds that it projects AI-related revenue could represent up to 70% of revenue for some listed miners by the end of 2026, up from roughly 30% in Q1.

The pivot is expensive—and not fully “plug-and-play”

Repurposing mining infrastructure still comes with major costs and operational requirements. CoinShares estimates mining infrastructure costs approximately $700,000 to $1 million per MW, while AI-grade liquid-cooled infrastructure can cost around $8 million to $15 million per MW. That gap reflects the different engineering standards demanded by AI buyers: power density, redundancy, uptime guarantees, and cooling configurations designed for sustained high-performance workloads.

In other words, energized power is only the starting point. Hyperscalers and AI infrastructure customers want reliability and performance consistent with their compute pipelines, which can require upgrades that go beyond simply reactivating an existing data hall.

To fund that transformation, miners have been drawing on debt and new capital. The original coverage cites Iren disclosing $3.75 billion in convertible note debt at the end of March, then raising an additional $3 billion via another convertible note sale in May, referencing Iren SEC and company releases: SEC filing and Iren’s announcement.

There’s also a demand risk miners can’t ignore. If AI/HPC demand cools or customers renegotiate terms, projects could be delayed—or the ability to fall back on mining operations could be reduced, particularly for operators that removed ASIC equipment as part of their transition.

Ultimately, the unanswered question is whether these large contracts produce the earnings markets expect. Signing multi-billion-dollar agreements shows demand for compute capacity, but delivering the operating results investors price in depends on execution: capital spending, ramp schedules, and long-term customer utilization.

As AI facilities continue competing for grid power, readers should watch not only the announcement of new AI/HPC deals, but also commissioning timelines, upgraded infrastructure milestones, and whether miners can translate contracted capacity into steady cash flow without relying on perpetual optimism about the BTC cycle.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has opened a public consultation on how novel exchange-traded funds should be regulated, as decisions on several prediction market ETF applications remain on hold.

According to a statement from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the regulator is seeking public feedback on exchange-traded funds that invest in new asset classes or use investment strategies that fall outside traditional ETF structures.

The request asks market participants to weigh in on how innovation can be accommodated while continuing to protect investors, preserve fair and orderly markets, and support capital formation.

The consultation arrives while the SEC continues reviewing several prediction market ETF proposals. Applications from asset managers including Roundhill, Bitwise, and GraniteShares remain pending as the regulator evaluates whether current securities rules are suitable for funds designed to track contracts listed on prediction market platforms such as Polymarket.

SEC reviews whether current ETF rules fit new investment products

In its request for comment, the SEC said market participants have questioned whether funds investing primarily in assets that are not securities qualify as investment companies under the Investment Company Act.

According to the regulator, the issue also raises questions about whether such products should register under the Act or fall outside its scope.

The SEC also requested feedback on how the so-called “Subjective Test” should apply to these products. According to the Commission, uncertainty exists over whether funds focused on non-security assets can satisfy the legal standards required under the current framework.

Another issue under review involves exchange listing procedures. The SEC questioned whether existing generic listing standards should continue to apply to novel ETFs, including the process that allows a registration statement to become effective after 75 days.

According to the request, the agency is evaluating whether those standards remain appropriate for funds using investment strategies that differ from traditional ETFs.

Beyond classification and listing requirements, the Commission also raised concerns about competitive behavior in the ETF industry. According to the SEC, sponsors may feel pressure to submit applications quickly in an effort to gain a first-mover advantage, potentially resulting in rushed filings, incomplete disclosures, or products that are never launched.

To address those concerns, the regulator asked whether it should introduce a minimum registration fee that could later be credited against redemptions. It also requested comment on allowing ETF filings to remain confidential for part of the 75-day review period before automatically becoming public, arguing that such an approach could reduce copycat filings while giving applicants more room to develop new products.

SEC continues reviewing multiple crypto market rules

The consultation comes as the Commission is simultaneously examining several other areas of digital asset regulation. Earlier, the SEC and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission requested public comment on a coordinated regulatory framework for crypto perpetual futures, while the SEC has also delayed guidance related to tokenized securities because of unresolved regulatory questions.

Separately, the SEC has continued enforcement activity alongside its rulemaking work. According to the agency’s litigation release, a federal court entered a final default judgment against NanoBit Limited and related defendants, ordering about $5.52 million in penalties, disgorgement, and interest over allegations that the company operated a fraudulent crypto trading platform and falsely claimed an affiliate was registered with the SEC.

The current process allows ETFs that meet certain conditions to jump into the markets without requiring a complicated request for exemption from the regulator, and that approach has seen an explosive growth from $4 trillion in 2019 to $12 trillion in 2025.

“It is designed to build a record that could be used to justify policy changes in the future that would permit ETFs focused on a broader universe of assets,” said TD Cowen policy analyst Jaret Seiberg, in a note to clients. He said the broader range of ETFs could include “those based on event contracts, crypto assets and single-stock strategies.”

Atkins’ SEC has made it a priority to embrace new technologies, especially cryptocurrency, for which it’s working on major policies to allow for such innovations as tokenization of securities. In the meantime, its ETF stance may also get a rewrite.

“Market participants have raised questions regarding whether novel ETFs with a principal investment strategy to invest in assets that are not securities under the Investment Company Act are investment companies,” according to the SEC’s request, which posed a number of questions on that point. It also asked questions about the time period in which ETFs become effective and what must be disclosed during this process.