Mass user migration following the end of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) transitional period could strain compliance at virtual asset service providers (VASPs) in the European Union, according to Bruna Szego, chair of the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA). 

“Because we know customers will rush to withdraw, this will put additional pressure on these VASPs,” Szego said during a Wednesday briefing with the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

Szego said firms winding down their EU operations could come under pressure as customers rush to withdraw, while licensed crypto companies could face onboarding challenges as they absorb new users. She urged service providers to maintain efficient compliance procedures throughout the transition.

MiCA’s 18-month transitional period ended on July 1, requiring crypto asset service providers (CASPs) to hold licenses to continue serving EU customers. The European Securities and Markets Authority said crypto service providers that remain unauthorized by the deadline must take “immediate” steps to wind down their EU activities.

Related: Last-minute MiCA approvals mark end of EU transition period

AMLA maps next phase of crypto oversight

Ahead of MiCA’s July 1 deadline, AMLA published an advisory note warning crypto firms about money laundering risks arising from the end of the transitional period. The guidance outlined measures for firms winding down their EU operations and licensed providers onboarding new customers to maintain anti-money laundering controls during the transition.

Szego said AMLA will publish a report before the end of the year on money laundering risks in the crypto sector and supervisory practices across the bloc. She added that the authority is also expanding its blockchain analytics capabilities to strengthen oversight of crypto-asset service providers.

The report will also assess how national authorities supervise crypto-asset service providers and identify differences in supervisory practices across member states.

Szego said AMLA intends to use the findings to coordinate follow-up work with national regulators where needed as it works toward more consistent anti-money laundering oversight across the bloc.

Magazine: Will the crypto lobby’s $189M campaign get CLARITY over the line?

Robinhood Chain’s explosive launch this month has reignited one of Ethereum’s longest-running debates: Do successful layer-2 networks increase demand for ETH, the asset, or do the new entrants capture all of the value for themselves?

The retail brokerage’s Arbitrum-based Ethereum L2 has become one of Ethereum’s busiest rollups since its launch on July 1.

More than $141 million in Ether was bridged onto the chain in its first two weeks. DeFiLlama data shows more than half a million wallets now hold ETH on the network, and a memecoin frenzy saw Robinhood Chain surge past the Ethereum L1 and Coinbase’s Base L2 in 24-hour DEX trading volume.

Ether has pumped on the news, gaining around 15% from $1,582 on July 1 to $1,825 by July 13, according to Coingecko data, following a wave of bullish comments.

World Liberty Financial’s Eric Trump posted on July 11, “ETH is pumping hard! Great to see!” while Tom Lee, chairman of BitMine Immersion Technologies, argued the launch reinforces the thesis that “ETH is money,” pointing to the asset’s role as the chain’s native gas token and the L2’s finality on Ethereum’s mainnet.

Ethereum investors have heard similar arguments before.

Related: Robinhood L2 sparks ETH optimism, Saylor ‘muddies waters.’ Hodler’s Digest, July 5-12, 2026

Arbitrum, Optimism and Base each drove waves of users and activity onto Ethereum’s L2 ecosystem, but failed to move the needle meaningfully in Ether’s price, as most of the economic activity remained on the rollups themselves.

Robinhood Chain’s launch is arguably different. Unlike previous rollups built by crypto-native firms, the network was developed by a publicly listed retail brokerage with tens of millions of customers to support tokenized stocks and other real-world assets.

Within days of launch, it already accounted for 6.9% of all tokenized stockholders, according to data from Token Terminal.

Ether price response to Robinhood Chain’s launch. Source Coingecko

And, if Robinhood’s model succeeds, it could encourage banks, brokers and asset managers to build L2s of their own, and cement Ethereum as the default blockchain for TradFi. Deutsche Bank is already in the process of building a ZK-powered Ethereum L2 called DAMA 2, focused on institutional finance.

Why Robinhood could be a turning point

Ethereum’s L2 networks use rollup technology to process transactions away from Ethereum’s main chain and periodically settle them back to the network. Robinhood Chain uses Arbitrum technology and is compatible with Ethereum’s wider ecosystem.

But what has caught the industry’s attention isn’t the technology itself, as much as who is using it.

“It’s a real milestone,” Alex Gluchowski, founder and chief executive of Matter Labs, the developer behind Ethereum L2 zkSync, told Cointelegraph.

“It shows Ethereum L2s have gone from something crypto-native teams experiment with to infrastructure a regulated, publicly listed company will run its business on.”

Rather than building a blockchain from scratch, as Stripe has opted to do with Tempo, Robinhood chose to tailor an Ethereum rollup to its own needs “for privacy, compliance and performance, while still inheriting Ethereum’s security and connecting to its liquidity,” he added.

Max Shannon, senior research analyst at Bitwise, told Cointelegraph that Robinhood Chain’s success is more significant than previous L2 deployments.

“It represents the growth of the Ethereum ecosystem, particularly among major institutions,” he said. “It also arrives at a time when Ethereum has more broadly repositioned itself toward institutions through Eth Labs and Ethereum Institutional.”

Does Robinhood Chain change the investment case for ETH?

For Shannon, Robinhood’s launch strengthens the investment case for Ethereum because it reinforces the network’s position as the leading blockchain for institutional adoption.

He said ETH has the “network characteristics” to become the reserve asset for a growing network of institutional L2s. But like many, he believes Ethereum’s tokenomics need to be improved so that increased network activity is reflected more clearly in demand for ETH.

Ethereum has been criticized frequently for its decision to lower fees for L2s as a way to spark adoption and gain network effects. Ark Invest’s Lorenzo Valente posted on July 14 that Robinhood Chain had generated $816,000 in revenue since launch, with Arbitrum taking a 10% cut, but only 0.15% of the total being paid back to Ethereum.

“If your thesis is ‘ETH is money,’ Robinhood building here is ultra bullish. More activity, more ETH collateral, more lindyness. If your thesis is ‘ETH is a revenue generating asset,’ this is the ultra-bear case.”

GrowThePie said that Valente’s figures for Eth’s share of the revenue were off by a factor of four and argued “0.6% of revenue is the correct figure.” But even the higher figure is not a meaningful driver of revenue to the L1. Robinhood Chain generated more gas fees than any other L2 in the past week, but Ethereum only saw $4,400 of that.

Source: Matze, GrowThePie

Gluchowski said ETH’s appreciation would not be based on fee revenue, but would likely come from becoming widely accepted money throughout the L2 ecosystems.

“People might pay fees in stablecoins or never think about gas at all,” he said. “But as more value settles through Ethereum, ETH starts to look less like a fee token and more like a base monetary asset for this system.”

Related: Robinhood says its AI agent feature will ‘soon’ be assisting crypto traders

Even ETH bears like Mike Dudas from 6th Man Ventures, have described Robinhood Chain as “the single most bullish thing I’ve seen in eth-land in years.”

But after Dudas saw Valente’s post, he added the proviso that “Eth cooked unless ‘eth is money’ takes off or the price of l1 settlement increases.”

The value accrual question remains

While Robinhood’s success may have bolstered the case for Ethereum’s scaling strategy, it has yet to settle one of the network’s biggest unanswered questions: how does growing L2 activity ultimately translate into value for ETH?

Shannon said that recent upgrades like Fusaka have improved Ethereum’s scaling capabilities, but despite transaction activity reaching record levels, demand has yet to translate into meaningfully higher fees or increased ETH burn.

“Robinhood will not solve this problem,” Shannon said, and the collective growth of L2s will likely not either… It requires a wholesale change in developer mindset and in ETH’s token economics.”

Another uncertainty is how much ETH institutional users will actually hold directly. As tokenized stocks and other RWAs increasingly trade against stablecoins, many users may rarely interact with ETH, even though it underpins the network behind the scenes.

Robinhood may have shown that a major financial institution is willing to build on Ethereum’s infrastructure, but whether that ultimately translates into stronger demand for ETH remains to be seen.

Magazine Ethereum’s much-hated staking ‘tax’ may already be obsolete

Base creator Jesse Pollak has acknowledged that the network’s multi-year bet on onchain social products did not deliver the expected growth and has redirected Base toward trading, payments, and AI-powered financial infrastructure.

Base returns to infrastructure after social experiment falls short

According to a post published by Jesse Pollak on Wednesday, the first quarter of 2026 became a turning point after Base spent nearly two years betting that developers and social applications would drive the next stage of crypto adoption.

While developers helped expand sectors such as stablecoins, perpetual futures, and prediction markets, Pollak said products including Farcaster, Zora, mini apps, and creator coins did not become the growth engines Base had expected.

Accepting responsibility for the outcome, Pollak wrote that he had been wrong about the strategy, while adding that it remains uncertain whether the approach failed because of poor timing or because the underlying thesis was incorrect.

The reassessment also came with organizational changes. Pollak said he has handed responsibility for the Base App back to Coinbase so he can concentrate on developing the Base blockchain itself. Crypto investor Jordan Fish, better known as Cobie, will oversee the app’s next phase within Coinbase.

Coinbase strengthened its relationship with Cobie last year through two transactions worth $400 million. Those deals included the $375 million acquisition of Echo, his onchain fundraising platform, along with a separate $25 million purchase of an NFT tied to the return of his UpOnly podcast.

Pollak also acknowledged that Base lost ground in several product categories while focusing heavily on social experiences. Although the network supported trading applications such as Avantis and Limitless, he said those platforms remained smaller than competing services, while Base also needed stronger tokenization tools and enterprise payment infrastructure.

Trading, payments and AI become Base’s priorities

Having stepped away from daily work on the Base App, Pollak said his attention has returned to the blockchain itself, where he has worked on upgrades including Azul, Beryl, B20, privacy improvements, and ledger development.

Looking ahead, Pollak said Base will concentrate on three priorities throughout 2026: trading, payments, and AI agents. Under the trading strategy, the network plans to support more onchain assets, including tokenized stocks, meme tokens, and application tokens.

Payments will focus on expanding stablecoin use for consumers and businesses, while AI infrastructure will target software-based economic systems that require programmable digital money.

Pollak has previously argued that AI agents represent an important use case for crypto because autonomous software can move funds through APIs and smart contracts without traditional payment systems. He added that developers will continue receiving support through initiatives including Base Layer, Base Batches, the Base Ecosystem Fund, and distribution across Coinbase and the Base App.

Pollak also said Base has recorded quarterly growth in decentralized exchange market share and payment volume, although he did not disclose supporting figures.

The renewed focus on payments comes as stablecoin economics face increasing competitive pressure across the industry. As crypto.news previously reported, JPMorgan lowered its earnings forecasts for Coinbase and Circle after a revised USDC revenue-sharing agreement with Hyperliquid.

According to the bank, the agreement could reduce the long-term profitability of the stablecoin business because issuers may have to share a larger portion of reserve income with distribution partners to expand adoption. Although separate from Base’s product roadmap, the development highlights the increasingly competitive environment surrounding blockchain payment infrastructure.

Closing his update, Pollak said Base intends to become the blockchain where global financial activity settles over the coming decades, describing that objective as the network’s long-term direction.

Prediction markets are attracting mainstream attention—and they’re also raising new questions about how their mechanics can shape market behavior. A new research paper from Stanford University and Singapore Management University argues that Polymarket’s short-horizon Bitcoin contracts can create incentives for sophisticated traders to manipulate spot prices around settlement, at a potential cost to retail participants.

The study focuses on Polymarket wagers that settle after five minutes based on Bitcoin’s price relative to a fixed threshold. Because settlement depends on Chainlink price feeds tied to the end-of-window spot price, the authors say traders can profit by influencing the spot market immediately before the contract resolves.

Key takeaways

• Settlement based on a five-minute spot price can encourage end-of-window price manipulation.
• Researchers observed larger order-flow spikes shortly before settlement and quick price reversals after.
• The paper estimates about $1.28 million may have shifted from ordinary traders to manipulators during the sample period.
• Extending the contract window from five minutes to 15 minutes significantly reduced the effect.
• The findings highlight why contract design matters, not just whether prediction markets exist.

How five-minute Bitcoin contracts can change incentives

The paper analyzes Polymarket contracts where traders bet whether Bitcoin’s price will finish above or below a predetermined level after five minutes. Settlement is determined using Chainlink price feeds that reflect the Bitcoin price at the end of each trading window.

According to the researchers, this structure can produce a specific incentive: if the settlement price effectively “locks in” at the end of a short period, participants have a reason to influence market conditions right before that moment. In short-horizon settings, even small price moves can determine outcomes, making it easier for sophisticated traders to attempt to steer the spot price toward a preferred settlement level.

What the researchers found in Polymarket activity

To test the claim, the authors compared trading activity before and after Polymarket introduced these five-minute Bitcoin contracts in July 2024. They report sharp increases in Bitcoin spot-market order flow just before settlement, followed by rapid price reversals.

The paper interprets this pattern as consistent with settlement-price manipulation: order-flow concentrates near the settlement boundary, and spot prices then unwind quickly after resolution—suggesting the pre-settlement movement may not persist beyond the contract’s settlement point.

Quantitatively, the study estimates the behavior transferred approximately $1.28 million from ordinary traders to manipulators during the sampled period. The researchers also argue that the mechanism is sensitive to the timing of settlement: when contract durations were extended from five minutes to 15 minutes, the manipulation effect was largely eliminated.

Manipulation isn’t “inherent”—settlement design may be the lever

A central point of the paper is that its results do not imply prediction markets are intrinsically vulnerable to manipulation. Instead, the authors argue that design choices—particularly how settlement prices are produced—can materially affect the risk.

Beyond lengthening contract windows, the researchers point to alternative settlement methods that could reduce incentives to tamper with the precise end-of-window price. They specifically mention approaches such as using time-weighted average prices (TWAP) rather than a single end-point spot price, which would make it harder to profit from last-moment spot moves.

For market participants, the practical takeaway is straightforward: the shorter the window and the more settlement hinges on an exact spot read at a specific timestamp, the greater the potential payoff to short-term steering. Conversely, smoother pricing references and longer resolution horizons can dampen that incentive structure.

Broader implications as prediction markets expand

The paper’s relevance may extend beyond crypto-native venues. It notes that traditional trading venues have proposed “event contracts” tied to asset prices—signaling that settlement mechanics will matter even as prediction markets move into more regulated environments.

That expansion is already happening alongside intense legal scrutiny in the United States. Cointelegraph previously reported that several US states have challenged prediction-market companies including Kalshi and Polymarket, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has argued that federally regulated event contracts fall under its “exclusive jurisdiction” rather than state gambling laws. The dispute is now moving through federal courts, with observers noting that conflicting appellate decisions could ultimately lead to a role for the US Supreme Court in determining whether states or the CFTC have primary authority.

At the same time, activity continues to grow. Prediction markets recorded record trading volumes in June, fueled by the expanded 2026 FIFA World Cup. According to DefiLlama data cited in the original reporting, Kalshi processed about $9.4 billion in trading volume during June, while Polymarket International handled roughly $4.3 billion.

World Cup winner markets have since generated more than $5.4 billion in combined trading volume, with Polymarket processing about $4.25 billion and Kalshi about $1.2 billion, based on data from the platforms at the time of writing.

As market interest accelerates—especially in short-duration contracts—the paper’s message becomes more urgent: regulators and designers may need to focus on settlement architecture, not just on categorizing whether prediction markets should be permitted.

For traders and builders, the next thing to watch is whether venues adjust contract durations, adopt averaging-based settlement (like TWAP), or otherwise change pricing feeds to reduce manipulation incentives—particularly as more prediction markets emerge with quickly resolving, price-linked settlement rules.

Ostium has halted trading after an exploit tied to a compromised oracle signer key drained nearly $18 million USDC from its liquidity vault, according to blockchain security firm Blockaid.

Blockaid reported that the attacker gained control of an oracle signer private key, allowing them to bypass the protocol’s verification process and submit future-dated price reports that favored their trades. Using a registered PriceUpKeep forwarder, the attacker repeatedly opened and closed positions through delegated actions, extracting profits without taking genuine market risk.

The security firm said the exploit triggered around 20 trading loops that steadily drained funds from Ostium’s main vault. On-chain records show the attacker withdrew between $11.86 million and $18 million USDC, equal to roughly 28% of the protocol’s $63 million total value locked at the time of the incident. The primary exploit transaction can be verified on Arbiscan.

Ostium, which operates on Arbitrum, offers decentralized perpetual trading for tokenized real-world assets, including equities, commodities, foreign exchange markets and stock indices.

Oracle key compromise enabled repeated profit extraction

Instead of exploiting a flaw in smart contract code, the attacker abused trusted oracle infrastructure after obtaining a valid signer key. According to Blockaid, the manipulated oracle reports allowed favorable prices to pass protocol checks, making each trade appear legitimate while transferring losses to the liquidity vault.

The incident has renewed attention on oracle security as decentralized finance protocols increasingly depend on external data feeds for pricing. Blockaid attributed the exploit to compromised signing credentials rather than a pricing error or market manipulation through normal trading activity.

The protocol has since paused trading while the investigation continues. Users have been advised to follow Ostium’s official communication channels for updates on withdrawals and any further recovery measures.

Institutional backing failed to prevent another security setback

Before the exploit, Ostium had raised about $27.8 million from investors including General Catalyst, Jump Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Wintermute and GSR. The incident occurred despite the project’s institutional backing and multiple security audits, highlighting that infrastructure outside audited smart contracts can still become a critical point of failure.

The attack also adds to a series of recent security incidents affecting crypto platforms. Earlier this month, crypto.news reported that Ctrl Wallet announced it would permanently shut down after a separate security exploit affecting some Cardano wallets.

The company gave users until Aug. 3 to move their crypto assets before wallet functions, including sending, receiving and swapping, are disabled, leaving only recovery phrase exports available.

Elsewhere in the Arbitrum ecosystem, Secret Network recently proposed migrating its SCRT token from Cosmos to Arbitrum, citing security concerns, weaker liquidity and aging code on its current network. The proposal includes a one-time Sept. 1 snapshot that would distribute a new ERC-20 SCRT token on Arbitrum to eligible native and staked SCRT holders.

As projects continue expanding onto Arbitrum, the Ostium exploit demonstrates that securing oracle infrastructure remains as important as auditing smart contracts. According to Blockaid’s findings, a single compromised signer key was enough to bypass trusted price verification and inflict multimillion-dollar losses within hours.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission approved a rule change that expands options limits for BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF, IBIT. The decision raises the contract limit from 250,000 to one million contracts. Consequently, the change supports growing trading activity and strengthens the Bitcoin ETF market structure.

US Sec Expands BlackRock Bitcoin ETF Options Capacity

The US Securities and Exchange Commission approved a proposal filed by NYSE Arca for IBIT options. The approval became effective immediately under the existing regulatory framework. Meanwhile, the regulator continues accepting public comments on the rule change.

The updated rule increases position and exercise limits from 250,000 contracts to one million contracts. Therefore, the new threshold reflects stronger trading activity across the BlackRock Bitcoin ETF market. It also aligns the exchange with recent changes adopted by other major options venues.

NYSE Arca submitted the proposal under Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4. The exchange explained that current market conditions justify the expanded contract limit. As a result, the revised cap supports larger trading strategies without reaching previous restrictions.

The exchange also noted continued growth in options activity linked to the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF. Larger limits provide market participants with greater flexibility during active trading sessions. In addition, market makers can manage positions more efficiently under the revised framework.

Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq PHLX, and BOX Exchange already support similar position limits for comparable products. Therefore, the latest approval creates greater consistency across regulated options markets. The decision also reflects the continued expansion of exchange-traded Bitcoin investment products.

The BlackRock Bitcoin ETF has recorded strong trading activity since its launch. Its options market has also expanded alongside increasing demand for listed Bitcoin products. Consequently, the updated limits better align with the ETF’s current trading volume and liquidity.

BlackRock Earnings Support Broader Market Momentum

The regulatory approval followed BlackRock’s second-quarter fiscal 2026 earnings announcement. The company reported a 31% year-over-year increase in quarterly revenue. It also announced plans to increase its quarterly share repurchase target to $550 million.

The earnings report highlighted continued business expansion across BlackRock’s investment platform. Strong financial performance added further attention to the firm’s Bitcoin ETF business. Meanwhile, IBIT remained among the firm’s closely followed exchange-traded products.

Higher options limits allow larger institutional trading strategies within existing exchange rules. Consequently, professional market participants can execute broader hedging and portfolio management activities. The expanded capacity also supports more efficient options market operations.

The updated limits may also improve overall liquidity within the BlackRock Bitcoin ETF options market. Better liquidity generally supports tighter pricing and smoother trade execution. Therefore, larger position limits can contribute to stronger market efficiency over time.

The approval also reflects broader development across the regulated digital asset investment sector. Bitcoin ETFs continue attracting significant trading activity across major US exchanges. As a result, exchanges have adjusted market rules to accommodate growing participation.

Bitcoin ETF Market Continues To Mature

The latest decision adds another milestone to the evolution of regulated Bitcoin investment products. Exchange operators have steadily updated trading frameworks as market activity expanded. Consequently, regulatory adjustments now follow increasing demand for listed Bitcoin products.

BlackRock also remained active across broader digital asset initiatives beyond exchange-traded funds. The company recently joined an industry initiative exploring tokenized stocks and US Treasury securities. That effort includes several major financial institutions participating through the DTCC testing program.

Traditional financial firms continue expanding blockchain-related projects alongside regulated investment products. At the same time, digital asset infrastructure continues to develop across multiple market segments. These parallel developments support broader integration between traditional finance and blockchain technology.

The BlackRock Bitcoin ETF has maintained steady market attention, as evidenced by both trading activity and fund flows. Expanding options limits provide additional operational capacity for larger market participants. Therefore, the latest SEC approval strengthens the infrastructure supporting regulated Bitcoin ETF trading.

The approval also demonstrates how exchanges continue adapting existing market rules to changing trading conditions. Growing product adoption has encouraged exchanges to modernize options frameworks for digital asset funds. As a result, the regulated Bitcoin ETF market continues advancing through incremental structural improvements.