U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has renewed his criticism of the crypto industry, placing digital asset groups alongside other well-funded political interests during a campaign event supporting Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan’s Senate bid.

In a July 21 post on X, Sanders wrote, “Together, we are going to take on crypto, the AI industry, AIPAC and other billionaire super PACs.” He added that the campaign aimed to send Flanagan to the U.S. Senate. The comments focused on political spending and industry influence rather than cryptocurrency prices or blockchain technology.

Meanwhile, Sanders made the remarks while campaigning with Flanagan in Minneapolis. His statement grouped crypto with industries and political organizations that he says can use large financial resources to shape elections. He did not name a specific crypto company or political action committee in the post.

The timing comes as crypto-backed political groups spend heavily ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. As previously reported, Public Citizen estimated that the crypto industry had contributed about $189 million during the current election cycle by late June. Ripple- and Coinbase-backed groups, including Fairshake, have remained among the largest sources of industry political funding.

The spending has moved beyond national lobbying campaigns and into individual congressional races. Crypto.news reported in June that Fairshake-linked groups had deployed more than $8 million ahead of several closely watched primaries in Maryland, New York and Utah.

Fairshake and its affiliated groups have generally backed candidates viewed as supportive of clearer digital asset rules. Major industry companies, including Ripple, Coinbase and Andreessen Horowitz, have provided funding to the broader network over recent election cycles.

Crypto PACs become a larger force in the 2026 elections

The industry’s political spending has already appeared in several election results. In Maryland, as crypto.news reported, Adrian Boafo won a Democratic primary after receiving support from crypto-linked political groups. Fairshake affiliates also spent in other Democratic contests where digital asset policy formed part of the wider campaign debate.

The same network has also backed Republican candidates. In Alabama, a Fairshake-linked PAC spent more than $12 million supporting Barry Moore during his Senate primary and runoff campaign, according to related coverage. The activity shows that the groups have directed funding across party lines rather than limiting their spending to one political party.

Sanders’ latest remarks place him on the other side of that spending campaign. His criticism centers on the role of large political donors and corporate interests in elections. The July 20 statement did not call for a crypto ban or identify a new legislative proposal targeting digital assets.

Instead, Sanders framed crypto as one of several well-funded interests that Flanagan and her supporters would oppose. That distinction matters because his post focused on political influence rather than announcing a new position on individual cryptocurrencies, exchanges or blockchain networks.

Sanders has maintained pressure on crypto policy

The statement follows other recent moves by Sanders involving digital asset policy. In June, he joined Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Bobby Scott in asking the U.S. Labor Department to withdraw a proposal that could expand access to crypto and other alternative assets inside 401(k) retirement plans.

Moreover, the lawmakers argued that retirement savers could face volatility and weaker investor protections if plan providers added digital assets without enough safeguards. The Labor Department’s proposal would not require employers to offer crypto, but it would allow plan managers to consider alternative investments under existing fiduciary duties.

Sanders has also remained part of a wider group of lawmakers raising concerns about crypto regulation, investor protection and potential conflicts involving public officials. Those debates continue as Congress considers market structure rules and other legislation that could define how the U.S. treats digital asset companies.

At the same time, industry-backed political organizations have increased spending as those policy debates move through Congress. Previous crypto.news coverage found that Fairshake affiliates had spent about $7 million on selected Democratic primary races while lawmakers continued negotiating the CLARITY Act.

Minnesota race brings crypto politics onto the campaign stage

Sanders’ support for Flanagan now brings that national fight over political money into Minnesota’s Senate race. His July 20 message did not provide details about what “take on crypto” would mean in legislative terms, leaving the phrase tied mainly to the campaign’s broader criticism of wealthy industries and super PAC spending.

Crypto-funded groups have not remained on the sidelines in 2026. Their spending has already reached congressional primaries, Senate races and wider efforts to support candidates who favor industry-backed regulatory policies. Critics such as Sanders continue to frame that activity as part of a broader fight over large donors and political influence.

The debate is likely to remain active as the U.S. moves closer to the midterm elections and Congress continues work on digital asset legislation. Fairshake and allied groups still have substantial resources available, while lawmakers who oppose parts of the crypto industry’s policy agenda are making campaign finance a larger part of their response.

Wanchain’s Cardano-to-BNB Chain bridge has reportedly suffered an exploit that drained about 515 million NIGHT from its Cardano-side treasury, according to blockchain security firm BlockSec. 

The incident triggered heavy selling of Midnight’s native token and sent NIGHT down more than 30% within 24 hours.

BlockSec’s Phalcon said its initial investigation pointed to a possible flaw in the TreasuryCheck validator used by the bridge. The security firm stressed that its findings remain preliminary. Meanwhile, the Midnight Foundation said the incident affected third-party bridge infrastructure rather than the Midnight blockchain itself.

BlockSec points to possible signature reuse flaw

According to BlockSec, the reported Wanchain Cardano bridge exploit may stem from the way the TreasuryCheck validator creates messages for signing. The firm said the validator combines 14 fields of varying lengths without adding clear separators or recording the length of each field. That structure could allow different sets of data to produce the same final byte string.

U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs took in about $227 million on July 20, a fifth consecutive day of net inflows for the first time since late April, per SoSoValue data. Ether ETFs added about $38 million, led by BlackRock’s ETHA.

The five-day run has pulled in roughly $727 million, the most sustained stretch of buying since the record outflows of June. Total bitcoin ETF assets have climbed back to about $79 billion from a July low near $75 billion. BlackRock’s ETHA drove the ether side with about $34 million.

Bitcoin has held its range near $63,000 as last week’s chip-driven selloff paused, and the return of the ETF bid is the piece that had been missing through a quarter of mostly outflows.

The test is what it holds through. The Fed meets July 28 and 29, and Big Tech earnings land this week, with Alphabet, Tesla and Intel reporting the numbers that will show whether AI spending, the trade bitcoin has moved with all month, is still climbing.

UK politicians want to know the extent to which the country’s banks have choked-off cryptocurrency firms by refusing them bank accounts and introducing restrictions on crypto-related payments, in a cross-party inquiry kicked off on Tuesday.

The UK’s Crypto and Digital Assets All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) is chaired by Lord Vaizey of Didcot, the former UK Government Minister for the Digital Economy, and Labour MP Gurinder Singh Josan CBE, according to a press release.

Ever since crypto came into being, difficulties around attaining banking relationships have made life hard for players in the space, with a systematic debanking of firms and individuals, particularly in the U.S. being referred to as “Operation Chokepoint 2.0.”

Several major UK banks have also introduced restrictions on crypto-related payments, the APPG said in a statement. As such the inquiry will focus on a dearth of bank accounts for crypto businesses, including associated professional services such as insurance.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a lawsuit against crypto mining investment firm Mining Automatic and its founder, Zan Shaikh, accusing them of raising $22 million from investors while allocating only a small portion of the money—about 13%—to mining operations.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the scheme was run through Massachusetts-based Bright Vision Distribution LLC. The agency alleges the business collected funds from more than 380 investors between June 2023 and May 2025, promising monthly, guaranteed returns tied to cryptocurrency mining.

Key takeaways

• The SEC alleges investors were promised guaranteed monthly returns from mining, despite the company generating far less revenue from mining than it paid out.
• Proceeds, according to the SEC, were heavily directed toward advertising and personal or unrelated expenditures rather than mining operations.
• The SEC says Mining Automatic stopped making investor payments by March 2025 and that investors had not recovered their principal.
• The regulator is also signaling a broader shift toward rulemaking for digital assets alongside enforcement actions.

SEC alleges mining payouts didn’t match promised returns

The core allegation in the SEC’s complaint is that the promotional claims did not reflect the operation’s financial reality. The agency states that Mining Automatic advertised payouts as returns from crypto asset mining while its mining activities allegedly produced only about $1.1 million.

Meanwhile, the SEC claims investors received roughly $1.8 million in purported returns. The agency argues that the shortfall required payments to be funded using money from other investors, describing the operation as having “some of the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme.”

In addition to questioning the returns model, the SEC points to how investor funds were used. The complaint alleges that about $7 million was spent on advertising to attract additional investors, while Shaikh purportedly used investor money for real estate, vehicles, entertainment, and transfers into personal accounts.

Fundraising scope and alleged investor exposure

In its filing, the SEC says Bright Vision Distribution LLC collected the $22 million from more than 380 investors over a two-year span, from June 2023 through May 2025. The SEC also alleges that as the program unraveled, payments stopped by March 2025.

Once payments halted, the SEC contends that none of the investors had recovered their original investment amounts. The complaint states that more than $20 million in principal remains unpaid, according to the SEC’s allegations.

For investors and market participants, the lawsuit underscores a recurring risk in the crypto-adjacent “yield” space: returns tied to mining or other on-chain activities can be presented in a way that obscures financing gaps, and “guaranteed” payout language can draw closer scrutiny from securities regulators.

Regulator seeks penalties and restrictions on Shaikh

The SEC is seeking multiple remedies in the case, including disgorgement and civil penalties. The agency also requests permanent injunctions and asks the court to bar Shaikh from selling securities and from serving as an officer or director of a public company.

These requests reflect the SEC’s typical enforcement posture in cases that it frames as securities fraud and unregistered securities activity, particularly where the regulator argues investor money was misused and returns were not supported by the underlying business model.

The complaint is publicly available on the SEC’s website: SEC litigation document.

Enforcement arrives amid SEC’s stated rulemaking push

While the Mining Automatic case focuses on alleged wrongdoing by a specific operator, it is also landing during a broader period in which the SEC has emphasized building clearer regulatory frameworks for digital assets. Under Chair Paul Atkins, the agency has increasingly pointed to rulemaking efforts rather than relying solely on enforcement.

In June, the SEC published its 2026–2030 Strategic Plan, identifying blockchain technology, tokenization, and crypto market infrastructure among its long-term priorities while reaffirming its investor-protection mandate. Later, in July, the SEC outlined a 2026 rulemaking agenda that includes potential new rules for crypto broker-dealers, digital assets traded on national securities exchanges and alternative trading systems, and possible exemptions or safe harbors for certain digital asset offerings. (The SEC’s agenda was covered in earlier reporting by Cointelegraph: SEC crypto rule changes 2026 agenda.)

At the same time, congressional activity is also aimed at reshaping how U.S. oversight works across agencies. A proposed legislative package—referred to as the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—would, if enacted, clarify the respective roles of the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The bill is expected to face a key Senate vote before the August recess, according to the broader legislative timeline described alongside recent crypto oversight coverage.

In that context, the Mining Automatic lawsuit functions as both a case-specific warning and a signal of where the SEC may draw lines: where a company offers “investment” arrangements with promised returns, the regulator may treat the arrangement through a securities lens—especially when the underlying economics do not appear to support the payout structure.

What to watch next

Investors and builders should watch how the court addresses the SEC’s allegations about the mismatch between advertised mining returns and the company’s stated mining revenue, as well as whether the SEC’s accompanying push toward digital-asset rulemaking eventually narrows the space for similarly structured “guaranteed return” offerings. In the meantime, the case adds another enforcement datapoint for anyone evaluating crypto-linked investment products marketed as stable, predictable yield.