Crypto World
What $48 million in politics buys
While the market watched the token and the trade press counted the acquisitions, Ripple became the second-largest corporate political donor in America. The crypto industry now supplies more than a third of all corporate election money, its flagship super PAC holds a $193 million war chest, and the bill it was all built to pass is on the Senate floor this month. Here is the audit of the spend.
Summary
- Fairshake and its two affiliated super PACs entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, a figure disclosed ahead of the January Federal Election Commission deadline and larger than the entire crypto industry deployed across all of 2024.
- Ripple has contributed about $48 million this cycle, second only to Andreessen Horowitz among corporate donors by one accounting, alongside Coinbase at roughly $56 million, with a further $1 million sent directly to a single Senate candidate.
- Public Citizen’s tally puts total crypto election spending near $189 million, roughly 37% of all corporate money in the cycle, more than artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online gambling combined.
- The structure is three PACs, not one: Fairshake for bipartisan candidate spending, Protect Progress for Democratic races, and Defend American Jobs for Republican ones, a design that lets the same money work both sides without appearing in the same place.
- The investment gets marked this month: the market-structure bill the spending exists to pass faces its decisive Senate window before the August recess, and roughly $110 million of the war chest remains unspent with the November midterms four months out.
Ripple spent about $4 billion buying companies over three years, and this publication audited that empire last week. The company also spent roughly $48 million buying something else, and almost nobody has audited that at all. The second purchase does not appear on any acquisition list, produces no revenue line, and cannot be valued by any multiple, but it is aimed at the same outcome as the first: a legal environment in which the assembled business is permitted to operate. Ripple is now, by one national tally, the second-largest corporate political donor in the United States this cycle, behind only Andreessen Horowitz and ahead of every bank, airline, pharmaceutical company, and defense contractor in the country. It sits alongside Coinbase inside Fairshake, the crypto industry’s flagship super PAC network, which entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, more than the entire industry deployed across the whole of the 2024 elections, and which has already spent more than $82 million with four months of campaign still to run. The industry as a whole now supplies more than a third of all corporate election money in America. This piece is the ledger: what was given, how the machine is built, what the last cycle’s version of it actually bought, where it demonstrably failed, and why the next few weeks are when the position gets marked.
The ledger, itemized
Start with the numbers, because their scale is the part most coverage understates.
Fairshake and its affiliates disclosed roughly $193 million on hand in January, ahead of the Federal Election Commission’s reporting deadline, a figure about 37% higher than its July 2025 disclosure. The second half of 2025 supplied the jump: Ripple contributed $25 million in a single commitment, Andreessen Horowitz added $24 million, and Coinbase had already put in $25 million earlier in the year, roughly $74 million from three companies in six months. Cycle-to-date totals run higher than those individual checks. Public Citizen’s accounting puts Coinbase at about $56 million and Ripple at about $48 million across the cycle’s channels, with a separate tally ranking Ripple second among all corporate donors nationally behind Andreessen Horowitz at $51.65 million. The figures differ because the counting differs, some tallies aggregate only Fairshake contributions while others include direct candidate giving and other committees, and any honest citation has to say which. What no accounting disputes is the order of magnitude: three crypto companies have put roughly $150 million into a single election cycle.
The industry total is the number that reframes everything. Public Citizen puts crypto’s 2026 election spending near $189 million, approximately 37% of all corporate political money in the cycle, against $517 million in total corporate spending that is itself up 12% from all of 2024. Artificial intelligence and Big Tech combined contributed about $60 million; online gambling about $45.6 million. One industry, younger than the iPhone, now outspends every other corporate sector in American politics, and roughly $56 million of crypto money went to MAGA Inc alongside the $82 million flowing through Fairshake.
Beyond the flagship network sits additional capacity: a newer vehicle called Fellowship PAC claimed a $100 million commitment for pro-crypto candidates, meaning the sector’s declared electoral firepower exceeds a quarter of a billion dollars before a single general-election ballot has been counted.
And then there is the retail-scale detail that shows the strategy has a second gear. Ripple sent $1 million directly to John Deaton, the pro-crypto attorney who lost Massachusetts’s 2024 Senate race to Elizabeth Warren by nearly twenty points and is running again in 2026 for the state’s other seat. Direct candidate contributions of that size are unusual, visible, and personal in a way super PAC money is not, which makes the Deaton line the clearest statement of intent in the entire ledger.
The machine: three PACs, one checkbook
The structure deserves explanation, because its design is the reason the money works harder than its size suggests.
Fairshake operates as three entities. Fairshake itself directs funds to candidates across both parties. Protect Progress spends in Democratic races. Defend American Jobs spends in Republican ones. The architecture solves a specific problem in American electoral finance: money that visibly funds both parties is politically awkward in primaries, where partisan credibility is the currency, so the network splits itself into partisan-facing vehicles that draw from the same donor base and coordinate the same strategy. A Democratic primary voter sees Protect Progress; a Republican primary voter sees Defend American Jobs; both are the same industry, and neither ad mentions cryptocurrency at all, because Fairshake’s signature tactic has always been to spend on issues unrelated to its own, funding advertisements about housing, healthcare, or a candidate’s record while the crypto position remains the invisible criterion.
The targeting is equally deliberate. Fairshake concentrates in primaries, where money moves outcomes furthest per dollar, and in a small number of races selected for signaling value. Protect Progress backed Adrian Boafo in a Maryland Democratic primary this cycle, and he won. That pattern, early money in low-turnout contests, is how a nine-figure war chest contests dozens of races without ever needing to win a national argument about digital assets.
The strategic effect is the one Fairshake’s own spokespeople describe most plainly: the network is standing infrastructure now, not a one-cycle experiment. The 2024 build converted heavy experimental spending into permanent capability, with money left over, $64 million carried into this cycle before a dollar of new fundraising. An industry that can credibly promise to spend against a legislator in the next primary does not need to spend in most of them, which is the quiet dividend of the whole enterprise and the reason the unspent balance matters as much as the deployed one.
What the money bought last time
The 2024 record is the only evidence base for what this spending achieves, and it points in one direction while carrying an important asterisk.
Fairshake and its affiliates raised approximately $93 million across the 2023-2024 build and spent more than $130 million on media buys supporting candidates they classified as pro-crypto and opposing those classified as anti-crypto. Two results defined the cycle’s reputation: Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, both incumbent House members regarded as industry critics, lost primaries in which Fairshake-funded advertising was widely credited as a decisive factor. Neither race was fought on crypto policy. Both outcomes were read across Capitol Hill as proof that the industry could end a career in a primary, and that reading, more than any individual seat, is what the money actually purchased. Legislative behavior since has been consistent with the lesson having landed: the House passed the market-structure bill 294 to 134, the stablecoin statute cleared with bipartisan support, and the number of members willing to be publicly identified as anti-crypto has thinned considerably.
The asterisk is Massachusetts. The industry’s most direct 2024 investment, backing John Deaton against Elizabeth Warren, its most prominent legislative opponent, failed by nearly twenty points, and it failed in the way that matters analytically: money could not make a general-electorate race about crypto when the electorate cared about something else. That result maps the strategy’s boundary precisely. Fairshake money is extremely effective in low-turnout primaries where a modest advertising advantage decides a small electorate, and largely ineffective in high-salience general elections where partisan identity dominates. Deaton is running again in 2026, with another $1 million from Ripple already committed, which will test whether the boundary moved or whether the industry is buying the same lesson twice.
The countervailing case, made properly
An audit owes the other side its strongest form, and there are two of them, pointing in opposite directions.
The critics’ case is structural rather than moral. Public Citizen’s objection is not that crypto participates in politics but that the concentration distorts: when a single industry supplies more than a third of all corporate election money, the ordinary pluralism that keeps any one sector from dominating a legislature stops functioning, and legislators facing a nine-figure adversary in their next primary make different choices than legislators facing ordinary lobbying. The insider-adjacent critique is sharper still. The industry is spending to shape the rules governing its own regulation, and the rules in question, market structure, agency jurisdiction, and enforcement authority, determine whether the same companies face securities liability. That is not corruption in any legal sense, and it is exactly the arrangement campaign-finance reformers have described as legalized capture for fifty years.
The industry’s case is that this is what every regulated sector does, and it is not a weak argument. Banking, pharmaceuticals, energy, and telecommunications have all spent decades funding candidates and shaping the statutes that govern them, and crypto arrived to a legal environment in which its participants faced enforcement actions predicated on rules nobody had written for them. Political spending, on this reading, is the industry’s only proportionate response to an existential regulatory posture, and its bipartisan structure, funding Democrats and Republicans by design, is evidence of issue-based rather than partisan intent. Both cases are true simultaneously: this is normal American interest-group politics, and it is happening at a scale and concentration that has few peers in the modern record.
The week the position gets marked
Which brings the ledger to the present, where several clocks converge at once.
The market-structure legislation that the entire apparatus exists to pass faces its decisive Senate window before the August recess, with the outcome resting on a small number of Democratic crossover votes and a negotiation whose remaining disputes this publication has covered in detail. Fairshake’s money did not buy those votes and cannot, super PAC spending is prospective leverage over future primaries, not a transaction over a pending bill, but it is unquestionably part of the environment in which those senators are calculating. If the bill passes, the industry’s electoral investment will be credited with having built the conditions for it, and the remaining balance rolls into November with a validated theory. If it fails, roughly $110 million of unspent capacity meets a midterm election in which the industry has both the resources and the stated motive to remove specific legislators from office, and the 2027 Congress becomes the target instead.
Either way, the more interesting question for Ripple specifically is the one the ledger poses and cannot answer: the company has now spent about $4 billion assembling an institutional financial business and about $48 million assembling the political conditions for it, and only one of those investments has a disclosed return. The empire, as this publication’s audit found, is designed to succeed with or without the token. The political spend is designed to make the empire legal. Neither line item is about XRP, which is perhaps the most honest summary available of where Ripple’s actual priorities sit, and the market that still prices the company through its token’s chart is, once again, reading the wrong ledger.
What to watch
The FEC filings after the Senate acts. Contribution and expenditure reports covering the coming weeks will show whether the industry accelerates into November or banks the balance. Sharp increases immediately after a legislative outcome, in either direction, would confirm the spending is tightly coupled to the bill rather than to a general political posture.
Deaton’s Massachusetts numbers. The rematch is the strategy’s clearest controlled experiment: the same candidate, the same state, a different seat, and a second round of industry money. A materially closer result would suggest the 2024 ceiling has lifted; a repeat would confirm that Fairshake money buys primaries and not general elections.
Which incumbents draw funded challengers. Watch whether the senators who blocked or slowed the market-structure bill face Fairshake-affiliated primary spending in their next cycles. That is the mechanism by which the 2024 lesson gets re-taught, and it is the most direct measure of whether the industry treats this vote as a scorecard.
The disclosure gap. Independent tallies of crypto political money differ by tens of millions depending on which vehicles are counted, and some contributions surface only in later filings. Any figure quoted before the FEC’s next full disclosure cycle, including the ones in this piece, is provisional, and the revisions are usually upward.
A closing observation about what this spending is not, because the distinction gets lost in the headline numbers. Campaign money is the smaller and more visible half of the industry’s influence apparatus; the larger half is conventional lobbying, trade associations, regulatory comment letters, personnel flowing between agencies and firms, and the technical assistance that shapes statutory language line by line long before any floor vote. Fairshake’s $193 million buys electoral leverage, which is a blunt instrument aimed at composition: who sits in the chamber. The quieter machinery aims at text: what the bill says once the chamber has been settled. Ripple’s participation in both is the reason the acquisition audit and this one belong on the same shelf, since a chartered bank application, a prime brokerage, and a stablecoin all depend on statutory definitions that are drafted in rooms no super PAC advertisement can reach. Judged only by the electoral ledger, the industry’s investment looks enormous and its returns ambiguous. Judged across both channels, the returns are already visible in the shape of the legislation itself, an asset taxonomy the industry helped define, a developer shield it asked for, a grandfather clause that resolves its most valuable assets’ status by statute. The $48 million is the part that files with the Federal Election Commission. It is not the part that writes the law, and the two should never be confused, least of all by anyone trying to estimate what the money actually bought.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or political advice. Campaign finance figures are drawn from third-party tallies and disclosures that vary by methodology and are revised as filings are published. Nothing here is a recommendation regarding any company, asset, candidate, or political position. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 26, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much has Ripple spent on US politics this cycle?
Approximately $48 million across the 2026 cycle by Public Citizen’s accounting, including a $25 million contribution to the Fairshake network disclosed in late 2025, plus about $1 million given directly to Senate candidate John Deaton in Massachusetts. One national tally ranks Ripple second among all corporate political donors this cycle, behind Andreessen Horowitz at roughly $51.65 million.
What is Fairshake?
The cryptocurrency industry’s flagship super PAC network, structured as three affiliated entities: Fairshake, which spends across both parties; Protect Progress, focused on Democratic races; and Defend American Jobs, focused on Republican ones. The network entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, funded primarily by Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz, and had spent more than $82 million by mid-year.
How does crypto’s spending compare to other industries?
It leads all of them. Public Citizen puts crypto election spending near $189 million, about 37% of all corporate political money in the 2026 cycle, against roughly $60 million from artificial intelligence and Big Tech combined and $45.6 million from online gambling. Total corporate election spending reached about $517 million, up 12% from the entire 2024 cycle.
Did this spending work in 2024?
In primaries, apparently yes. Fairshake and affiliates spent more than $130 million on media in 2024, and industry-funded advertising was widely credited with defeating incumbent House members Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush in primaries, outcomes read across Congress as proof the sector could end a career. In general elections the record is worse: the industry’s backing of John Deaton against Elizabeth Warren failed by nearly twenty points.
Why do the ads rarely mention crypto?
Because Fairshake’s tactic is to spend on locally salient issues while the crypto position operates as the invisible selection criterion. Advertising in these races typically addresses housing, healthcare, or a candidate’s record, which is more persuasive to primary electorates than digital-asset policy and avoids making the industry itself the subject of the campaign.
Does this money buy votes on pending legislation?
Not directly, and the distinction matters legally and analytically. Super PAC spending is independent expenditure aimed at future elections, not payment for legislative action, and coordination with campaigns is prohibited. Its influence is prospective: legislators weigh the possibility of a well-funded primary challenge, which shapes the environment around votes without constituting a transaction over any particular one.
What is the criticism of this level of spending?
Public Citizen and similar groups argue the concentration distorts representation: when one industry supplies more than a third of corporate election money, the pluralism that prevents any single sector from dominating legislative outcomes weakens, particularly when the industry is funding the rules governing its own regulation. The industry’s response is that banking, pharmaceuticals, and energy have done the same for decades, and that political participation is a proportionate answer to enforcement-driven regulation.
What happens to the unspent money?
Roughly $110 million of the war chest remained unspent at mid-year with the November midterms approaching, and the industry has additional declared capacity, including a newer vehicle claiming a $100 million commitment. If the pending market-structure legislation passes, that balance rolls into November behind a validated strategy; if it fails, the same money meets an election in which the industry has stated its intent to change the composition of Congress. This is educational analysis, not investment or political advice.
Binance’s Android app is unavailable on Google Play in some EU markets amid scrutiny over MiCA compliance.
BitMine Immersion Technologies said its Ethereum holdings reached 5,787,414 ETH as of July 26 after the company bought another 9,946 tokens during the week.
Summary
- BitMine now holds 5.79 million ETH, equal to 4.8% of Ethereum’s reported total circulating supply.
- More than 4.9 million ETH is staked, supporting projected annual revenue of about $254 million.
- BitMine repurchased 6.1 million shares while adding 9,946 ETH during the latest weekly reporting period.
The position equals about 4.8% of Ethereum’s stated 120.7 million supply and leaves BitMine close to its target of owning 5% of all ETH.
The company valued its broader portfolio at $11.8 billion using an ETH reference price of $1,948. The total includes 208 BTC, $268 million in cash and marketable securities, a $180 million stake in Beast Industries and a $61 million position in Eightco Holdings. The figures reflect BitMine’s own valuation method.
BitMine moves closer to its 5% Ethereum target
BitMine calls its plan to acquire 5% of Ethereum’s supply the “Alchemy of 5%.” At the current reported supply, that target equals about 6.04 million ETH. The latest total places the company about 96% of the way there, leaving roughly 247,586 ETH to reach the goal if supply remains unchanged.
Chairman Tom Lee said BitMine has bought ETH every week since it started the treasury strategy on June 30, 2025. As crypto.news previously reported, the company held nearly 5.78 million ETH in its prior weekly disclosure. The latest purchase raised that balance by another 9,946 ETH.
The strategy gives BitMine direct exposure to Ethereum’s market price. It also creates concentration risk because ETH makes up most of the reported portfolio. BitMine’s latest quarterly filing lists price volatility, liquidity limits, custody risks and possible unrealised losses among the risks tied to its digital assets.
Staked ETH supports a growing revenue stream
BitMine said it has staked 4,917,189 ETH through its Made in America Validator Network, known as MAVAN, and other partners. That amount represents about 85% of its total ETH holdings. The company valued the staked position at $9.6 billion using the same $1,948 reference price.
Lee said current staking operations could generate $254 million in annualised revenue based on a seven-day yield of 2.65%. He also projected annual rewards of $299 million if BitMine stakes its full ETH balance. These are management estimates rather than fixed returns. Ethereum rewards can change with network participation, validator performance and protocol conditions.
Staking has become BitMine’s main operating revenue source. Its Form 10-Q showed $45.7 million in staking and validation revenue for the three months ended May 31. That represented about 98% of its $46.5 million quarterly revenue, as previously reported.
Share buybacks rise as ETH purchases continue
BitMine repurchased 6.1 million common shares during the latest week under its $4 billion buyback programme. The company said the purchase increased from 5.5 million shares in the prior week. It has repurchased 11.6 million shares since July 1.
Lee said management increased buybacks because it viewed the rising ETH-to-BTC ratio as a sign of stronger crypto conditions. The release stated that the ratio had reached a three-month high at “0.3000.” That statement reflects management’s market view and does not measure BitMine’s operating performance.
The chairman also said ETH could test “$2,000 and $2,500” if a comparison with the S&P 500 after October 1987 continues to hold. That remains a price forecast. It does not form part of BitMine’s reported holdings and does not guarantee future ETH performance.
Treasury model combines staking, equities and cash
Beyond Ethereum and Bitcoin, BitMine holds stakes in Beast Industries and Eightco. The company describes these positions as “moonshots.” Their stated values can change with financing terms, market prices and company developments. The update also showed cash and marketable securities falling to $268 million from $385 million in the previous weekly disclosure.
BitMine joined the Russell 1000 index on June 26 and launched Series A preferred stock under the BMNP ticker. The company said its common shares recorded average daily dollar volume of $597 million over five sessions through July 24. It ranked the stock 171st among U.S.-listed companies using Fundstrat and Statista data.
As crypto.news previously reported, BitMine’s growing treasury could reduce the amount of ETH available for trading because most holdings are staked. The same structure leaves the company closely tied to ETH prices and staking economics. Its SEC filing warns that staking yields, regulatory changes and access to capital could affect results.
The company remains below its stated 5% target, but the gap has narrowed to less than 250,000 ETH at the reported supply level. Future weekly disclosures will show whether BitMine keeps buying ETH while continuing its share repurchase programme.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center and Multicoin Capital have filed a joint comment supporting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s proposed prediction-market framework.
Summary
- Hyperliquid Policy Center and Multicoin support clear federal standards for regulated prediction market contract reviews.
- They want settlement terms to determine whether contracts involve gaming, war, assassination, or restricted activities.
- The groups seek published reasoning whenever the CFTC approves or rejects reviewed event contracts publicly.
The groups said written federal standards would help operators design event contracts and reduce policy swings between administrations.
The filing arrived on July 27, the proposal’s comment deadline. The rule would explain how the CFTC reviews contracts tied to gaming, war, terrorism, assassination and conduct that violates federal or state law.
Joint filing supports the CFTC proposal
The CFTC proposed amendments to Regulation 40.11 in June after an earlier consultation. Its three-step test would ask whether a product is an event contract, whether it involves a listed activity and whether trading would conflict with the public interest.
The plan does not ban every contract connected to those subjects. The CFTC would review products case by case during a process lasting up to 90 days. Chairman Michael Selig called it a “durable, transparent framework,” although the Commission may change the text before adopting a final rule.
Hyperliquid Policy Center and Multicoin said “clear rules beat guesswork.” They argued that standards written into regulations would offer more certainty than policies based mainly on staff interpretation. Their filing presents an industry position and does not resolve current legal disputes.
Groups seek one federal regulator
The joint comment argues that the CFTC should remain the single federal regulator for exchange-traded prediction contracts. It distinguished those products from bookmaker wagers. Exchange participants trade with one another at market prices, while the venue matches orders and charges fees.
Several states have challenged prediction-market operators under gambling laws. Platforms and the CFTC argue that the Commodity Exchange Act gives federal authorities exclusive control over contracts listed on registered derivatives exchanges. Courts have not produced one final nationwide answer.
As crypto.news previously reported, North Carolina approved access for CFTC-regulated prediction markets in July, while disputes continued elsewhere. Separate coverage described lawsuits involving Kentucky, Kalshi and Polymarket. Those cases test whether federal derivatives rules override state gaming requirements.
Filing seeks settlement-based tests and public reasons
The comment recommends that the CFTC decide whether a contract “involves” a restricted activity by examining the event that controls settlement. A passing link to war or gaming would not automatically trigger review. The payout condition would determine whether the contract enters a listed category.
The CFTC proposal follows a similar reading. It focuses on the underlying settlement event rather than treating trading itself as gaming. The agency also gives examples separating a contract on an unlawful act from one that settles on a lawful court decision.
The groups asked the Commission to publish more examples for difficult cases. They also want it to explain every completed review, including approvals. The proposal requires reasoning when the CFTC blocks a product, but approval decisions could guide later filings.
That request comes as the regulator demands more product-specific detail. On July 24, the CFTC issued its second 2026 warning against broad, template-style self-certifications. It said venues must provide contract terms, settlement methods, data sources and compliance analysis for each proposed variation.
Hyperliquid’s markets shape its policy interest
Hyperliquid introduced HIP-4 outcome contracts on mainnet in May. The fully collateralised products settle at zero or one and do not use leverage or liquidations. Validators approve and settle canonical markets using defined information sources within Hyperliquid’s network.
As crypto.news reported, Hyperliquid’s first offchain market covered the U.S. consumer price index. The platform later expanded its outcome-market system as part of a move beyond perpetual futures. The Policy Center has also asked regulators to account for non-custodial blockchain markets.
The group said Hyperliquid’s products support its case for technology-neutral rules. However, the onchain venue does not currently operate as a CFTC-registered U.S. exchange. A final event-contract rule would not alone create a legal route for decentralized platforms or U.S. users.
The filing also cited fast market growth. Hyperliquid Policy Center said major venues passed $50 billion in June volume. A crypto.news analysis placed combined June volume for Polymarket and Kalshi at $44.8 billion, showing that totals vary by platform and product coverage.
The CFTC will review the comments before deciding whether to revise or adopt the proposal. The process may clarify how registered venues list event contracts, while questions about decentralized access, state authority and registration remain open. National regulators, courts and lawmakers may still shape which firms can serve U.S. customers and which contracts may legally reach them in practice.
Bitmine Immersion Technologies says it has boosted its Ether holdings by nearly 10,000 ETH over the past week, bringing its treasury to 5.79 million Ether. In a new disclosure, the company described how most of those holdings are deployed to earn staking yield through its validator operations.
According to Bitmine’s filings, the latest purchases take its exposure to Ether to roughly 4.8% of the cryptocurrency’s total supply. The company also indicated that its overall balance sheet—covering crypto holdings, cash, and marketable securities—totaled $11.8 billion as of July 26.
Key takeaways
- Bitmine reported holding 5.79 million ETH after buying nearly 10,000 ETH in the prior week.
- About 4.9 million ETH—approximately 85% of Bitmine’s Ether—are staked via its validator operations.
- Bitmine projected annualized staking rewards of about $299 million once all Ether is deployed across staking infrastructure and partner validators.
- The move coincides with Ether outperforming Bitcoin over the same seven-day period, based on CoinGecko data.
Bitmine’s growing Ether treasury
Bitmine Immersion Technologies said Monday that it currently holds 5.79 million Ether, following purchases of nearly 10,000 ETH over the past week. The company framed the accumulation as a continuation of its strategy to build a large corporate Ether treasury, placing it among the biggest public holders in the sector.
In its disclosure, Bitmine quantified the scale of its holdings: 5.79 million ETH represents about 4.8% of Ether’s total supply. The report also emphasized deployment readiness, noting that a large portion of its Ether is already working to generate staking rewards.
Staking deployment and yield projections
Bitmine said roughly 4.9 million ETH—around 85% of its Ether holdings—are staked through its validator operations. The company added that it expects annualized staking rewards of approximately $299 million once all of its Ether is deployed across its staking infrastructure and through partner validators.
For investors, the practical importance of that figure is that it ties Bitmine’s treasury strategy to a recurring value engine rather than relying solely on spot price appreciation. Staking also introduces its own set of variables, including network conditions and validator performance, but Bitmine’s disclosure makes clear that a majority of its ETH is already earning yield.
Why the ETH/BTC outperformance matters
Bitmine’s purchases arrive during a week when Ether has held up better than Bitcoin. CoinGecko data cited by Bitmine’s announcement shows ETH gaining about 2.4% over the past seven days while Bitcoin declined roughly 0.7%.
Bitmine Chairman Tom Lee pointed to the rising ETH/BTC ratio as a signal of strengthening momentum. He described the ratio as being at a three-month high, suggesting that relative demand for Ether has been improving rather than Ether simply tracking broader market direction.
Relative performance can matter for corporate treasury strategies because it affects the opportunity cost of accumulating one asset versus another. If ETH is strengthening against BTC—as Bitmine suggested—it potentially reinforces the company’s decision to allocate incremental capital toward Ether rather than pausing to concentrate on Bitcoin.
Strategy’s pivot and the shifting corporate crypto playbook
Bitmine also used its announcement to highlight how its accumulation approach is diverging from Strategy, another major public player. While Bitmine has continued adding Ether, the company said Strategy has paused Bitcoin purchases in recent weeks, marking a contrast in how these large treasuries are deploying capital.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Strategy announced it raised $544.5 million through stock sales, repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares, and increased its US dollar reserve to $3.75 billion—while maintaining holdings of 843,775 BTC. That set of actions underscores a broader theme in corporate crypto: balance-sheet management can shift the pace of buys even when long-term conviction remains unchanged.
For market participants watching treasury behavior, the key takeaway is that accumulation is not always linear. Bitmine’s continued Ether buying—paired with the emphasis on staking deployment—shows a model where holding and earning yield can progress in parallel. Strategy’s pause on Bitcoin purchases, meanwhile, suggests corporate allocations can be influenced by funding, liquidity targets, and operational constraints.
Next, readers should watch whether Bitmine’s stated staking plan—covering deployment across infrastructure and partner validators—fully catches up to its forecast, and whether the ETH/BTC strength referenced by Tom Lee persists alongside Ether’s price action. That combination—ongoing net accumulation plus higher relative performance—could further shape how investors evaluate corporate crypto treasuries moving into the next quarter.
Ondo Finance has launched the Ondo Network, replacing its planned blockchain with an execution layer built for fast, private, and non-custodial trading.
Summary
- Ondo Network replaces Ondo Chain as the company shifts its focus from settlement to execution.
- Secure hardware enclaves process trades privately, while decentralized attestors verify the approved code.
- Ondo Perps is the first application, supporting 24/7 equity and commodity perpetual futures.
- Recent FINRA authorizations give Ondo separate infrastructure for regulated tokenized securities in the U.S.
Ondo Network replaces the planned Ondo Chain
Ondo Finance publicly introduced the Ondo Network on July 27, describing it as an execution layer that combines centralized exchange-like speed with self-custody, privacy and blockchain-based settlement.
Ian De Bode, CEO of Ondo Finance, described the product as an evolution of Ondo Chain, a previously announced Layer 1 blockchain designed for tokenized real-world assets. Ondo will not operate both systems at the same time.
“I’d frame it more as an evolution, but we will not be running the Ondo Network and the Ondo Chain in parallel.”
Ondo changed its approach while building Ondo Perps and consulting potential users. According to the company, those discussions showed that execution speed, rather than settlement capacity, was the main obstacle preventing onchain trading platforms from competing with centralized exchanges.
Traditional blockchains generally execute, verify, and settle transactions through the same public ledger. That structure provides transparency and a durable transaction history but can expose order flow and slow applications that require rapid trade matching.
The Ondo Network separates these functions, allowing trade execution to occur away from a public ledger while asset transfers still settle onchain.
How Ondo Network verifies private execution
Applications on the network run inside trusted execution environments, also known as secure hardware enclaves. These isolated environments process application code without revealing sensitive information, such as open positions and order flow, to the public.
A decentralized group of attestors determines which code the enclaves may run. The network also uses a multi-party structure under which no single operator can approve unauthorized code, reconstruct a signing key, or independently transfer user assets.
Asset transfers currently settle on Ethereum, while Ondo plans to support other public blockchains. The network’s settled state remains inside the enclaves for now, but the company intends to commit that record to public blockchains as the system develops.
Ondo also plans to introduce more attestors, independent watchers, bonded participation, and additional cryptographic proofs. The ONDO token is expected to support incentives and governance as those responsibilities become more decentralized.
The system is general-purpose rather than limited to trading. Ondo said developers could use it for spot markets, lending, structured products, settlement systems and non-financial applications requiring fast and verifiable private execution.
Ondo Perps becomes the first network application
Ondo Perps is the first application running on the network. The platform provides round-the-clock perpetual futures linked to equities and commodities while allowing traders to use tokenized real-world assets as collateral.
Perpetual futures allow users to take leveraged long or short positions without a fixed expiry date. The product launched earlier in July for users outside the United States and supports up to 20 times leverage on selected markets.
The platform’s initial role demonstrates how Ondo wants to use the network: trading takes place privately at near-centralized-exchange speeds, users retain control of their funds and transfers settle through public blockchain infrastructure.
Ondo said the network launch does not immediately alter the ONDO token’s role. The asset remains the governance and ecosystem token for the company’s real-world asset and market infrastructure.
Ondo (ONDO) traded near $0.40 following the announcement, up 1.1% over the past 24 hours with a market capitalization of approximately $1.96 billion, according to data from CoinGecko.
FINRA permissions support a separate U.S. rollout
Ondo’s network launch follows new U.S. regulatory permissions for Oasis Pro Markets, its SEC-registered broker-dealer subsidiary.
Oasis Pro received FINRA authorizations covering National Market System stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, index funds and securities issued through initial public offerings. The permissions cover activities including retail over-the-counter transactions, private placements and underwritten primary offerings.
The framework also supports settlement through fiat currencies or selected stablecoins, including transfers between blockchain wallets. It could allow eligible U.S. retail and institutional investors to access tokenized securities through existing brokers, advisers and retirement accounts.
However, the permissions do not automatically make Ondo Perps or every existing Ondo product available to U.S. residents. They provide regulated infrastructure through Oasis Pro Markets for securities offered under SEC and FINRA oversight, while individual products remain subject to separate eligibility and compliance requirements.
Crypto World
U.S. Senate puts off crypto Clarity Act for now as it focuses limited bandwidth elsewhere
Bottom line: Clarity isn’t likely to come up for voting before next week — the final days before the chamber’s summer break is set to start on August 8. The hotly debated market structure bill isn’t yet ready for a vote, anyway, as the parties continue to try to seek a compromise on a contentious provision that’s stood in the way of a deal: the ban against senior government officials, including President Donald Trump, backing crypto projects.
Thune’s office had told CoinDesk last week that his next floor-time priority would go to the Russia legislation. While the majority leader also said he hopes to get to Clarity before the break, he said the leadership would have to “see where the votes are.”
At this point in the Senate calendar, every hour of floor time is a precious commodity, and the debate over the Clarity Act still hasn’t settled some of the major outstanding points — especially the section on government ethics, which was the topic of a Monday event hosted by Democrats opposing the Clarity Act and the president’s crypto activities.
Having significant disagreements at this stage could narrow the chances that Clarity can become law in 2026, potentially throwing the industry into some uncertainty over the timeline for U.S. regulations. If this legislation tanks, the next best avenues for regulatory legitimacy is the ongoing implementation of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act and the policy efforts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Securitize, the tokenized-assets platform, said its subsidiary Securitize Capital has registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an investment adviser—an update that expands the firm’s regulated advisory offering for institutional clients.
The company framed the move as a way to deepen regulated investment-advisory capabilities around onchain capital markets, building on an existing lineup of market infrastructure and financial-services licenses already held within the Securitize group.
Key takeaways
- Securitize Capital’s SEC investment adviser registration adds formal advisory capabilities to the firm’s current regulated business stack.
- The subsidiary previously operated as an exempt reporting adviser and is now subject to additional disclosure, compliance, recordkeeping, and examination duties.
- Securitize says the change is meant to support institutions designing and managing investment strategies that use tokenized, onchain capital markets.
- The registration complements existing regulated entities at Securitize, including an SEC-registered broker-dealer, alternative trading system, transfer agent, and fund administration services.
What the SEC investment adviser registration changes
According to Securitize, Securitize Capital’s SEC registration broadens how the subsidiary can serve institutional investors. The key operational shift is that the business is no longer relying on exempt status—meaning it must comply with the Investment Advisers Act’s baseline requirements for regulated advisers.
Securitize said the company previously operated as an exempt reporting adviser. Under the Investment Advisers Act, that status generally implies more stringent expectations around disclosure, compliance, recordkeeping, and SEC examination. For institutional participants, those obligations matter because they shape governance, supervisory controls, and documentation standards that regulators typically look for in adviser oversight.
The firm also positioned the upgrade as an expansion of “investment advisory capabilities” tied to Securitize’s broader infrastructure. In practice, that means institutions may be able to engage with Securitize not only as a platform for tokenization and related market services, but also through a more explicitly regulated advisory channel.
A regulated platform built around tokenized capital markets
Securitize said the adviser registration is being added to existing regulated businesses within the group. The company cited an SEC-registered broker-dealer, an alternative trading system, a transfer agent, and fund administration services—capabilities that are often described together in tokenization business models because they can support issuance, custody/transfer mechanics, trading venues, and ongoing fund administration.
By bringing adviser registration under the same umbrella, Securitize is effectively tightening the regulatory alignment across multiple layers of its tokenized-asset ecosystem. That matters for institutions deciding whether they want exposure to tokenized structures under familiar compliance frameworks, rather than relying on a less standardized set of arrangements across different vendors.
Industry scale and the broader push for RWA infrastructure
Securitize also reiterated its market position in the “tokenization” category. The company described itself as the largest tokenization platform by onchain asset value, citing around $4.8 billion in tokenized assets across funds from BlackRock, Apollo, KKR, VanEck, Hamilton Lane and other asset managers.
This context is important: as the real-world assets (RWA) sector continues to develop, competition is increasingly about more than token issuance. Platform operators are trying to combine issuance rails with trading, transfers, and governance that fit within U.S. financial regulation. Securitize’s move suggests it wants to add another leg to that structure—advisory oversight—while keeping the rest of its regulated-services suite in place.
NYSE listing follows a merger, while the stock faces pressure
The registration comes as Securitize’s public-company status continues to play out. Securitize began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker SECZ on July 2 after completing a business combination with Cantor Equity Partners II.
Following the listing, the article notes that the shares have fallen about 46% from their first-day closing price.
While the SEC investment adviser registration is a regulatory milestone, it may also be read by investors as part of a broader effort to strengthen institutional credibility and expand monetizable services. At the same time, the stock’s drawdown since the NYSE start date underscores that market participants may be watching not only compliance progress, but also whether that compliance translates into durable demand and measurable business growth.
What to watch next
For institutions and market participants, the immediate question is how Securitize Capital’s adviser status will expand real advisory workflows—particularly how compliance, oversight, and recordkeeping will be implemented as clients engage with tokenized strategies. For investors, the next signal to track is whether the additional regulated capability converts into higher adoption, clearer revenue drivers, and continued traction across its tokenized-asset partnerships.
HashKey Holdings says it has consolidated its crypto exchange operations into a single platform and application, aiming to give customers one seamless entry point while keeping regulatory compliance tailored to local jurisdictions.
In a Monday announcement, the Hong Kong-based digital asset services firm said it has merged its HashKey Exchange and HashKey Global businesses. The change brings core hubs—including Hong Kong, Singapore, the Middle East (Dubai), and Bermuda—under one platform experience.
Key takeaways
- HashKey is unifying separate exchange branches into one platform and one app for multiple regions.
- The company says it will use a “unified entry, localized compliance” model rather than region-by-region front ends.
- Customers across Hong Kong, Global, Singapore, and Dubai/Bermuda should download the same application.
- Compliance and controls are described as being managed based on each user’s legislative domain.
- The approach aligns with broader industry moves toward shared user interfaces over fragmented legal structures.
One app, multiple legal environments
HashKey’s stated goal is to reduce friction for users who would otherwise need to navigate different exchange offerings depending on where they operate. The company said the rollout follows a “unified entry, localized compliance” principle: the platform experience is meant to be consistent for end users, while compliance is handled according to the applicable regulatory framework for each jurisdiction.
Practically, HashKey says users in Hong Kong, Global, Singapore, or the Middle East can download the same application. From there, the platform would manage compliance across each user’s specific legislative domain—supporting the firm’s claim that the single front end can still remain aligned with local rules.
HashKey framed the move as a shift away from the early-era virtual asset industry pattern, when licensed exchanges often maintained siloed regional models to simplify compliance at the time.
How HashKey’s model compares with other exchanges
HashKey’s consolidation mirrors a trend visible in other major platforms: presenting a single consumer interface while distributing legal responsibilities across multiple entities behind the scenes.
For example, the company pointed to market precedents such as OKX, which markets its website and mobile apps as one platform. However, OKX’s terms historically allocate customers to different providers based on residence. In that setup, the outward experience is unified, but the legal backend remains fragmented across regions.
Similarly, HashKey referenced Kraken’s approach in Europe. Kraken previously consolidated its Dutch broker BCM into its platform following an acquisition in September 2024, and later began serving the European Economic Area through its Irish MiCA entity as part of a unified regulatory framework described in its own updates.
While HashKey’s announcement focused on front-end unification and localized compliance management, the comparisons underline a recurring industry reality: even when users see one platform, regulatory coverage often still depends on separate entity structures by region.
Why the consolidation matters for users and operators
For traders and other market participants, a single platform experience can reduce confusion—especially for users who operate across multiple regions or relocate. It can also streamline onboarding workflows by limiting differences in user interfaces, login flows, and product access that often vary between regional exchange branches.
From an operator standpoint, unifying applications can simplify support, infrastructure choices, and product delivery. Rather than maintaining parallel front ends and workflows for each jurisdiction, the firm can focus on one user experience and then apply compliance controls based on user location or jurisdictional classification.
Still, HashKey’s announcement also highlights a key tension in exchange consolidation: customer-facing simplicity does not necessarily mean one set of rules. The “localized compliance” framing suggests that while the application is shared, users may be governed by different legal and compliance arrangements depending on where they fall within HashKey’s described jurisdictional domains.
What to watch next after HashKey’s rollout
As HashKey moves to the unified platform, users should pay close attention to how access, account requirements, and compliance checks behave in each jurisdiction—particularly whether the transition changes onboarding steps or documentation expectations for customers in Hong Kong, Singapore, or the Middle East.
For the broader market, the move signals that exchange operators are continuing to modernize the customer layer of their businesses, even while regulatory requirements remain inherently local. The next phase to monitor will be how smoothly the migration completes across all described regions and whether HashKey expands the approach to additional products or services tied to licensing constraints.
New York Attorney General Letitia James has urged Congress to revise the CLARITY Act, warning that the crypto market structure bill could restrict states from prosecuting fraud and enforcing investor protection laws.
Summary
- James said the bill could preempt state investor protection laws and weaken local enforcement.
- State and local authorities account for about 98.8% of arrests nationwide, according to her testimony.
- Senate Republicans need 60 votes to advance the legislation through the cloture process.
- Banking, ethics and enforcement disputes remain unresolved before the Senate’s August recess.
James challenges the CLARITY Act’s enforcement rules
James raised the concerns in written testimony submitted to a Senate committee as lawmakers continued negotiations over the federal crypto bill.
She argued that the CLARITY Act would interfere with state investor protection laws and reduce the authority of state and local agencies to prosecute misconduct involving digital assets.
“This is a mistake,” James wrote.
The New York attorney general said state and local law enforcement agencies conduct most enforcement work across the United States. According to figures included in her testimony, those authorities are responsible for about 98.8% of arrests, compared with roughly 1.2% by federal agencies.
“Despite this, CLARITY would neuter state and local law enforcement by preempting states and preventing them from fully prosecuting rampant fraud and violations of law by actors in the cryptocurrency marketplace.”
Her intervention adds to Democratic concerns about whether the bill gives state authorities enough power to pursue crypto fraud and enforce its proposed ethics restrictions. James has asked Congress to add stronger investor protection, anti-money-laundering and ethics safeguards to the legislation.
State enforcement becomes a Senate sticking point
Some Democratic senators have objected to giving the Department of Justice sole responsibility for enforcing provisions that restrict digital asset activities by public officials. They want state prosecutors to share that authority rather than relying entirely on federal enforcement.
The dispute matters for New York because the state has its own financial laws and an active enforcement record covering crypto companies. Federal preemption could limit how New York and other states apply their existing laws when federal and state standards overlap.
For US investors, the disagreement centers on who can act when a crypto company is accused of fraud. Supporters of state authority argue that local prosecutors provide another route for enforcement, while advocates of a national framework say consistent federal rules could reduce conflicting requirements across states.
The CLARITY Act would establish a broader federal market structure for digital assets and divide oversight responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Senate Banking Committee advanced the legislation 15–9 in May, but Democratic support at the committee stage does not guarantee enough votes on the floor.
Republicans still face a 60-vote hurdle
Senate Majority Leader John Thune is considering starting the floor process before lawmakers leave Washington for the August recess, even though passage before the break appears unlikely.
The process could begin with Thune filing cloture on a motion to proceed. That filing would typically set up a vote two Senate session days later, with at least 60 senators needed to advance.
If cloture succeeds, the Senate could debate the motion for up to 30 hours before voting on whether to formally take up the bill. Clearing that stage would not pass the CLARITY Act, but it would bring the measure closer to a full floor debate.
Republicans hold 53 seats and therefore need Democratic support even if the party remains largely united. Senator Mitch McConnell is expected to remain absent, while Republican Senators Josh Hawley and Rand Paul have not confirmed whether they would support the measure.
Both Hawley and Paul opposed the GENIUS Act during its initial Senate procedural vote in 2025, increasing uncertainty over how many Democratic votes Republicans may ultimately need.
Banking dispute adds pressure before the recess
Stablecoin rewards remain another obstacle in the negotiations. Thune told reporters that lobbying by banking groups over provisions allowing crypto platforms to offer stablecoin yield was affecting the talks.
Banks have argued that yield-bearing stablecoin products could pull deposits away from traditional financial institutions. Crypto companies have resisted broad limits, treating rewards as an important way to attract and retain customers. The same disagreement previously contributed to delays in the market structure talks.
Thune has also indicated that senators could offer numerous amendments if leadership files cloture. Meanwhile, other bills, including the SAVE America Act and proposed sanctions against Russia, are competing for limited floor time.
Charles Schwab has joined crypto industry groups in supporting the CLARITY Act, but James’s warning shows that enforcement powers remain a barrier to a bipartisan agreement. Without a deal on state authority, ethics rules and stablecoin rewards, starting the floor process may expose the Senate’s divisions without producing final passage before the recess.
X Money has begun rolling out to Premium and Premium+ subscribers in the United States, adding deposit accounts, instant transfers, and a Visa debit card directly to the social media platform.
Summary
- X Money offers annual yields of up to 6% and free transfers between users.
- Eligible X Card purchases can earn 3% cashback, with free ATM withdrawals also available.
- A cash sweep program provides eligible users with up to $10 million in FDIC coverage.
- X has not announced support for Bitcoin, Dogecoin, or any other cryptocurrency.
X Money brings banking tools inside the social platform
X Money combines peer-to-peer payments with financial services commonly offered by banks and digital payment applications. Users can send funds instantly to other X accounts without paying a transfer fee.
The service also includes interest-bearing deposit accounts with annual percentage yields of up to 6%. Eligible purchases made through the X Card, a Visa debit card connected to the account, can receive 3% cashback.
Subscribers can receive direct deposits as many as two days early. Other features include wire transfers, checks, free ATM withdrawals, and access to dedicated customer support.
X described the launch as the first peer-to-peer payment service built directly into a US social media platform. The company also claimed it is the first US social network to combine insured deposit accounts, interest earnings, a debit card, and broader payment tools inside its main product.
The rollout is initially limited to Premium and Premium+ subscribers in the United States. X has not provided a timetable for extending the service to free users or international markets.
Cross River Bank powers accounts and transfers
Cross River Bank provides the regulated banking infrastructure behind X Money. The bank holds customer deposits and connects the service to the payment networks needed to move funds.
Cross River operates an application programming interface-based banking system supporting accounts, transfers, and compliance services. The bank said the infrastructure can serve X’s large user base and support additional financial products as the platform expands.
Individual deposits held directly at Cross River receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation protection of up to $250,000. X Money also automatically places deposits in a cash sweep program that distributes customer funds among participating insured banks.
Eligible customers can receive aggregate pass-through FDIC insurance of up to $10 million through that program. However, X Payments is not itself a bank or an FDIC-insured institution.
Coverage applies only if a participating insured bank fails and the customer meets all applicable requirements. Users would therefore depend on the underlying banks and the sweep program’s records to establish their eligibility.
X Money uses passkeys to authenticate accounts and allows customers to create individual transaction limits and additional approval requirements. Visa provides security and risk-management protections for transactions completed with the X Card.
Musk previously outlined broader payment ambitions
X owner Elon Musk has discussed turning the platform into a hub for communications and financial services since acquiring the company, then called Twitter, in 2022.
During an internal meeting in October 2023, Musk described payments as covering more than transfers between friends.
“When I say payments, I actually mean someone’s entire financial life,” Musk said.
He added that services involving money or securities could eventually operate through X, arguing that users might no longer need a conventional bank account. The new rollout advances that plan, although its current features continue to rely on regulated banks and established payment networks.
Musk also announced in March that X Money would enter early public access in April. The wider rollout to eligible US subscribers follows that initial testing phase.
Bitcoin and Dogecoin remain outside X Money
Musk has previously supported cryptocurrency payments through his other companies. Tesla began accepting Dogecoin for selected merchandise in 2022, while Musk had earlier proposed allowing users to pay for Twitter Blue subscriptions with DOGE.
He has also described Dogecoin as better suited to routine transactions than Bitcoin, which he views primarily as a store of value. Tesla briefly accepted Bitcoin for vehicle purchases in 2021 before suspending the option over concerns about the energy used for mining.
Those comments have repeatedly fueled expectations that crypto could become part of X’s payment system. However, X has not announced support for Bitcoin, Dogecoin, stablecoins, or any other digital asset within X Money.
Musk has also rejected the idea of an X-issued cryptocurrency. Responding to warnings about unauthorized tokens in 2023, he said X had never launched a crypto token and “never will.”
For now, X Money operates as a dollar-based US financial service supported by Cross River and Visa. Any future crypto integration would require a separate announcement from X.
Bolton’s Ruth Madeley breaks new ground as star of BBC’sThe Rapture
FCPI ETF: Fighting Inflation With Strong Fundamentals And Moderate Volatility (BATS:FCPI)
Binance disappears from Google Play in certain EU countries
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 Reality Everyone Fears: A Brutal Financial Wake-Up Call
THEY ARE TIMELESS!!! First Time Reaction to ABBA – “Money Money Money”
bajaj finance, bajaj housing finance, jio finance share latest news, bajaj finserv, share anelysis
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Crypto World7 days agoGrayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
-
NewsBeat6 days agoHow a former Blue Peter presenter stunned America’s Got Talent judges
-
Tech1 day agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Tech7 days agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Tech7 days agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
Business6 days agoNew Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
-
Entertainment6 days agoJohnny Depp’s R-Rated Gothic Cult Classic Gets New Release Ahead of Sydney Sweeney Remake
-
Crypto World5 days agoEthics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
-
Politics14 hours agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
NewsBeat7 days agoShanghai science forum photos show China’s AI and robotics advances in rivalry with US
-
Sports4 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
Sports1 day agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
News Videos4 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Fashion4 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Politics1 day agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Entertainment3 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
Crypto World7 days agoAndrew Cuomo joins OKX board as crypto exchange expands in U.S.
-
News Videos1 day agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Crypto World2 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
You must be logged in to post a comment Login