Crypto World
The ethics provision arrived. It expires with Trump’s term.
The language that decides crypto’s biggest bill finally exists: a ban on federal officials issuing digital assets, enforced only by the Justice Department, with penalties of $250,000 a day, and a sunset clause dated to the next president’s inauguration. Here is what the text actually does, what it carefully does not, and the vote math it has to survive this week.
Summary
- Senate Republicans released updated CLARITY Act text on Wednesday containing the long-awaited ethics provision: a ban on the president, vice president, members of Congress, and senior federal officials issuing or sponsoring digital assets while in office.
- President Trump personally signed off on the language Monday after months of deadlock, with the White House calling it the most comprehensive ethics provision in history and penalties reaching $250,000 per day.
- The design choices are the story: the ban covers issuing new assets, not holding or profiting from existing ones; enforcement belongs solely to the Justice Department, with state attorneys general expressly barred; and the entire provision sunsets on January 20, 2029, the next president’s inauguration day.
- The two Democrats whose committee votes carried the bill, Senators Alsobrooks and Gallego, oppose the released version, centering their objection on DOJ-only enforcement by a department the president’s former personal lawyer has been picked to run.
- The floor math is unchanged and unforgiving: roughly seven Democratic crossovers needed for 60 votes, a cloture motion required within days, and the August recess closing the window on the most consequential crypto bill Congress has produced.
For a year, the decisive section of the most important crypto legislation in American history did not exist. The CLARITY Act’s market-structure machinery, its asset taxonomy, its DeFi shield, its agency handoffs, was drafted, merged, and printed, while the ten or so pages that would determine whether any of it becomes law, the ethics language governing officials who profit from the industry they regulate, remained a blank space that negotiators talked around. On Wednesday the blank space filled in. Senate Republicans released updated bill text containing the provision President Trump personally accepted two days earlier, and the crypto industry, which has spent months insisting the ethics fight was a sideshow, can now read the main event. The provision bans federal officials, the president included, from issuing digital assets while in office, on penalty of up to $250,000 per day, enforced by the Department of Justice. It is, exactly as the White House advertises, the most comprehensive crypto ethics restriction ever written into American legislation. It is also a document whose three central design choices, what it covers, who enforces it, and when it dies, each preserve what the provision appears to surrender, and the senators whose votes it was written to win noticed all three before the ink dried. What follows is the close read: the text, the trade, and the arithmetic it must survive in the next several days.
What the provision actually says
The released language, provided by lead sponsor Senator Cynthia Lummis, does four things, and precision about each matters more than usual, because the gaps between them are where the politics live.
First, the ban. Federal officials, the president, vice president, and members of Congress among them, are prohibited from issuing or sponsoring cryptocurrencies and other digital assets while in office. The verb is the provision’s load-bearing wall: issuing. An official may not launch a token, sponsor a coin, or put their name to a new digital asset offering during their tenure. The prohibition is real, and its most obvious application is retrospective in spirit: the TRUMP memecoin, launched days before the second inauguration, and World Liberty Financial’s token issuances are exactly the genre of activity the ban describes, and under this language, no sitting official could repeat them.
Second, the enforcement architecture. The Justice Department, through the attorney general, is the provision’s sole enforcer, empowered to act against officials and, notably, against crypto exchanges for violations. State attorneys general, the enforcement channel Democrats spent months demanding, are expressly excluded. This was, according to reporting on the White House’s industry briefing, the administration’s firm line: ethics rules for federal officials, the argument runs, are federal business, enforced through the federal channel, uniformly, everywhere.
Third, the penalties: up to $250,000 per day of violation, a figure designed to read as severe and to compound quickly against any sustained breach.
And fourth, the clause that will be quoted longest: the provision sunsets on January 20, 2029, inauguration day for the next president. The White House fact sheet frames the date with remarkable candor, describing the restriction as a standard President Trump chose to hold himself to, not one Congress imposed on him. The most comprehensive ethics provision in history, by its own terms, applies to precisely one presidency and expires the morning that presidency ends.
What it carefully does not say
Read the provision against the conduct that motivated it and the scope decisions come into focus, because the fit between the two is deliberate and partial.
The Office of Government Ethics disclosure released July 1 showed the president earned roughly $1.4 billion in crypto-related income in 2025, including approximately $580 million connected to World Liberty Financial, the family venture behind the WLFI token and USD1 stablecoin, with Reuters tallying the family’s crypto-linked wealth gain since the return to office above $2 billion. That income stream is the fact pattern Democrats have spent a year describing as disqualifying, Senator Warren’s phrase was brazen financial corruption, and it is worth stating plainly what the new provision does to it: nothing. The ban covers issuing new assets, not holding existing ones, not earning from ventures already launched, not the licensing income from a memecoin already trading, not the float income of a stablecoin already circulating. Every disclosed dollar of the $1.4 billion would have been earned identically under this provision, because the ventures that generate it predate the ban that would now apply. The provision forecloses the sequel while blessing the original, which is either a reasonable prospective compromise or the entire tell, depending on which caucus is reading.
The enforcement design has the same double character. Assigning federal ethics enforcement to the Justice Department is, in one light, simply constitutional hygiene: DOJ enforces federal law against federal officials, as it always has. In the other light, it assigns the policing of the president’s conduct to a department whose leadership the president selects, and the abstraction has a name attached this month: Todd Blanche, the president’s former personal defense lawyer, is his pick to run the department that would hold the sole key to this provision. Democrats’ counter-demand for state attorneys general was never really about federalism; it was about placing enforcement somewhere the restricted party cannot reach, and many state AGs have spent two years litigating against this administration. The White House’s uniform-standard argument and the Democrats’ captured-enforcer argument are both coherent. They are also irreconcilable, which is why this single design choice, more than the ban’s scope or the sunset’s date, is where the released text met its opposition.
And the sunset completes the pattern. A restriction that expires on January 20, 2029, inauguration day for the next president, binds no future president, creates no permanent norm, and, its critics note, converts what was demanded as a structural reform into a personal undertaking with a termination date. The generous reading is legislative realism: sunsets are how contested provisions pass, and a 2029 expiry simply hands the question to the next Congress with a precedent on the books. The ungenerous reading writes itself.
The reception, counted in votes
The provision’s purpose was arithmetic: convert enough of the seven-to-nine needed Democratic crossovers to reach sixty. Its first day produced the opposite motion.
Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Ruben Gallego, the only two Democrats who voted the bill out of committee and therefore the crossover coalition’s indispensable foundation, both announced they oppose the released version. Their stated objection is not the ban’s scope or the sunset; it is the enforcement monopoly. Alsobrooks, who had earlier characterized the emerging deal as an offer too unserious to support, said directly she cannot back legislation with the Justice Department as sole ethics enforcer, and pressed the state-AG demand the released text expressly forecloses. Losing the two committee Democrats on day one means the provision, as written, has so far subtracted from the coalition it was drafted to complete.
Around that core, the map is more textured than the headlines. The three-senator opposition bloc, Murphy, Merkley, Van Hollen, that organized against the merged draft remains opposed, with Warren adjacent. Senator Cortez Masto’s separate objection, that the bill’s Section 604 developer protections would impair illicit-finance enforcement, was not addressed by the revision at all, her office confirmed, meaning the ethics text resolved none of her price. But seven Democrats generally considered pro-crypto issued a joint statement that criticized the current text while conspicuously declining to rule out a deal, which is the signature of a caucus negotiating, not walling. And the administration is running the pressure campaign accordingly: an official’s on-record framing that Democrats who block the bill after the president bent over backward were never serious, Treasury Secretary Bessent’s declaration that Congress stands at the one-yard line, and an industry mobilization pointed at the same handful of offices. The blame architecture for failure is being constructed in parallel with the negotiation for success, which tells you the White House prices both outcomes as live.
Beneath the positioning sits the physics no statement changes. Sixty votes for cloture, twice, against 52 Republican seats after Senator Graham’s death, minus the expected Hawley and Paul defections, with Senator McConnell’s availability uncertain. The bill has sat eligible on the calendar since June 1; a cloture motion must be filed within days for two full Rule XXII sequences to fit before the recess in early August; and every day spent negotiating enforcement language is a day subtracted from a window that was already too small for error. The provision arrived with perhaps a week to convert its critics, and its first 24 hours converted none.
The negotiation’s fossil record
The released text is the sixth known attempt at this provision, and its predecessors explain both why the current design looks the way it does and where the remaining give might be, because each failed version marks a boundary somebody refused to cross.
The maximal Democratic version came first: divestment-grade restrictions barring senior officials and their families from owning or profiting from digital-asset ventures the government regulates, the framework behind Senator Warren’s public demands and the standing bills Democrats introduced through 2025. It never advanced, because it would have required the president’s ventures to unwind, which was always the one outcome the White House would kill the bill to avoid. Senator Van Hollen carried a narrower amendment into the Banking Committee markup in May, and it failed 13 to 11 along party lines, the cleanest recorded measurement of where the committee’s majority stood: no ethics language at all, if the majority chose. Then came the White House’s early counter-doctrine, articulated by crypto adviser Patrick Witt, that any restriction must apply uniformly to all officials rather than targeting the president or his family, a principle that sounds procedural and functions substantively, since uniform prospective rules are precisely the kind that leave existing presidential ventures untouched. A subsequent compromise attempt reportedly built around state attorneys general as enforcers collapsed when Democrats judged the surrounding package inadequate, which is the fossil that matters most now: the state-AG mechanism was, at one point, on the table with the administration’s participation, before it hardened into the red line the current text draws against it.
Read as a sequence, the record shows the negotiation ratcheting in one direction. Divestment gave way to conduct rules; conduct rules narrowed to issuance; enforcement migrated from independent channels toward the department the president staffs; and permanence gave way to a sunset dated to his departure. Each step was the price of keeping the White House at the table, and the final text is what remains after every element the administration found genuinely costly was traded away. That history is the strongest version of the Democratic objection, stronger than any single design critique: the provision is not a compromise between two positions, it is the residue of one position’s serial retreat, and senators asked to bless it are being asked to certify the retreat as sufficient. It is also, simultaneously, the strongest version of the Republican rejoinder: five failed versions prove the alternative to this text was never a stronger text, only no text, and the fossil record of a negotiation is not a menu from which the minority may now reorder. Both arguments will be made on the floor this week, about the same six documents, and the seven senators who decide the outcome have read them all.
The honest reading, both ways
Strip the spin from both camps and two true descriptions of this document coexist, which is precisely why the next week is genuinely uncertain.
The provision is a real concession. No prior Congress has enacted any statutory restriction on a president’s digital-asset conduct; this text would create the first, with the sitting president’s signature, criminalizing the exact behavior, official-sponsored token launches, that defined the current administration’s crypto entanglement. The issuing ban forecloses the next TRUMP coin, the next family stablecoin launch, the next official-adjacent token offering, for this White House and this Congress, under penalties that compound daily. Prospective-only application, federal enforcement, and sunset clauses are not scandals; they are the standard grammar of contested legislation, and Democrats demanding more were always going to be told that the perfect provision attached to a dead bill protects no one. On this reading, the deal is the achievable maximum, and the crossover Democrats’ real choice is this text plus the entire market-structure framework, or nothing plus a talking point.
The provision is also a carefully bounded one. Its scope exempts every existing revenue stream that motivated it; its enforcer answers to its principal subject; its lifespan matches his term. Each boundary was a choice, each choice was the White House’s, and the pattern of the three, together with a fact sheet that openly describes the restriction as self-imposed rather than congressionally required, supports the Democratic suspicion that the document’s function is narrative, a provision comprehensive enough to campaign on and porous enough to cost nothing. On this reading, the state-AG demand is not a detail; it is the only element that would give the text an enforcer outside the subject’s appointment power, which is why it was the one element refused.
Both readings survive contact with the text. The Senate will effectively choose between them by Friday, because the calendar has converted an interpretive question into a scheduling one. Watch three things in sequence: whether the enforcement language moves, since a hybrid mechanism, DOJ primary with any independent backstop, is the visible landing zone between Alsobrooks’s stated floor and the White House’s stated ceiling; whether a cloture motion gets filed, the only signal that leadership’s private count reached sixty; and whether the seven-Democrat statement hardens or softens as the pressure campaign lands. The blank space at the center of American crypto legislation is filled. What remains blank, for a few more days, is whether the words in it were written to pass a bill or to explain why one failed.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. It describes draft legislation and a fast-moving negotiation whose text, schedule, and outcome can change at any time. Nothing here predicts any legislative result. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 23, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the new ethics provision actually prohibit?
It bans federal officials, including the president, vice president, and members of Congress, from issuing or sponsoring cryptocurrencies or other digital assets while in office, with violations subject to penalties of up to $250,000 per day. The prohibition targets new token launches and sponsorships of the kind exemplified by official-adjacent memecoin and venture-token issuances, and enforcement can reach both officials and crypto exchanges involved in violations.
Does it affect President Trump’s existing crypto income?
No. The ban covers issuing new assets, not holding or earning from existing ventures. The roughly $1.4 billion in 2025 crypto-related income shown in the July 1 ethics disclosure, including approximately $580 million connected to World Liberty Financial, derives from ventures launched before the provision would take effect, and those income streams, memecoin licensing and stablecoin operations included, continue unaffected under the released text.
Who enforces it, and why is that controversial?
The Justice Department alone, with state attorneys general expressly barred from enforcement. Democrats object that this assigns policing of the president’s conduct to a department whose leadership he selects, sharpened by the fact that Todd Blanche, the president’s former personal defense lawyer, is his pick to run it. The White House argues federal ethics rules require uniform federal enforcement. This single dispute is the stated reason the two committee Democrats oppose the released version.
What is the sunset clause?
The entire provision expires on January 20, 2029, the next president’s inauguration day. The White House fact sheet describes the restriction as a standard Trump chose to hold himself to rather than one Congress imposed, meaning the ban binds only the current presidency and creates no permanent rule. Supporters call sunsets standard legislative compromise; critics call this one the provision’s clearest tell.
Why do Senators Alsobrooks and Gallego matter so much?
They were the only Democrats to vote the bill out of committee, making them the foundation of any crossover coalition. The bill needs roughly seven Democratic votes to reach the 60-vote cloture threshold, and a path to seven that does not run through the two most supportive Democrats is difficult to construct. Both announced opposition to the released version over the DOJ-only enforcement design, meaning the provision initially subtracted from the coalition it was meant to complete.
Could the bill still pass before the recess?
Mechanically yes, barely. A cloture motion would need to be filed within days, since the bill requires two full 60-vote cloture sequences under Senate Rule XXII, each consuming most of a working week, before the recess in early August. Seven pro-crypto Democrats issued a statement criticizing the text without ruling out a deal, and a compromise on enforcement, such as a hybrid mechanism with an independent backstop, is the visible landing zone if one exists.
What happens to the provision if the bill fails?
It dies with the bill, and likely the whole framework slips substantially. Analysts and Senator Lummis have warned that missing this window could shelve market-structure legislation for years, with the current Congress expiring in January 2027. The ethics precedent, the first statutory crypto restriction on a president, would remain an unenacted draft, available to future negotiations but binding no one.
What should crypto market participants take from this?
That the bill’s fate now turns on one design dispute, enforcement, and one calendar, this week’s. The market-structure provisions the industry actually wants, asset classification, the ETP grandfather clause, the DeFi shield, are hostage to the ethics resolution, and prediction markets pricing passage below a coin flip are pricing exactly this standoff. Watch for a filed cloture motion as the definitive signal, and treat all rhetoric before it as negotiation. This is educational analysis, not investment or legal advice.
Jim Cramer laid out a framework for judging stock market crashes on Mad Money on Thursday. He said most selloffs are mechanical malfunctions worth buying, while only a handful pose real economic threats.
Cramer, the CNBC host who has traded through four decades of market cycles, compared three events to make his case. He cited Black Monday in 1987, the 2010 flash crash and the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
Mechanical Selloffs Look Scarier Than They Are
Cramer pointed to the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s 508-point drop on October 19, 1987, as his clearest example. That 22.6% single-day plunge became known as Black Monday.
He blamed a flawed hedging strategy called portfolio insurance for turning a bad week into a historic crash. The strategy used futures contracts to try to cap losses automatically.
He reached a similar conclusion about the 2010 flash crash. The Dow fell nearly 1,000 points in about 36 minutes on May 6, 2010. It recovered most of that loss the same day.
Cramer said a nearly identical pattern played out during the market’s sharp opening plunge in August 2015. He blamed futures-market malfunctions, not weakening fundamentals, for both events.
Systemic Crises Demand a Different Read
Cramer called the 2007-2009 financial crisis a different animal entirely. The Dow fell from its October 2007 peak above 14,000 to roughly 6,470 by early March 2009. That marked a decline of more than 54%. The index did not fully recover until 2013.
Cramer, whose own market calls have had mixed results recently, said the difference comes down to real economic damage. He cited failing banks, rising job losses and a Federal Reserve that moved too slowly at first. He credited the Fed’s later shift toward aggressive intervention with helping the market eventually find its footing.
Cramer’s takeaway is straightforward. Investors should check whether a selloff coincides with genuine economic deterioration before assuming the worst. Mechanical declines have historically reversed within months, while systemic ones can take years.
The post Jim Cramer Shares His Framework for Telling a Buyable Crash From a Real One appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Bitcoin may be nearing a more stable trading base, but at least one prominent asset manager says investors shouldn’t pin the next major upside cycle on the same drivers that defined earlier booms. In a new write-up, Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan argues that the next bull market will be powered by deeper TradFi-to-crypto integration—specifically by platforms that can bring crypto’s 24/7 trading features into mainstream financial workflows.
Hougan points to Hyperliquid’s widening footprint and Robinhood’s push into crypto infrastructure as two concrete examples. In parallel, Bitwise data cited by Hougan and a separate X post from Bitwise research head Andre Dragosch suggest that “apparent demand” for BTC may be starting to improve after a prolonged period of weakness.
Key takeaways
- Matt Hougan (Bitwise) says the next crypto bull market is more likely to be driven by TradFi integrations than by purely crypto-native catalysts.
- He highlights Hyperliquid’s growing use cases across conventional assets and product expansion as a sign of broader convergence.
- Hougan sees Robinhood-related infrastructure as another bridge that could help “lift” a wide range of crypto assets.
- Bitwise’s framework for “apparent demand” indicates BTC demand may be “re-accelerating,” even as spot demand remains a recurring concern.
Why Bitwise thinks the next cycle starts in TradFi
Hougan framed his positioning thesis around the idea that the market’s next sustained expansion will come from crypto benefits becoming easier to access for traditional investors. In a blog post published Wednesday, he asked how to begin positioning for what he expects to be a new bull market and answered with a pair of entities he believes represent convergence from opposite directions.
“By looking at two entities that are leading this convergence from opposite sides: Hyperliquid and Robinhood.”
The underlying premise is that crypto’s structure—particularly constant markets and instant settlement—creates advantages that traditional finance has historically lacked. For Hougan, the key question is not whether Bitcoin will bottom, but whether new demand channels will be able to scale once mainstream firms and familiar interfaces adopt crypto trading patterns.
On Hyperliquid, Hougan emphasized that the platform’s activity is not confined to crypto pairs. According to his description, nearly half of Hyperliquid’s volume is tied to “conventional assets like oil, silver, and the S&P 500,” and the venue is reportedly expanding into spot commodities, prediction markets, and options.
That mix matters because it signals an appetite for trading experiences that look and feel familiar while still operating with crypto-native mechanics. If those flows continue to grow, Hougan argues that the effect should reach beyond isolated tokens and instead support the broader sector.
The “rising tide” thesis for majors and crypto equities
Hougan also ties his outlook to the competitive pressure from traditional financial players entering the crypto ecosystem through infrastructure and distribution. He referenced Robinhood’s “Chain layer-2 network” as an example of how legacy finance might become more directly connected to crypto market dynamics.
“I suspect the coming bull market will be big enough to lift most of the sector.”
From there, he lays out a portfolio-style approach: he says he remains bullish on major assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, while also expressing optimism about crypto equities. The common thread in his argument is that broadening participation tends to support liquidity across the market, not just the most narrative-driven names.
Hougan’s positioning aligns with his broader tone entering 2026. Earlier this year, he argued that the end of the “crypto winter” could arrive sooner than expected, and he maintained that view while markets continued to work through weakness.
BTC: “apparent demand” shows a possible reversal
While Hougan’s thesis focuses on what could power the next cycle, the day-to-day question for traders is whether Bitcoin’s demand backdrop is stabilizing. Cointelegraph previously reported that many market participants were looking for bottoming signals, but also suggested the bear phase could still have months left depending on how spot demand evolves.
In that context, the spotlight has remained on the question of whether spot buying is returning—particularly on shorter time frames where demand can appear fragile even when longer-term conditions are improving.
However, Bitwise is pointing to a different metric that may be shifting. According to an X post on Thursday by Andre Dragosch, Bitwise’s European head of research, BTC “apparent demand” is “re-accelerating.” Dragosch’s post frames the change as a meaningful departure from the prior slowdown.
What “apparent demand” means: it measures the difference between newly mined BTC and the supply that has remained inactive for at least one year. In effect, it provides a way to infer whether recently produced coins are being absorbed rather than circulating from dormant holdings.
That distinction matters for investors because a sustained improvement in apparent demand can indicate that the market is finding new buyers—even if spot volumes are not yet fully convincing across every trading window. Still, the metric is not identical to spot demand, and it won’t resolve instantly the question of where a bottom will form on price alone.
What to watch next as TradFi integration and demand signals collide
Hougan’s argument implies that even if Bitcoin’s near-term chart shows gradual stabilization, the bigger inflection point will likely depend on how quickly mainstream access and crypto trading mechanics begin to reinforce each other. Hyperliquid’s ability to attract volume tied to conventional assets and its expansion into additional derivatives-style products could provide one path, while Robinhood-related ecosystem development is another.
At the same time, BTC investors appear to be watching for whether the “re-accelerating” apparent demand signal persists beyond a short burst. If apparent demand continues to improve while broader spot demand recovers, the market may be closer to a durable transition than “bottom” headlines alone would suggest.
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans released the proposed text for the CLARITY Act, which has been met with pushback from Democrats regarding ethics provisions.
Crypto-related “wrench attacks” continued through the first half of 2026, with 52 verified incidents worldwide and $124.1 million in recorded financial exposure, according to CertiK.
Summary
- CertiK recorded 52 wrench attacks in H1 2026, with financial exposure reaching $124.1 million worldwide.
- France accounted for 33 verified incidents as Europe became main center of physical crypto attacks.
- Home invasions rose from one to 20 cases, becoming the most common attack type recorded.
The total includes stolen funds, ransom demands, frozen assets and other values tied to documented cases, rather than only money confirmed as lost.
The number of attacks rose 33.3% from 39 cases in H1 2025. Recorded financial exposure rose much faster from about $10.5 million a year earlier. CertiK calculated a 1,079% increase, while average exposure per incident climbed from roughly $270,000 to $2.39 million.
Meanwhile, the first quarter drove most of the increase in attack frequency. CertiK recorded 35 incidents in Q1 2026, compared with 22 during the same period last year. Activity then slowed to 17 verified attacks in the second quarter, matching the Q2 2025 total.
CertiK cautioned that its financial figures are “indicative, not exhaustive.” Some victims do not report attacks, while public records may not show whether ransoms were paid, recovered or frozen. The company therefore treats the $124.1 million figure as recorded exposure rather than confirmed criminal proceeds.
The report also warned against simply doubling the first-half total to predict the full year. A repeat of the H1 pace would put 2026 near 100 verified incidents, but CertiK said the calculation is not a forecast because Q1 and Q2 showed different trends.
France accounts for most verified wrench attacks
Europe recorded 39 of the 52 verified attacks, or 75% of the global total. France alone accounted for 33 incidents in CertiK’s dataset, equal to 63.5% of all verified cases worldwide and 84.6% of Europe’s total. The U.S. recorded four incidents, while Sweden and the UK recorded two each.
The French total may be higher than CertiK’s verified public dataset. The report cited France’s National Directorate of Judicial Police as recording 41 incidents between January and March. CertiK said some cases can be classified as robbery, kidnapping, assault or extortion without a clear crypto label.
As crypto.news previously reported, France has stepped up its response. Prosecutors charged 88 suspects across 12 investigations by late April, while authorities also prepared prevention measures for crypto holders after a rise in kidnappings and home invasions.
Home invasions become the leading attack method
Home invasions showed the sharpest change. CertiK recorded 20 such incidents in H1 2026, up from one in the same period last year. The category accounted for about 41% of first-half attacks. Kidnappings increased from 12 to 16, while torture remained at four cases and murder at one.
Wrench attacks rely on physical force, threats or intimidation to make victims transfer crypto, reveal private keys or unlock wallets. This can bypass digital safeguards because an attacker targets the person controlling the assets rather than the wallet software itself.
Recent cases have also involved relatives and people close to crypto holders.The wife of The Sandbox co-founder Sébastien Borget was targeted in an attempted kidnapping in France. Other reports have described attackers using fake delivery workers to gain access to victims.
Security spending rises as threats move offline
The increase in physical attacks has pushed some crypto companies to spend more on executive protection. As previously reported by crypto.news, Coinbase spent about $8.7 million on security and protection costs linked to CEO Brian Armstrong in 2025, while Gemini agreed to pay $400,000 per month for executive protection services.
MARA also disclosed $4.3 million in security spending connected to CEO Fred Thiel, including $430,000 for vehicle armoring. These costs have grown as public executives, investors and founders face risks tied to visible crypto wealth and personal information available online.
CertiK advised holders to limit public information connecting their identity, location and routines to crypto ownership. It also recommended separating signing devices from recovery materials, using multi-party controls for large holdings and avoiding setups in which one person can instantly move all assets under pressure.
The firm also urged families to prepare emergency plans and advised high-risk users to keep sensitive accounts off devices used while traveling. For companies, it recommended tighter controls around employee and customer data, along with security reviews for executives, travel and public events.
The H1 report shows that attack frequency slowed after the first quarter, but the financial value connected to known cases remained far above last year’s level. France accounted for most verified cases, while home invasions became the most common attack method in CertiK’s dataset.
BitMEX will have removed 65 derivative contracts and trading pairs in July, compared with just 19 across the first six months of the year.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Commissioner Hester Peirce has warned that some crypto vaults and onchain lending strategies may fall under federal securities laws, depending on how operators structure and manage them.
Summary
- Peirce warned crypto vaults may trigger securities laws when managers control investment decisions and strategies.
- Onchain lending can also fall under SEC rules depending on loan structure, distribution, and management.
- SEC will assess vaults and lending strategies individually rather than treating all products the same.
In a July 22 statement, Peirce said moving financial activity onchain does not remove legal duties when that activity already sits within the SEC’s regulatory scope. She urged developers and operators to examine how their products work instead of assuming blockchain technology places them outside existing law.
Peirce said the SEC has spent the past year and a half clarifying which crypto assets and activities fall under federal securities laws. She also stressed that a more tailored approach to crypto does not mean every product sits outside the agency’s reach.
“You will have a painful fall,” she said.
The warning targeted market participants who try to interpret the law in ways that exclude activities already covered by the securities framework. Peirce said companies whose products fall inside that framework should work with the SEC to find a compliant path.
Her comments build on a position she took in 2025 when she said tokenized securities remain subject to securities laws. She now applies the same principle to vaults and lending tools: moving a regulated activity to a blockchain does not change its legal character.
How crypto vaults may enter SEC jurisdiction
Crypto vaults let users deposit assets into smart contracts that direct funds toward yield-generating activities such as staking and lending. Some follow fixed rules written into code, while others give managers or curators discretion over where to place funds.
Peirce said those differences matter. A vault operator may choose strategies, move assets between opportunities or select people who make those decisions. Those functions can bring securities laws into the analysis, depending on the structure and the role of those managing the product.
A vault may resemble an investment contract when users put money into a common enterprise and expect profits from another party’s managerial work. Vaults that hold securities or invest user assets in securities may also fall under investment company rules.
The SEC will look at each arrangement individually. Some vaults may resemble unit investment trusts with mostly fixed portfolios. Others may operate more like actively managed investment companies or separately managed accounts.
Onchain lending can face securities rules too
Peirce gave a similar warning to operators of onchain lending products. These systems let users deposit assets that borrowers can use in exchange for fees or interest. Operators may set rates, choose supported assets, set loan-to-value limits and decide when liquidations occur.
Those decisions can bring securities rules into play even when the assets being lent are not securities. Peirce said some onchain loans may have features associated with notes that qualify as securities, depending on the parties’ reasons for the transaction, distribution plans and other factors.
People who manage vaults or lending strategies may also need to consider investment adviser rules. The SEC will assess each product based on its specific facts and circumstances while staying within the authority Congress gave the agency.
The statement also connects with the SEC’s wider work on tokenized markets. As crypto.news previously reported, Peirce pushed back against expectations that the agency’s planned innovation exemption would open the door to every form of tokenized stock trading.
SEC keeps a case-by-case approach as crypto rules evolve
Peirce did not call for a ban on crypto vaults or onchain lending. Instead, she invited developers and operators to contact the SEC when they are unsure whether their products fall under federal securities laws. She also asked the industry to suggest rule changes where current regulations block new technology.
The statement comes as the SEC continues reviewing tokenization. On July 22, securities transfer groups urged the agency to favor issuer-backed tokenized stocks and draw clearer lines around third-party products that may not provide direct ownership rights.
Meanwhile, as previously reported, Peirce plans to leave the SEC in November to join Regent University School of Law. She has led the Crypto Task Force since January 2025 while the agency has worked on token status, registration and market structure.
Lawmakers are also working on the CLARITY Act, which aims to define the roles of the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission across digital asset markets. The legislation remains part of the wider debate over how U.S. regulators should divide oversight of crypto activities.
Peirce’s statement leaves room for crypto vaults and lending strategies outside SEC jurisdiction. It also makes clear that blockchain technology alone does not remove federal securities duties when a product performs functions already covered by those laws.
Li Lecheng, China’s Minister of Industry and Information Technology, spoke at a press conference on July 23, 2026, in Chengdu, China, as part of the APEC Digital Weeks.
Evelyn Cheng | CNBC
CHENGDU, China — Governments increasingly want to control artificial intelligence, as companies release more powerful open-source models, a new multilateral statement indicates.
The 21 APEC member economies, which include the U.S. and China, released a “Chengdu statement” on AI that emphasized respect for “security, data protection and intellectual property rights,” while calling for supporting open-source development.
The statement released Thursday also specified support for models and projects “that employ strong security assurance through development and deployment.”
Those details reflect how open source is moving further away from its libertarian roots, and toward one involving more state oversight. China has led recent open-source AI development, amid U.S. claims of stealing from American tech to do so.
Open-source models from Chinese companies such as DeepSeek and GLM 5.2 are free to use and download, in contrast to U.S. companies such as Anthropic that only offer closed, pay-to-use AI models.
The Chengdu statement’s “explicit alignment around open-source ecosystems and compute infrastructure” confirms that Asia-Pacific is moving away from closed models to open-weight systems that are combined with state-coordinated energy, telecom and digital infrastructure, said Winston Ma, adjunct professor of law at New York University,
The APEC AI statement is the first one to include open-source cooperation at a minister level, according to Li Lecheng, China’s industry and information technology minister, who chaired the leaders’ meeting on Thursday.
He noted all parties recognized the risks of AI, and encouraged dialogue across the government, private sector and academia to share information about cybersecurity, supply chain resilience and online scams.
The comments come amid growing reports that Washington and Beijing seek tighter controls on homegrown AI capabilities.
“Getting 21 economies, including both China and the United States, to recognize trusted open-source AI as something worth supporting is meaningful,” said Wei Sun, principal analyst, artificial intelligence, Counterpoint Research.
“The phrase ‘strong security assurance’ gives more security-conscious economies room to support open models while still demanding testing, transparency, data protection and deployment controls,” she said. “The debate is moving beyond open vs. closed and towards: who can now build an open ecosystem that is also trusted enough for governments and enterprises to deploy.”
But technology might end up moving much faster.
Janet De Silva, chair of the APEC Business Advisory Council Digital and innovation working group, earlier on Thursday urged the ministers to prepare for the quantum computing era.
“We need trusted encryption to ensure the security of our entire financial system, ensuring that quantum computing is not only a security measure but also an opportunity to bring competitiveness.”
Kazakhstan has approved a new regulatory framework for large-scale “strategic” crypto mining that ties access to electricity quotas at regulated tariffs to participation in a state-backed digital asset reserve. The rules were approved on July 18, according to Zakon.kz, which cited Government Resolution No. 638 published in Kazakhstan’s PRG.kz legal database.
Under the framework, designated miners receive electricity access in exchange for transferring part of the cryptocurrency they mine to Astana Hub, a government-supported technology cluster. The Kremlin of mining policy is likely to be felt first by industrial operators looking to scale, as the new model sets relatively high technical and infrastructure thresholds before a company can qualify.
Key takeaways
- Kazakhstan’s strategic digital mining rules link regulated electricity tariff access to transfers of mined crypto assets to Astana Hub.
- Applicants must meet infrastructure requirements, including a mining data center capacity of at least 150 MW and hardware with minimum 150 TH/s per unit.
- The framework introduces additional operational and compliance conditions, including staffing, repair capabilities, internet service contracts, and being current on tax and other payments.
- The government resolution is set to enter into force on Aug. 1, 2026.
Why Kazakhstan’s “strategic” model matters
Kazakhstan is widely recognized as one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining jurisdictions. In the April 2025 Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report, it ranked fifth globally by Bitcoin mining activity, according to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. The approval of this new framework suggests the country wants to keep mining activity moving while steering it into a more formal state-linked structure.
Investors and operators should pay attention to how the policy could change the economics of mining. Instead of purely commercial arrangements for power and site operations, “strategic” miners will gain access to electricity quotas at regulated tariffs, but in return they must participate in a reserve mechanism tied to Astana Hub. That trade-off effectively adds a new policy-driven cost component—sharing mined assets—while potentially improving power affordability for eligible participants.
Eligibility requirements: a high bar for applicants
The rules define strategic digital mining as an arrangement that grants miners electricity quotas at regulated tariffs, contingent on transferring a portion of mined assets to Astana Hub. Zakon.kz reports that applicants must satisfy strict prerequisites before they can be recognized as strategic miners.
Among the cited requirements, mining companies must:
- Own a digital mining data center with at least 150 megawatts (MW) of capacity.
- Use mining hardware where each unit has a minimum computing power of 150 terahashes per second (TH/s).
- Have qualified technical staff and repair facilities located at their data centers.
- Maintain multiple internet service contracts.
- Be current on required tax and other payments.
In addition, the rules place the operational burden on firms to demonstrate readiness beyond just having equipment and power. For large-scale operators, this may reinforce an industry shift toward purpose-built facilities and contracted power and connectivity. For smaller miners, it could mean the “strategic” pathway is out of reach even if electricity costs are attractive.
Electricity access traded for a mined-asset reserve
Once approved, strategic miners must enter into agreements connected to Astana Hub’s autonomous cluster fund and purchase electricity from eligible power-generating companies under the new framework. The policy is designed to function like a barter between subsidized or regulated electricity access and transfers into a reserve mechanism.
However, the precise transfer percentage is not stated in the publicly described summary of the rules. Local media cited a 10% transfer rate, but the article notes that Cointelegraph could not independently verify that figure. For market participants, that uncertainty is significant: even small changes in the transfer share can materially affect cash flow and treasury planning for mining firms.
The reserve mechanism also reflects a broader policy direction: Kazakhstan appears to be building state-linked digital asset infrastructure rather than leaving mining incentives entirely to market forces. This approach could influence how miners structure operations, including whether they treat mined reserves as liquid holdings or as assets bound by policy transfer obligations.
A wider state-backed crypto push
The strategic mining framework arrives as Kazakhstan expands the role of state-backed structures in the crypto sector. In September 2025, Kazakhstan launched the Alem Crypto Fund, described in earlier coverage as a state-backed vehicle focused on long-term digital asset reserves, with its first investment involving BNB through a partnership with Binance Kazakhstan (as reported by Cointelegraph).
Kazakhstan has also been moving toward regulated crypto-related financial services. In July 2026, Alatau City Bank and Binance Kazakhstan launched Crypto Pay, a service allowing users to make crypto payments via QR codes and point-of-sale terminals integrated into the bank’s acquiring network, according to the bank’s announcement on its website.
These steps—mining policy, a reserve fund, and payment infrastructure—point to a coordinated national approach: rather than treating crypto as a purely private activity, Kazakhstan is assembling mechanisms that funnel participation into government-supported platforms and compliance-oriented channels.
As the strategic mining rules transition from approval to implementation, the most important details to watch are how the reserve transfer works in practice—especially the actual share miners must contribute—and how the eligibility requirements will be enforced during the run-up to the Aug. 1, 2026 effective date. For miners, the next question is whether the promise of regulated electricity quotas will outweigh the added reserve transfer obligation for companies that qualify.
Bitcoin (BTC) trades near $65,000 after climbing about 13% from its late-June low near $58,000. However, on-chain analysis suggests the bounce remains a relief rally rather than a confirmed recovery.
Unrealized losses remain larger than during the February crash, and spot demand continues to contract. Meanwhile, the price is below almost every major cost-basis model tracked on-chain.
On-Chain Analysis Shows Deeper Losses Than the February Crash
Glassnode data shows unrealized profit collapsed from roughly $1.4 trillion at the October 2025 peak. By late June, it fell to about $400 billion, the lowest reading of the cycle.
Net Unrealized Profit/Loss also bottomed lower in June than during the February crash, despite similar prices both times. The gap indicates coins changed hands during the drawdown, lifting the market’s aggregate cost basis.
Unrealized losses held between $200 billion and $300 billion for most of 2026. In contrast, they hovered near zero throughout 2025. Such prolonged pain historically resembles late-stage capitulation, and early bottom signals have already appeared elsewhere.
July brought some relief. Unrealized profit recovered to roughly $500 billion as losses narrowed. For the signal to flip bullish, however, profit must expand beyond its spring high near $580 billion.
Futures Traders Are the Only Buyers Left
The recovery in holder profitability comes with a caveat. CryptoQuant data shows futures demand flipped back to net positive in July, while spot demand continued to shrink.
The 30-day sum of perpetual futures demand grew by roughly 30,000 to 50,000 BTC this month. However, the April expansion neared 250,000 BTC and fueled the rally to $82,000. Today’s futures appetite is about five times smaller.
Spot demand tells a worse story. The metric has remained negative all year and is now contracting by about 200,000 BTC per month. Total demand collapsed to nearly minus 550,000 BTC in early June, the worst reading of 2026.
Bounces built on leverage without spot absorption have historically proven fragile. A cooler US inflation print helped BTC break above its mid-June resistance, but organic buyers have yet to return.
BTC Price Prediction Hinges on the $69,500 Cost Basis
Bitcoin trades below three of the four major on-chain valuation models. Only the Realized Price at $52,900 remains as support beneath the market.
The price last spent this long between the Realized Price and the True Market Mean during the 2022 bear market. Every attempt to reclaim the Short-Term Holder (STH) cost basis since late 2025 has failed, including the March rebound.
The first real victory for bulls sits at $69,500, about 6% above the current price. Reclaiming it would return most recent buyers to profit, a shift that has historically marked the start of recovery phases.
On-chain model
Level
Position vs. price
Active Realized Price
$83,500
27% above
True Market Mean
$76,200
16% above
Short-Term Holder Cost Basis
$69,500
6% above
Realized Price
$52,900
19% below
Losing the $52,900 Realized Price would signal a deep bear market instead. One projection already points to a potential Q4 bottom near $44,000.
The Federal Reserve’s next rate decision could accelerate the move in either direction. A reclaim of $69,500 could open the path to the $76,200 True Market Mean, while rejection risks another test of $58,000.
The post Why Bitcoin’s Latest Bounce Back to $65,000 Might Not Last appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Introduction
For decades, moving money has been one of the slowest parts of the global financial system. While the internet allows emails, videos, and messages to travel across the world in seconds, international bank transfers can still take several business days. Businesses face settlement delays, individuals pay high remittance fees, and financial institutions rely on outdated infrastructure that was designed long before the digital era.
Blockchain technology is changing this reality.
By enabling direct, secure, and near-instant value transfer without relying on multiple intermediaries, blockchain is transforming how money moves. From cross-border payments and decentralized finance (DeFi) to stablecoins and tokenized assets, a new financial system is emerging—one where payments settle in minutes or even seconds instead of days.
Why Traditional Payments Are Slow
The traditional banking system relies on a network of intermediaries. When someone sends money internationally, the payment often passes through multiple correspondent banks before reaching the recipient.
This creates several problems:
- Settlement delays of 2–5 business days
- High transaction and foreign exchange fees
- Limited banking hours
- Manual compliance processes
- Greater operational risk
Each institution maintains its own ledger, so balances must be reconciled constantly before transactions are finalized.
The result is a financial system that prioritizes security—but often at the cost of speed and efficiency.
Blockchain Changes the Payment Model
Blockchain replaces isolated financial ledgers with a shared, distributed ledger where transactions are verified by network participants.
Instead of relying on multiple banks to update records independently, blockchain establishes a single source of truth.
Benefits include:
- Near real-time settlement
- 24/7 global availability
- Transparent transaction history
- Lower processing costs
- Reduced reliance on intermediaries
This shift allows value to move almost as easily as information travels across the internet.
Stablecoins Are Leading the Revolution
One of blockchain’s biggest breakthroughs is the rise of stablecoins.
Unlike volatile cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are pegged to fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar.
Businesses increasingly use stablecoins for:
- International supplier payments
- Payroll
- Treasury management
- Cross-border settlements
- Merchant transactions
Because stablecoins operate on blockchain networks, transfers can settle within minutes while maintaining predictable value.
This makes them practical for real-world commerce rather than speculative investing alone.
Cross-Border Payments Become Borderless
International money transfers have traditionally been expensive.
Workers sending remittances often lose a significant percentage of their income to transfer fees.
Businesses encounter:
- Banking delays
- Currency conversion costs
- Compliance bottlenecks
- Liquidity management challenges
Blockchain enables peer-to-peer settlement across countries without requiring every transaction to pass through multiple financial institutions.
For developing economies, this could significantly improve financial inclusion by giving people faster and cheaper access to global financial services.
Decentralized Finance Extends the Possibilities
Blockchain payments are only one piece of a much larger transformation.
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) allows users to:
- Borrow assets
- Lend capital
- Earn yield
- Swap tokens
- Access liquidity
—all without traditional banks acting as intermediaries.
As payment infrastructure becomes faster, DeFi protocols can settle transactions almost instantly, creating financial products that operate continuously rather than during banking hours.
Tokenization Is Expanding Digital Finance
Blockchain is also enabling tokenized versions of:
- Stocks
- Bonds
- Treasury bills
- Commodities
- Real estate
- Carbon credits
Instead of waiting days for ownership transfers and settlement, tokenized assets can often move much faster on blockchain networks.
This reduces administrative costs while improving liquidity.
The combination of tokenized assets and instant settlement could reshape capital markets over the next decade.
Businesses Benefit From Faster Settlement
For companies, payment speed directly impacts cash flow.
When settlements take days:
- Capital remains locked
- Suppliers wait longer
- Inventory purchases slow
- Working capital becomes less efficient
Instant settlement allows businesses to recycle capital more quickly.
This can improve:
- Liquidity management
- Treasury operations
- International trade
- Vendor relationships
For small businesses especially, faster access to funds can significantly improve day-to-day operations.
Challenges Still Remain
Blockchain adoption is accelerating, but several challenges remain.
Regulation
Governments continue developing frameworks for digital assets, stablecoins, and decentralized financial services.
Scalability
Major blockchain networks continue improving throughput to support billions of users.
User Experience
Managing wallets, private keys, and blockchain addresses remains more complex than using traditional banking apps.
Security
Smart contract vulnerabilities and phishing attacks highlight the importance of education, audits, and secure infrastructure.
The Future of Payments
The future of finance is unlikely to replace banks entirely.
Instead, blockchain will increasingly become part of existing financial infrastructure.
Banks are already exploring:
- Stablecoin settlement
- Tokenized deposits
- Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)
- Real-time payment networks
- On-chain asset custody
Rather than competing against traditional finance, blockchain is steadily becoming one of its foundational technologies.
Conclusion
The era of waiting days for payments is gradually coming to an end. Blockchain is introducing a financial infrastructure where transactions can settle in near real time, operate around the clock, and reduce costs by minimizing intermediaries. Stablecoins, decentralized finance, and tokenized assets are no longer experimental concepts—they are actively reshaping how individuals, businesses, and institutions exchange value.
As adoption continues to grow, the future of finance will be defined not only by faster payments, but by a more connected, transparent, and accessible global economy. In that future, moving money could become as seamless as sending a message, marking the end of slow payments and the beginning of a new era in digital finance.
REQUEST AN ARTICLE
Jim Cramer Shares His Framework for Telling a Buyable Crash From a Real One
“Criminal Minds: Evolution” star Zach Gilford breaks down Voit’s fate in season 19 finale: ‘He can’t live with it anymore’
Echo Comment on day three of the new Burnham government
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
The making of the 200 rupees notes in the factory#shorts #money #bank #onlineclasses
XRP TRUMP BASICALLY JUST PASSED THE CLARITY ACT !!!!!
B.Tech Admissions Decline 2026: Solutions for Financial Difficulties #FinancialDifficulties | EDU9
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Politics6 days agoThe House | The City of London can help the new chancellor deliver growth in every postcode
-
Crypto World6 days agoRipple Payments Joins MiCA With 14 Firms, Does It Mean Anything For XRP?
-
Crypto World7 days agoTwo July Windows Left: The CLARITY Act’s Senate Fight and What Failure Means
-
Politics5 days agoDemocrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
-
Crypto World6 days agoRipple wins EU-wide access as ESMA adds it to MiCA register
-
Crypto World3 days agoGrayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
-
NewsBeat4 days agoUnregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
-
Tech3 days agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Tech3 days agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
NewsBeat7 days agoRegistration is now open for March for Men with Kev 2026
-
News Videos4 days agoBig Money Is Entering XRP
-
Business2 days agoNew Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
-
News Videos7 days agoMoney | Class 12 Economics | CBSE Board Exam 2026-27
-
Crypto World6 days agoKaspersky exposes OkoBot’s 20-module crypto wallet attack
-
Business6 days agoAirlines warn Sunshine Protection Act could disrupt flight scheduling
-
Entertainment2 days agoJohnny Depp’s R-Rated Gothic Cult Classic Gets New Release Ahead of Sydney Sweeney Remake
-
NewsBeat6 days agoDurham County Council to send out electoral registration emails
-
Crypto World6 days agoMiCA Licensing Faces Delays as ESMA Adds 14 CASPs to Register
-
Crypto World6 days agoChip Stocks Enter Bear Market After Moonshot Ai Unveils Kimi K3 Model
You must be logged in to post a comment Login