Crypto World
Fewer Than 300 Made the Cut: Ivan Nevzorov on MiCA, CASP Licensing, and What’s Next for Crypto Firms
Of the more than 3,000 companies that were legally serving crypto clients across the EU as recently as this June, fewer than 300 hold the right to do so today, according to CASP Tracker.
The reason is the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which took full effect across the European Union on 1 July 2026: from that date, only a company holding Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) authorisation — granted by a regulator in one EU member state and passported across the rest of the bloc — can serve EU clients. Companies that previously operated under national Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) registrations had exactly until that date to convert. Most didn’t.
We talked to Ivan Nevzorov, CEO at SBSB Fintech Lawyers, about what’s actually left for them now — and why the shortcuts most of them reach for first usually aren’t the ones that hold up.
Let’s start with the obvious one. A company still doesn’t have a CASP licence today — what happens to it now?
Ivan Nevzorov: Look, here’s the thing people don’t want to hear: the deadline’s already passed. From July 1st, every day you keep serving EU clients without authorisation is a day you’re in breach of MiCA — a minimum €5 million fine under Article 111, and in France it can mean criminal liability for whoever’s responsible. So the answer everyone expects to hear, “just go get licensed,” isn’t actually on the table anymore for a company operating today. You can’t file an application, keep the lights on for months while it gets reviewed, and call that compliance.
Which really leaves two paths. One, you wind down, because the business can’t meet the new standard. Two, you relocate — move your base to a friendlier jurisdiction. Though that one only keeps you legal if you stop marketing into the EU completely and let clients come to you on their own, what’s called reverse solicitation. Keep advertising to EU users from outside the bloc, and you’re breaking the exact same rule, just from a different address.
We’ll come back to relocating, because it’s genuinely its own conversation. Let’s start with winding down, since that’s where most of these companies actually are right now — and honestly, it’s painful to watch, because most of them didn’t do anything wrong. They just didn’t get there in time, and for a lot of them, the reasons had nothing to do with how good their compliance actually was.
Winding down sounds like the more straightforward path, at least. Is it actually?
Ivan Nevzorov: Not as straightforward as people think, and there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. The wrong way is switching off the app and disappearing — the client assets sitting in those accounts don’t vanish, and holding them is a regulated activity in itself. To the regulator, that company hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s still operating without a licence, only now it’s also stopped answering its clients. The right way is one of two things: an orderly wind-down, or transferring your clients to a CASP that’s already authorised.
ESMA’s actually spelled out what an orderly wind-down has to look like: stop onboarding, stop any marketing into the EU, restrict yourself to settling what’s already open. And transferring clients sounds simpler on paper, but being on the CASP register only tells you a firm’s allowed to take clients — it doesn’t tell you they’re actually set up to onboard a few thousand new ones at once. A lot of the firms that got authorised fastest didn’t build a crypto compliance function from zero — they already held a MiFID or e-money licence and just converted it, lighter scrutiny attached. Good for them, but it also means some of these brand-new CASPs are banks running crypto as a side product, not specialists who can absorb a wave of migrating clients. Every single one of those clients still needs full AML and KYC re-verification before the new CASP can touch their money. That’s months of work for a team that does it every day. Longer for a team that doesn’t.
You’d think the bigger platforms would have this solved by now. Is that actually the case?
Ivan Nevzorov: Less than people think, and Binance is actually a fair example of why. A platform with years of European operating history and enormous legal and compliance resources still ran into real MiCA licensing problems — the same wall a lot of much smaller companies are hitting. That tells you something worth sitting with: this isn’t a gap you close just by throwing money or headcount at it. If a company at that scale couldn’t get it fully sorted before the deadline, a smaller operator shouldn’t assume they’ll just muscle through it either.
Let’s rewind for a second — only a couple hundred companies actually made it through while that was still possible. What was going wrong for the rest?
Ivan Nevzorov: Honestly, it’s rarely the paperwork. A technically correct application just gets you in the room — it doesn’t win you the decision. We saw one filing get rejected over how the share capital was deposited, and that requirement isn’t even written into MiCA, anywhere. The regulator just invented a formality that isn’t in the text. That’s the pattern I keep seeing: whatever reason they put on paper is almost never the real one. The real reason comes to you informally, if it comes at all, and it’s about how they read the company — do you actually understand your own risk model, who’s accountable for what, who your clients really are. A compliance policy copied from a template answers none of that. It’s the first thing I flag when someone walks into SBSB with one.
And the second thing people underestimate completely: where you filed mattered almost as much as what you filed. This wasn’t one process across the EU — it was twenty-seven versions of it, moving at completely different speeds, with completely different appetites for saying no. Germany’s BaFin wasn’t shy about it: its first-ever MiCA enforcement action was rejecting Ethena’s application and then forcing the company to wind down its German operation and redeem its tokens. Italy’s regulator went the other way — it spent most of the transition period without having authorised anyone at all, so filings there just sat. Same regulation, wildly different odds depending on the door you knocked on. A few countries never even built the door — Poland’s the loudest example, it went into the deadline with no authority issuing CASP licences at all — but that’s the extreme end of a spectrum the whole market was sitting on.
Let’s talk about the companies actually going through the licensing process, then — a first application in a market they haven’t touched yet, or a return down the line after an orderly exit. What does a strategy that actually works look like, in practice?
Ivan Nevzorov: Honestly, it starts before you’ve touched a single form. You go talk to the regulator first, find out exactly what they expect from a business like this one, and only then do you build the structure around that answer — the AML policy, the governance, the documentation. MiCA’s a directive, which means every country implements it a little differently, so a compliance package that worked in one member state gets rechecked before you dare reuse it somewhere else. People skip that step constantly, and it costs them.
At SBSB, a full mandate for us looks like this: company formation, the application itself, handling the regulator correspondence, and then the parts most founders genuinely can’t build alone — banking relationships, payment infrastructure, penetration testing through our partners, licensed compliance software. And staffing matters just as much. Regulators check AML certifications early, so get that sorted before the application goes in, not after you’ve already filed.
How should a company actually choose which EU market to apply in — Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Estonia?
Ivan Nevzorov: I don’t give every client the same answer, honestly, and if anyone tells you there’s one magic jurisdiction, they’re oversimplifying it for you. But the differences between regulators are real, and by now they’re well documented. Germany’s BaFin gives you the heaviest signature in Europe — corporate clients respect it — but you pay for it: a German entity, at least two qualified directors actually present in the country, capital paid up at filing, and a documentation pack that runs to hundreds of pages, with the formal filing in German. France is the opposite story: the AMF had been licensing crypto firms under its own national regime for five years before MiCA existed, so firms already registered there got a genuinely streamlined path, and the regulator’s crypto unit knows what it’s looking at. Luxembourg, Ireland, and Malta became the hubs the big exchanges actually picked: Coinbase went through Luxembourg, Kraken through Ireland, OKX and Crypto.com through Malta. That’s not a coincidence; it’s where the process was mature enough to handle a file that size.
But here’s what I actually tell clients: the regulator’s speed shouldn’t decide it — your own capacity should. Every serious regulator now checks for the same thing: a real office, real staff on the ground, a credible plan for that specific market. Pick the jurisdiction where you can honestly show that, not whoever’s got the shortest queue — a fast process with no substance behind your application just gets you a fast rejection. And yes, Germany leads on raw licence numbers right now, but a good chunk of that is banks and brokers converting a licence they already had, not crypto-native firms getting freshly approved. “Germany has the most CASPs” and “Germany’s the easiest place for a crypto company” are two different claims, and people mix them up constantly. I don’t think any single country’s lead holds for long anyway — regulator capacity is finite everywhere. We’ve watched this movie before, it’s basically what happened with Curaçao’s gaming licence reform. Once the volume outpaces what the regulator can actually process, the process itself becomes the bottleneck.
Let’s come back to relocating, the third path you mentioned earlier. For companies thinking globally, how should they weigh an EU licence against licences elsewhere — Latin America, Asia, offshore?
Ivan Nevzorov: Look, the safest position is full compliance everywhere you operate — better banking terms, full market access, nothing sitting in a grey area. But that takes a budget most startups just don’t have. So in practice, most of them end up running from a business-friendly base — El Salvador, Panama, the UAE, Singapore, Mexico, these come up constantly — and serving EU clients only through reverse solicitation, sometimes with geo-blocks stacked on top for the riskier markets.
But notice what those two options really are: one’s too expensive for most, and the other cuts you off from actively winning EU clients at all. Which is why the question I hear constantly right now is: can’t I just operate under someone else’s licence? And here’s where MiCA catches people off guard. In payments, under the Second Payment Services Directive, PSD2, there’s a proper agent model — an unlicensed company can work the market on behalf of a licensed one, and the industry uses it everywhere. MiCA has nothing like that. Articles 59 and 60 draw a hard line around who’s allowed to provide crypto services at all, so the classic white-label — an unlicensed provider serving clients in its own name under someone else’s licence — formally doesn’t work.
What nobody forbids, though, is supplying a licensed CASP with technology or marketing. That’s fully legal, and the entire market has rushed into the gap between those two points — KvarnX, Bitpanda, Bit2Me are all running their own versions of it, and Spain’s regulator has even given the grey-label approach a cautiously positive read, with real limits attached. The catch is what role you’re actually playing: the licensed partner holds every wallet, every bank account, every client transaction. You’re the technology behind their offer, not the provider in front of the client. For a lot of companies that’s a perfectly good way back into the EU market. Just be honest with yourself about which side of that line your business model actually needs to be on.
Last one — once a company has the CASP licence, what does the ongoing workload actually look like?
Ivan Nevzorov: Getting the licence is honestly the easy part to talk about. Staying licensed is where companies actually get tested. I’ve watched a licence get pulled by an EU regulator within months of being granted, because the business just didn’t follow through on what it promised in the application. What actually matters, once you’re authorised, is exactly what you signed up for on paper — active risk assessment, ongoing AML monitoring, reporting to the regulator on time, every single time.
Has that gap between paperwork and practice actually cost one of your clients?
Ivan Nevzorov: This one’s a bit different — no regulator pulled anything here, and it’s actually from outside crypto. But it’s the same underlying lesson, so it’s worth telling. We had a client at SBSB who did everything right on paper: MSB registration, their API — Authorised Payment Institution — licence, connected to a banking-as-a-service partner, targeting the European market. Business plan solid, AML policy solid, source-of-funds checks all cleared. Where it fell apart was the economics nobody had stress-tested. The marketing spend needed to actually hit their projected client volume ran well above what they’d budgeted. The partner bank’s own compliance screening filtered out a chunk of the high-risk client segment their whole model was built around. And the tariffs the bank actually offered were thinner than what they’d planned for. Nothing illegal happened anywhere in that chain. The business just didn’t survive contact with the market it was built for. They made the call to sell, and we’ve already found a buyer — sold it, more or less, at this point.
One thing that’s genuinely changed the economics here is AI in compliance monitoring. Transaction monitoring that used to eat up a whole team can run with a fraction of the people now — cheaper for the company, and from what regulators have signalled, easier for them to work with too. None of that replaces the basic requirement, though. The licence is the easy part. Staying licensed — that’s the job.
If you had to give one piece of advice to a company still sitting on this decision — wind down or relocate, transfer or hold — what would it be?
Ivan Nevzorov: Pick your strategy and start moving — this week, not this quarter. The window between now and the first wave of regulatory checks is the only asset these companies have left, and it’s shrinking: we flagged back in May that the first checks would land around the third quarter of this year, and the Netherlands has already shown how this plays out — their central bank fined Kraken €4 million and Crypto.com €2.85 million under the old registration regime, and OKX €2.25 million just last year, for something that happened two years earlier.
A company that uses these months to actually execute — transfer the clients, close out the obligations, or get the relocation structure in place — walks into that first check with a story of action behind it. A company that’s still weighing its options in September walks in with an explanation for why it did nothing. Given the choice, I know which conversation I’d rather have with a regulator.
Disclaimer: The above article is sponsored content; it’s written by a third party. CryptoPotato doesn’t endorse or assume responsibility for the content, advertising, products, quality, accuracy, or other materials on this page. Nothing in it should be construed as financial advice. Readers are strongly advised to verify the information independently and carefully before engaging with any company or project mentioned and to do their own research. Investing in cryptocurrencies carries a risk of capital loss, and readers are also advised to consult a professional before making any decisions that may or may not be based on the above-sponsored content.
Readers are also advised to read CryptoPotato’s full disclaimer.
The post Fewer Than 300 Made the Cut: Ivan Nevzorov on MiCA, CASP Licensing, and What’s Next for Crypto Firms appeared first on CryptoPotato.
BIS researchers have found that dollar-backed stablecoin inflows across more than 130 economies remain largely unaffected by capital controls, exposing a growing challenge for emerging-market governments.
Summary
- BIS found stablecoin inflows remain largely unaffected by capital controls across more than 130 economies.
- Dollar-backed tokens are expanding in emerging markets facing inflation, weak currencies and limited foreign exchange access.
- Nigeria and Latin America show growing stablecoin use for remittances, trade settlement and cross-border payments.
The BIS study compared stablecoin inflows with foreign-currency bank deposits to examine how households and businesses gain exposure to the U.S. dollar during periods of financial stress. Both forms of dollarization increased alongside sovereign crises, banking problems and strong exchange-rate pass-through, but only traditional deposits responded clearly to restrictions on foreign currency and capital flows.
Unlike bank deposits, dollar-pegged tokens can move through crypto exchanges, peer-to-peer markets and self-hosted wallets without passing through domestic banks. According to the researchers, this difference likely exists because “stablecoins are partly circulating outside the regulatory perimeter.”
The results indicate that restrictions designed for bank accounts may have limited influence over digital tokens. While governments can require approval for foreign-currency deposits or restrict transfers through financial institutions, users can still receive, hold, and send stablecoins through blockchain networks.
Researchers also found that deposit and stablecoin dollarization tend to persist once established. Their analysis showed little evidence that users simply replace foreign-currency deposits with stablecoins, suggesting the two channels can expand at the same time instead of competing for the same demand.
Capital controls are failing to contain stablecoin demand
Dollar-pegged tokens could weaken monetary sovereignty if households and companies increasingly store or transact in U.S. dollars outside regulated banks, the BIS study warned. The risk is more pronounced in emerging and developing economies where inflation, currency depreciation or restricted access to foreign exchange makes dollar assets attractive.
Capital controls have historically reduced some forms of deposit dollarization because banks must enforce domestic rules. Stablecoin inflows, however, were broadly similar in economies with and without such restrictions, according to the BIS.
Digital tokens have bearer-like features and can be transferred through unhosted wallets, making complete enforcement difficult. The BIS Annual Economic Report 2026 noted that blocking domestic intermediaries from handling unapproved stablecoins may limit some transactions, but such measures are likely to remain imperfect.
Despite the concern over monetary sovereignty, the study found little evidence that moderate deposit dollarization materially weakens monetary-policy transmission. Economies with higher foreign-currency deposits did, however, show a somewhat higher risk of elevated inflation.
Stablecoins may present different policy problems because their use can extend beyond savings into payments, trade settlement and remittances. As transactions leave the banking system, authorities may also lose access to information normally collected by regulated financial institutions, limiting their view of capital movements.
The BIS findings suggest policymakers may require controls designed for blockchain-based assets rather than relying only on rules created for bank deposits. Any response would need to account for foreign exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers and self-hosted wallets, all of which can keep activity outside domestic financial channels.
Emerging markets are driving stablecoin payment adoption
Nigeria illustrates how economic pressure can push stablecoins into daily financial activity. The International Monetary Fund found that stablecoins accounted for more than 65% of the country’s cross-border crypto inflows in 2024, with total inflows approaching the value of recorded remittances by 2025.
According to the IMF, Nigerian households use USDT and USDC for family remittances, crypto investments and access to dollar-denominated value. Small and medium-sized importers have also used the tokens to pay foreign suppliers, while some large companies have tested them for trade settlement.
Inflation, naira depreciation and limited access to foreign currency made stablecoins more attractive during 2023 and 2024, the IMF reported. When the Central Bank of Nigeria restricted banks from serving crypto users in 2021, activity moved toward less regulated peer-to-peer markets instead of disappearing.
Stablecoins can cut payment time and reduce dependence on correspondent banks, according to the IMF. However, the institution warned that heavy use of dollar tokens could lower demand for the naira and move more transactions beyond the reach of Nigerian regulators.
A similar pattern has emerged in Latin America. Bitso Business reported an 81% year-over-year increase in stablecoin payment volume during the first half of 2026. The company also found that Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC represented 40% of regional crypto purchases in 2025, overtaking Bitcoin for the first time.
Across the crypto market, stablecoin capitalization has risen to about $309.7 billion from roughly $260 billion a year earlier. The increase gives dollar-backed tokens a larger role in payments and savings while adding urgency to the regulatory concerns identified by the BIS.
BIS research has also separated privately issued stablecoins from tokenized bank money. Through Project Agorá, eight central banks and more than 40 regulated institutions have tested cross-border settlement using tokenized commercial-bank deposits and central-bank reserves, according to the institution’s 2026 report.
That model keeps tokenized payments inside a regulated two-tier banking system, while stablecoins can circulate beyond it. For policymakers, the contrast explains why existing capital controls may struggle to contain digital dollarization even as demand for faster cross-border payments continues to grow.
The White House has accepted what it calls the most extensive federal ethics restrictions ever proposed as the CLARITY Act seeks the Democratic votes needed to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
Summary
- The White House accepted extensive ethics rules addressing Democratic concerns over Trump’s crypto interests.
- CLARITY still needs Democratic support to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
- Bitcoin topped $66,000, while Polymarket placed the bill’s 2026 passage odds at 48%.
Punchbowl News reported on Tuesday that White House officials reached an agreement on ethics language during talks with Republican Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno. The provision could apply to President Donald Trump’s crypto interests, although neither senator has released its wording or explained how it would be enforced.
A White House official confirmed the concession in a recent statement, describing the proposed language as “the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history.” According to the official, the administration had “bent over backward” to address concerns raised by Democratic lawmakers.
The agreement removes one of the main disputes holding up the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, but it does not guarantee enough Democratic support for passage. The Senate has not published its final text or placed a floor vote on its calendar, leaving lawmakers with a limited window before the chamber’s August state work period.
Ethics deal removes a key Senate obstacle
Democratic senators have made restrictions on political crypto dealings a condition for supporting the legislation. Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen previously argued that a market structure bill would be “worthless” unless it addressed Trump’s links to the digital asset industry.
Their concerns include Trump’s namesake memecoin and his family’s involvement with World Liberty Financial. Democrats have also requested congressional hearings into the president’s investments and other connections to crypto companies before the Senate holds a vote.
Details of the White House compromise remain unclear, including whether its limits would cover the president’s family and which authority would enforce them. Barron’s reported that some Democrats were concerned enforcement could rest only with the Trump-controlled Department of Justice instead of also allowing action by state attorneys general.
Earlier negotiations had shown how difficult the ethics issue could be. Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, told CoinDesk in May that the administration supported rules applying “from the president all the way down to the brand new intern on Capitol Hill,” but opposed provisions written against one official or family.
Senate negotiators have resolved or narrowed some other disputes while the ethics talks continued. Coinbase vice chair Ryan VanGrack recently said that Democrats had secured stronger customer safeguards, giving the Senate legislation “more teeth” than earlier versions.
“At the end of the day, this is about customer protections. The status quo lacks this infrastructure, lacks these protections, and the Democrats used this opportunity, wisely, to make sure that customers were first and foremost in [this bill].”
Stablecoin rewards, anti-money laundering controls, tokenized securities and protections for software developers have also complicated negotiations. As reported by crypto.news in May, the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill with support from every Republican on the panel and Democratic Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, producing a 15-9 vote.
Despite backing the committee action, Gallego and Alsobrooks did not commit to supporting the eventual floor version because negotiations were still underway. Republicans would therefore need to preserve that support and attract more Democrats to reach 60 votes in the full Senate.
The House passed its CLARITY Act version in July 2025 during Republicans’ “Crypto Week.” The proposal would divide oversight of digital assets between federal regulators and set standards for deciding when tokens fall under securities or commodities rules.
Bitcoin rises while passage odds remain below 50%
Crypto-linked markets climbed after reports of the White House agreement. Bitcoin traded above $66,000 on Tuesday and reached a seven-week high, while Coinbase shares rose about 10% and Circle gained roughly 7%.
Prediction-market traders remained less convinced. A Polymarket contract shown on Tuesday assigned a 48% chance that the CLARITY Act would become law in 2026, down 17 percentage points, with about $2.11 million in recorded volume. The contract’s pricing indicated that traders still viewed passage as uncertain despite the reported ethics agreement.
President Trump had pressed senators to approve the legislation “in honor of” the late Senator Lindsey Graham, whom he described as a major supporter of the measure. Industry executives, including Coinbase representatives, have also urged Congress to establish federal market rules.
Still, the missing legislative text leaves the effect of the ethics compromise untested. Until Democratic senators review the provision, disclose their positions and help schedule a floor vote, the White House agreement remains a potential route to 60 votes rather than proof that the CLARITY Act will pass.
MVMT Labs, Inc., the original developer of the Movement blockchain, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware on July 15, 2026. Days later, the Movement (MOVE) token slid to an all-time low of $0.0104.
Move Industries, the separate company that took over ecosystem development in 2025, says the case does not touch its operations. MOVE trades near $0.0108, down 94% over the past year.
Inside the MVMT Labs Bankruptcy Filing
Court records show a voluntary Subchapter V petition, a streamlined Chapter 11 track for small businesses. Case 26-11113 sits before Judge Thomas M. Horan in the District of Delaware.
The petition lists assets between $100,001 and $1 million against liabilities of $1 million to $10 million. Creditors number between 200 and 999.
The estate is a fraction of the project’s former scale. MOVE peaked at $1.45 in December 2024 before a disputed market making deal dumped 66 million tokens on launch day and crushed the price.
The fallout produced a market maker misconduct probe, a Binance ban on the account involved, and exchange delistings. MVMT Labs also faces a Delaware Chancery lawsuit from suspended co-founder Rushi Manche.
Move Industries Says It Is Full Steam Ahead
The remaining team rebranded to Move Industries in May 2025 under CEO Torab Torabi. It pivoted toward stablecoin payments for emerging markets this June. On July 21, Torabi rejected talk of a project collapse.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Markets have yet to reward that confidence. MOVE holds a $45 million market cap at rank 473, and its price action this week will show whether traders buy the separation.
The court expects a restructuring plan by October 13, 2026, which may reveal what remains inside the bankrupt entity.
The post MOVE Hits All-Time Low After MVMT Labs Bankruptcy: What Happens Next? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Aztec Network, an Ethereum Layer 2 built for private smart contracts, said on Tuesday that its Alpha V5 release is live on mainnet, calling it "the fastest private transactions we've ever shipped." The company said Alpha V5 proves a fully private transaction in about 2.5 seconds on a laptop and… Read the full story at The Defiant
Crypto World
Jack Mallers Questioned MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin Strategy, Now He’s Stepping Down From Twenty One
Jack Mallers has stepped down as CEO of Twenty One (XXI), the Tether-backed Bitcoin treasury firm. His exit lands months after he publicly pressed Michael Saylor over mNAV math and digital credit yields.
The Strike founder says he quit after clashing with the board over the company’s direction. Critics now tie his exit to the doubts he raised on stage earlier this year.
Board Disagreements End Jack Mallers’ Twenty One Tenure
Mallers announced the decision this week. XXI began trading on December 9, 2025, so his run lasted just seven months. The firm went public with roughly 43,500 BTC, worth about $4 billion at the time. Tether, Bitfinex, and SoftBank backed it.
Tether took full control in May 2026 by buying SoftBank’s entire stake.
He shared more detail in follow-up posts. He walked away, he said, because “the board and I couldn’t agree on the future of the company.”
He also denied a claim by X’s Grok chatbot that he collected $140.8 million in pay. His forfeited options, he noted, now expire worthless.
The exit leaves the second-largest corporate Bitcoin treasury fully in Tether’s hands. XXI is already rethinking its model. Incoming CEO Raphael Zagury wants cash flow, not just more Bitcoin buying.
The Saylor Questions That Resurfaced After His Exit
The backstory makes the exit sting more. At BTC Prague earlier this year, Mallers challenged Saylor from the audience over mNAV. The metric shows how much the market pays for each dollar of Bitcoin a treasury firm holds.
His concern was simple. Some firms count securities as equity even when they are far from turning into shares. That inflates the metric. In an interview at the event, he explained the question he put to Saylor.
“…do you agree with classifying out of the money securities as equity, which obviously that would inflate the equity value, which would make an MNAV metric more attractive,” Mallers said.
He used XXI’s own convertible bond as the example. The bond turns into stock at $13 per share. However, the stock traded near $5 at the time, so that switch was nowhere close.
On a panel the same day, Mallers took aim at digital credit. These products pay investors a big yearly dividend that never stops.
Stretch, sold by Strategy, paid 11.5% when Mallers spoke. SEC filings show the rate rose to 12% in July. His question was simple. Who pays that bill without real revenue?
“You’re not doing anything productive in the economy to produce cash flow that can afford the money that you want to give to your grandmother. So, who’s coming up with the money?” he said during the panel.
Saylor responded at length at the time. He framed mNAV as one metric among several and defended the model’s math.
Those clips are now everywhere again. Many read them as proof that Mallers doubted the sector’s core math long before he left it.
Rug Pull Claims Meet a Firm Denial
The market’s verdict was quick. XXI closed near $4.60 on Tuesday, down 13.5% in a day. Early backers paid $10 per share, so they have lost more than half their money.
Critics on X claim losses of up to 85% from the stock’s peak, and some accused Mallers of abandoning shareholders.
He pushed back hard.
“Rug pull? Who pulled what rug? I resigned voluntarily, took no severance, forfeited my options, and walked away because it was the right thing to do. Twenty One also never sold shares via an ATM while I was CEO,” Mallers replied on X.
Reactions split into three camps. Investor Mike Alfred praised the move as a sign of clarity and alignment. BnkToTheFuture founder Simon Dixon went further. He framed it as Mallers walking away from wrapped securities entirely.
A third camp sees a warning for the digital asset treasury (DAT) sector. The model looks strong while premiums grow, they argue. The real test starts when mNAV compresses and capital dries up.
The rankings could shift too. Metaplanet crossed 43,000 BTC in July. That nearly matches XXI’s stash of roughly 43,500 BTC, putting the second spot in play.
The debate lands with Bitcoin (BTC) near $66,600 on Tuesday, a five-week high. Mallers, meanwhile, returns his full attention to Strike. There, he wants cash flow, not dilution, to fund Bitcoin buying.
Whether his warnings prove right now depends on XXI’s next chapter under Tether. If the restructured company delivers without the metrics he questioned, his critique may fade with the drawdown that fueled it.
The post Jack Mallers Questioned MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin Strategy, Now He’s Stepping Down From Twenty One appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Russia’s State Duma approved a sweeping crypto bill on July 21 that brings trading into a licensed financial system. Industry critics say the rules could dismantle the market they claim to regulate.
Lawmakers passed Bill No. 1194918-8 in its second and third readings on the same day. It still needs approval from the Federation Council and President Vladimir Putin.
The main rules would start on September 1, followed by a transition period ending July 1, 2027.
A Legal Market With Narrow Doors
The bill allows individuals and companies to buy and sell crypto through licensed Russian intermediaries.
These will include brokers, asset managers, exchanges, digital depositories and a new class of registered crypto exchangers.
A digital depository would hold and record customers’ crypto, much like a traditional custodian. Crypto payments for goods and services inside Russia will remain prohibited.
Retail investors must pass a test and may buy only the most liquid assets selected under Bank of Russia criteria.
Their limit will be 300,000 rubles per year through each intermediary. Current criteria would likely admit Bitcoin, Ethereum, and USDT. Qualified investors face no purchase cap.
Foreign Exchanges Lose Their Banking Rail
From July 1, 2027, Russian banks will have to block direct payments to unlicensed foreign exchanges.
GMT Legal founder Andrey Tugarin said users will no longer be able to fund overseas platforms directly through Russian banks after that date.
Some crypto transfers will also face a 48-hour anti-fraud cooling period. The thresholds will be 300,000 rubles for transfers inside Russian infrastructure and 100,000 rubles when assets move into international infrastructure.
A Market Built From Scratch
Registered exchangers will need at least 15 million rubles in capital. They must install anti-fraud systems, separate client assets from company funds and meet strict compliance, staffing and cybersecurity rules.
“Crypto exchangers are a completely new legal form,” Tugarin said. No existing Russian company automatically holds that status.
However, the bill gives exporters, importers, miners, exchangers and depositories wider access to crypto for foreign trade. It also creates a clearer route for USDT, USDC and other stablecoins by classifying them as foreign digital instruments.
“This Is a Ban”
Exved founder Sergey Mendeleev said the industry had submitted detailed proposals since December 2025, but lawmakers largely ignored them.
He argued that the framework favours selected banks, exchanges and foreign-trade participants while restricting ordinary users and existing crypto businesses.
Traditional financial firms could also lose millions before realising crypto trading will not produce the margins they expect, he said.
“This is not regulation. It is a ban. Like casinos or forex,” Mendeleev concluded.
The bill creates legal crypto access through a tightly controlled domestic system. Its survival will depend on whether users and businesses accept those limits or continue operating outside it.
The post Russia’s Duma Approved a Crypto Bill That Could Destroy Its Market appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Bitcoin price has retreated from nearly $67,000 after escalating U.S.-Iran hostilities pushed oil prices higher and tempered optimism created by progress on the CLARITY Act.
Summary
- Bitcoin pulled back after briefly touching $66,965 as sellers defended the $67,000 resistance level.
- CLARITY Act progress, ETF inflows and short liquidations fueled BTC’s rapid advance.
- Rising oil prices and the U.S.-Iran conflict threaten a sustained breakout toward $70,000.
According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price rose from an intraday low of $65,149 to $66,965 on July 21 before sellers forced the price back to about $66,440. The asset remained up 1.8% on the day, but its failure to hold $67,000 showed that traders were unwilling to chase the rally as energy and inflation risks returned.
CLARITY Act progress and ETF inflows have fueled Bitcoin’s rally
Bitcoin’s advance began after the White House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement on an ethics provision that had delayed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described negotiations as being at the “1-yard line,” while senators suggested the bill was close to a final vote.
The proposed ethics rules address concerns about elected officials and senior government figures holding or promoting crypto assets while in office. Reports that President Donald Trump had accepted the provision helped crypto-linked stocks rally, with Coinbase and Circle shares gaining as much as 10% during the session.
U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds added another source of demand. According to SoSoValue data, the funds recorded about $227 million in net inflows on July 20, their fifth consecutive positive session and their longest inflow run since April.
The ETF streak followed a difficult June, when investors withdrew billions of dollars from the products. Five days of fresh allocations have helped absorb available supply while Bitcoin has recovered from its June low near $58,000.
Spot activity also remained firm during the latest advance. Commenting on the order flow, analyst Ted Pillows wrote:
“Consistent spot buying for BTC now. This looks much better.”
Leverage amplified the initial breakout. Market data showed roughly $223 million in crypto positions liquidated over 24 hours, including about $181 million in shorts. Forced purchases by bearish traders helped Bitcoin clear $65,000 and accelerate through the $66,000 resistance area.
A separate derivatives event later exposed the rally’s fragility. According to trader Daan Crypto Trades, a position worth more than $100 million appeared to close at market, erasing over $250 million in Bitcoin open interest within one minute.
BTC briefly fell toward $65,900 before recovering most of the decline, which Daan attributed to a possible execution error or an attempt to trigger cascading liquidations.
Oil risks and overhead supply have blocked a clean $67,000 breakout
Oil prices have complicated the bullish setup. U.S. crude climbed about 2.6% to $84.70 per barrel, its highest level since June 12, as supply fears grew across the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.
Washington carried out a tenth consecutive day of strikes against Iran, while Trump warned that Tehran “will pay” for attacks that killed American soldiers. Reuters also reported damage to a tanker near the Strait of Hormuz and disruption involving Saudi crude shipments after threats from Iran-aligned Houthi forces.
Higher energy costs could feed into July inflation and give the Federal Reserve less room to support financial markets. The dollar strengthened as traders reassessed the chances of higher interest rates, creating a potential headwind for Bitcoin and other speculative assets.
On the daily chart, BTC has moved above the Bollinger Band midpoint at $63,839 and briefly exceeded the upper band near $66,100. Trading above the upper band confirms strong buying pressure, but the rejection from $66,965 raises the risk of a pullback toward the band’s midpoint.
The Average Directional Index stood at 23.08. A reading below 25 means the daily trend has not yet gained enough strength to confirm a sustained directional move, despite Bitcoin’s recovery from the June trough.
Bitcoin has also reached the upper boundary of an ascending parallel channel on the four-hour chart. Resistance sits between $67,000 and $67,800, while the channel floor runs near $64,000. A four-hour close above $67,800 would clear the structure and expose $69,500, followed by the psychological $70,000 level.
Momentum still favors buyers. The four-hour MACD line stood at 592.66, above its 441.46 signal line, while the positive histogram reached 151.19. The Chaikin Money Flow reading of 0.35 showed that capital continued to enter the market despite the rejection.
CoinGlass’ three-day liquidation heatmap places the closest overhead leverage around $66,800 to $67,300, with another concentration near $68,000. A move through those levels could force additional short closures. Below price, liquidation pools appear around $65,300, $64,800, and $64,200.
The bullish case would weaken if BTC closes below the channel floor and loses the daily Bollinger midpoint near $63,800. Such a breakdown could expose the lower daily band at $61,578, while renewed oil gains, further military escalation, or declining ETF inflows would add pressure. Bitcoin must therefore convert $67,000 into support before the latest recovery can extend toward $70,000.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
A top Bloomberg analyst has a bold idea for Warren Buffett. Eric Balchunas says the investor should give his Berkshire Hathaway shares to Trump Accounts, the new government investment accounts for American children.
Balchunas shared the idea on Tuesday. Buffett, 95, plans to give away his remaining Berkshire stake, worth about $140 billion, by the end of 2034.
Why Balchunas Points Buffett to Trump Accounts
Trump Accounts launched on July 4. They were created under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a new tax law. Every eligible child born between 2025 and 2028 gets a $1,000 deposit from the Treasury.
Families can add up to $5,000 per year. The money sits in an S&P 500 index fund called SPYM by default. The Treasury picked Robinhood and BNY to run the app and the accounts.
Balchunas, the senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, thinks the accounts are a natural match for Buffett. Almost all of Buffett’s wealth is Berkshire stock. He has also promised to give more than 99% of it away.
“I’ve thought about this for a while and have come to the conclusion that Warren Buffett et al could/should choose Trump Accounts as the destination for donating their stock shares,” he wrote.
He listed several benefits. Stock gifts could narrow the wealth gap and teach kids about investing. They also skip capital gains tax. And children holding Berkshire shares would carry Buffett’s legacy forward.
There is a precedent. Michael and Susan Dell pledged $6.25 billion to the program. Their gift gives $250 each to about 25 million children in lower-income ZIP codes.
Why It May Never Happen
Buffett’s money is already going elsewhere. On July 14, he gave nearly $6 billion in Berkshire shares to his four family foundations. He also cut out the Gates Foundation for the first time since 2006.
“My goal is to dispose of all of my Berkshire shares within about eight years,” Buffett said in a statement.
The rules are another problem. The accounts only take cash today. Congress also limited them to US index funds with fees under 0.1%.
Changing that would take a new law. Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner has pushed to allow stock gifts from billionaires. Even he faces that wall.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has hinted that Bitcoin (BTC) could join the accounts one day.
For now, it is just an idea. Buffett’s next round of giving will show whether Trump Accounts ever make his list.
The post Warren Buffett’s $140 Billion Giveaway: Will Trump Accounts Get a Slice? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Key takeaways:
- Despite ETH’s price gains, weak onchain activity and low DEX volumes signal trader caution.
- Record Ethereum staking at 34% reduces sell pressure, yet sustained upside needs external catalysts.
Ether (ETH) tested the $1,950 mark for the first time in seven weeks on Tuesday, triggering $62 million in liquidations across leveraged bearish positions. The move delivered 29% gains from the $1,500 low on June 26 and aligned with the broader risk-on mood that drove Bitcoin (BTC) above $66,500. Can ETH push through to $2,100?
Total crypto market capitalization (left) vs. ETH/USD. Source: TradingView
Ether’s price largely tracked the overall crypto market trend, which shifted to positive momentum in July. Tuesday’s gains in the US stock market helped ease investor worries about stretched valuations after the artificial intelligence stock rally. Traders expect solid corporate earnings after 3M Company (MMM US) reported results Tuesday morning.
Google’s parent, Alphabet, is expected to report quarterly results on Wednesday after US stock markets close. Investors look for 64% growth in cloud services revenue amid heavy AI investments. Strong earnings could restore confidence and help push the cryptocurrency market past the $2 trillion total capitalization mark.
Weak Ethereum onchain metrics and muted ETH derivatives persist
Despite recent ETH price gains, Ethereum onchain metrics show stagnation. Demand for blockchain processing has not recovered to levels seen six months ago, partly because traders are showing less interest in memecoins and utility tokens. Some of Ethereum’s top projects posted losses of 50% or more year-to-date, including Ethena (ENA), Mantle (MNT) and Arbitrum (ARB).
Ethereum network weekly DEX volumes & DApps revenues, USD. Source: DefiLlama
Weekly revenue for Ethereum’s decentralized applications (DApps) fell to the lowest levels since September 2024, hitting $9.8 million. Among the strongest performers are Sky (formerly MakerDAO) at $3.2 million in weekly revenue and Chainlink, which brought in $1.2 million over the same period. Overall, decentralized exchange (DEX) volumes dropped to $7.2 billion per week.
Ethereum’s weak onchain data mirrors the subdued mood in derivatives markets.
ETH perpetual futures annualized funding rate. Source: Laevitas
The annualized funding rate on ETH perpetual futures has struggled to remain within the neutral 6%-12% range over the past month. Still, sentiment has improved from the negative rates seen in late June, which reflected heavy bearish demand. Rising interest in Ethereum staking has likely boosted trader expectations for price gains and reduced downside risks.
Ethereum staking data. Source: StakingRewards
According to Staking Rewards data, a record-high 34% of all ETH supply is now staked, up from 33% one month earlier. Analysts expect reduced sell pressure as long-term holders keep accumulating supply, including Tom Lee’s Bitmine Immersion (BMNR US), which added 156,719 ETH over the past month. The company now controls 4.8% of available supply.
ETH price is 61% below the all-time high from August 2025, which helps explain why bulls lack enthusiasm in derivatives markets. The soft on-chain metrics and six-month bear market have left traders skeptical about sustained upside.
Ether’s path to $2,100 likely depends on reduced risk aversion across markets, which makes Google’s revenue guidance on Wednesday especially important.
Tom Lee says the AI trade is changing lanes. He points to Ethereum (ETH) beating the Roundhill Memory ETF (DRAM) by 72% in relative terms this month, a sign of AI money rotating into Ethereum.
ETH rose 24% in his chart window while the memory fund fell 38%. Lee co-founded research firm Fundstrat and now chairs BitMine, one of the largest holders of ETH.
ETH Up 24%, Memory Fund Down 38%
Lee shared the chart Monday in a post. The 72% is the rise in Lee’s ratio chart. It divides BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) by the memory fund. That ratio climbed from 100 to 172 between June 25 and July 21.
“The “AI downstream” relative performance continues to strengthen – $ETH vs $DRAM relative outperformance in the past month gained to 7,200bp, or 72 percentage points – ETH up +24% vs $DRAM ETF down -38%”
The DRAM ETF is new. Roundhill launched it in April as the first fund built only on memory chipmakers. SK Hynix and Samsung alone make up about 41% of it, data shows.
Investors piled in fast. The fund raised $6.5 billion in 27 trading days, the fastest ETF launch on record. It peaked at $81.34 before the slide. Lee’s 38% drop measures from June 25.
Ether, meanwhile, trades near $1,921, up 1.5% in a day. BeInCrypto rankings data shows ETH up 10.9% over 30 days. Lee’s bigger 24% measures from June 25, when his chart starts.
ETH also sits 61% below its August 2025 peak of $4,946. So the winner of this trade is still climbing out of its own hole.
AI Money Rotating Into Ethereum, or Just a Memory Reset?
Lee’s case is simple. Wall Street is building on Ethereum, not just trading it. He points to BlackRock’s tokenized BUIDL fund and Robinhood Chain, which pays its fees in ETH. That drives Ethereum’s institutional bull case.
He also compares ETH to Amazon, which sat near $6 for 12 years before its market grew. Big wallets lean his way for now. BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes resumed buying, adding $2.53 million in ETH on Monday.
However, the memory story is not dead. Jefferies expects memory prices to climb about 50% this quarter. Supply is so tight that a US lawsuit accuses chipmakers of engineering a 700% DRAM price spike.
The ETF’s slide may simply be a reset after a wild run. SanDisk sank 14%, Micron 5%, and Seagate 10% in one July session on memory supply glut fears.
One caveat. Lee’s BitMine holds 5.77 million ETH, about 4.8% of all supply. If his rotation call wins, he wins with it.
What settles the question? Memory earnings and Ethereum ETF flows in the coming weeks.
The post Is AI Money Rotating Into Ethereum? Tom Lee Cites 72% Outperformance appeared first on BeInCrypto.
BIS exposes how stablecoins are slipping past capital controls
Avengers: Doomsday Smashes Advance Ticket Sales With Massive $16.5 Million Opening Day : Coastal House Media
Boy, 15, is charged with rape and sexual assaults of eight girls aged as young as ten
Renter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
No Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
Weekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
affordable things that are worth it #money #frugal#minimalism#consumerism#reaction#broke#fyp#shorts
Living in the USA as a Frugal German Was a Financial Wake-Up Call
Bedah Finansial” bersama Aufa Zhafiri #NGODE2026 #PodcastDPRDJatim2026
-
NewsBeat5 days agoLondon Mayor Sadiq Khan handed a peerage by Keir Starmer alongside 15 other Labour figures… just days before the PM leaves No10
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Politics4 days agoThe House | The City of London can help the new chancellor deliver growth in every postcode
-
Politics6 days agoYoung campaigners urge incoming PM to act on outdoor junk food ads
-
Crypto World5 days agoTwo July Windows Left: The CLARITY Act’s Senate Fight and What Failure Means
-
Crypto World6 days agoCFTC blocks Kalshi from unwinding Michigan trades after court order
-
Crypto World4 days agoRipple Payments Joins MiCA With 14 Firms, Does It Mean Anything For XRP?
-
Business6 days agoNvidia Stock Slips After Big Tuesday Rally as Huang Confirms Vera Rubin Chip Is Now in Production Today
-
Politics2 days agoDemocrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
-
Entertainment6 days agoDisney’s Most Ambitious Failed Star Wars Attraction Is Coming to SDCC
-
Crypto World4 days agoRipple wins EU-wide access as ESMA adds it to MiCA register
-
Crypto World15 hours agoGrayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
-
Crypto World5 days agoInjective Submits SEC Transfer-Agent Registration to Onchain Ownership Records
-
Business6 days agoPalantir Shares Rise After Expanded Nvidia Partnership and Fresh Analyst Upgrades Ahead of Earnings Day
-
Tech23 hours agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Tech21 hours agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
NewsBeat4 days agoRegistration is now open for March for Men with Kev 2026
-
NewsBeat2 days agoUnregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
-
Sports6 days agoNew Cornerback Enters Vikings Trade Rumor Mill
-
News Videos5 days agoMoney | Class 12 Economics | CBSE Board Exam 2026-27
You must be logged in to post a comment Login