That testing has implications beyond speculative trading. As stablecoins move further into mainstream finance, networks will need to handle everything from multi-million-dollar transfers to everyday consumer payments.

“It needs to be cost-effective to send $100 million in stablecoins,” Macellari said. “But it also needs to be cost-effective to send $3.”

The fund’s active approach also reflects T. Rowe Price’s broader investment philosophy. Unlike many ETF issuers that simply track market-cap-weighted indexes, the firm believes crypto requires active security selection.

“We think good judgment and good decision making and active management probably matters more in crypto than any other asset class,” Macellari said.

Rather than simply buying the largest cryptocurrencies, the team evaluates assets using three layers of analysis: blockchain technology and token economics, ecosystem growth and adoption, and market momentum.

“You can be right on the fundamentals,” she said. “But if crypto Twitter doesn’t see it or doesn’t agree with you, you kind of stand in their way at your peril.”

Building beyond one ETF

Macellari says TKNZ was designed as a “grow-with-me” product that can expand as the regulatory landscape evolves. The ETF currently invests in between five and 15 cryptocurrencies, but its eligible universe is expected to grow as additional assets meet the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) generic listing standards.

Bitcoin holders could lose real BTC if they try to sell coins created by a potential BIP-110 chain split without first separating their balances.

BIP-110 fork could put real Bitcoin at risk

Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec warned holders against moving coins following a possible BIP-110 chain split, citing the risk of replay attacks.

A split would create two transaction histories with the same balances at the point of separation. Anyone holding 10 BTC before the fork, for example, would initially control 10 coins on each resulting chain.

This second balance may appear to offer free money if a buyer offers to purchase the BIP-110 coins. However, both networks could initially recognize the same signed transaction.

A buyer could copy the transaction used to transfer the forked coins and broadcast it on the main Bitcoin network. If accepted, the seller would transfer the same amount of real BTC to the buyer’s address.

The attack would not give the buyer access to the holder’s entire wallet. Only the inputs included in the signed transaction would move, while transaction fees could be charged on both chains.

Loaec said large holders may be targeted first because a successful replay involving their wallets would produce a larger return. Holders who do not know how to separate the balances can avoid that risk by leaving their coins unmoved, as there would be no signed transaction to replay.

Why Bitcoin could split at block 961,632

BIP-110, formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, seeks to restrict images, text and other non-payment data stored through Bitcoin transactions for about one year.

Miners can activate the proposal early by signaling support in 1,109 of a 2,016-block difficulty period, equal to 55% of blocks. That threshold has not been reached.

The proposal also contains a mandatory signaling mechanism. From block 961,632 through block 963,647, nodes enforcing BIP-110 will reject any block that does not signal support through bit 4. Lock-in would occur no later than block 963,648, with the new data restrictions becoming active at block 965,664.

Most miners are not signaling for the proposal. The BIP-110 tracker showed support near 2.6% on Friday, making it possible that enforcing nodes reject the chain supported by most Bitcoin mining power.

A second chain would emerge only if miners continue extending the BIP-110 branch. Without enough mining power, that branch could produce blocks slowly or stop advancing entirely. The split is therefore possible, but not guaranteed.

Replay protection remains absent during the split

BIP-110 does not automatically make transactions valid on one branch and invalid on the other. Its restrictions on transaction data are not scheduled to activate until block 965,664, expected around the beginning of September.

Until the chains produce coins unique to their respective histories, ordinary transactions may remain valid on both. Users would need to “split” their coins by obtaining and spending outputs that exist on only one branch before transacting safely.

Wallet providers or exchanges could eventually create tools to handle that process. However, users who attempt to sell forked coins immediately may have no clear way to confirm that the transaction cannot be replayed.

US holders could also face tax and record-keeping questions if the minority-chain coins acquire a market value. The immediate concern, however, is technical: spending the new asset could unintentionally transfer an equivalent amount of BTC.

BIP-110 opposition grows before signaling window

crypto.news previously reported that Blockstream co-founder Adam Back and Strategy founder Michael Saylor opposed BIP-110, citing censorship and chain-split concerns.

Saylor described the proposal as a consensus change arising from a dispute over spam and warned that it would establish a dangerous precedent. Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr has continued supporting BIP-110, arguing that non-payment data increases storage costs and moves Bitcoin away from its monetary purpose.

The mandatory signaling window is expected to begin this weekend, although the timing could shift because Bitcoin blocks do not arrive at exact ten-minute intervals. Holders who cannot verify that their coins have been separated face the lowest replay risk by waiting until wallets, exchanges, and miners clarify which chain they support.

BitMEX reportedly spent two years seeking a buyer before deciding to close the crypto derivatives exchange, as founder control, declining activity and legal baggage deterred potential acquirers.

BitMEX held sale talks for two years

BitMEX explored a sale with several potential acquirers over approximately two years but failed to secure an agreement, CoinDesk reported, citing a person familiar with the private discussions.

Potential buyers included rival cryptocurrency exchanges and payment and wallet company Exodus.

Broadhaven Capital Partners reportedly advised the Seychelles-based exchange during the process. crypto.news first reported BitMEX’s search for a buyer in February 2025, although the investment bank had reportedly joined the process in late 2024.

BitMEX was said to be seeking a valuation of approximately $1 billion. However, it remains unclear whether any interested company submitted a formal bid.

The reported sale attempt ended without a deal before BitMEX’s parent company, HDR Global Trading, completed a strategic review and approved the exchange’s closure.

Founder ownership reportedly complicated negotiations

BitMEX co-founders Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo and Samuel Reed left management after U.S. authorities filed criminal charges against them in 2020. Despite their departures, the three reportedly retained control of a large majority of the company’s equity.

According to CoinDesk’s source, the structure concerned at least one prospective buyer and made negotiations more difficult. Acquirers often reserve part of a transaction’s consideration for current managers, giving executives an incentive to remain with the business after a takeover.

That arrangement was harder to structure at BitMEX because the founders remained major owners without operating the exchange, the report said.

The company also experienced a management overhaul while its future remained uncertain. crypto.news previously reported that BitMEX replaced CEO Stephan Lutz with chief financial officer Ina Steiner, and growth chief Raphael Polansky also left. Former chief operating officer Peter Wilkinson subsequently became CEO.

Declining market share weakened buyer interest

BitMEX continued losing trading activity while the sale discussions were underway, limiting the valuation prospective buyers were willing to consider.

Monthly futures volume had exceeded $100 billion during parts of 2021 but declined to between $25 billion and $30 billion in late 2024, according to figures previously cited by The Block. CoinDesk’s source said the deteriorating business made buyers reluctant to pay the revenue multiple normally attached to a growing company.

Activity migrated to larger centralized exchanges and decentralized perpetual futures platforms. Hyperliquid recorded about $2.6 trillion in notional trading volume during 2025, nearly double Coinbase’s $1.4 trillion, according to Artemis data previously covered by crypto.news.

The shift carries added symbolism because BitMEX helped popularize perpetual swaps through its XBTUSD contract in 2016. The product allows leveraged positions without an expiry date and uses funding payments to keep contract prices close to the underlying spot market.

US legal history added reputational risk

BitMEX’s U.S. regulatory record reportedly presented another obstacle. The exchange pleaded guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act after authorities accused it of operating without an adequate anti-money laundering program. Its co-founders also pleaded guilty before receiving presidential pardons in 2025.

BitMEX now faces a proposed U.S. class action alleging that it profited from forced customer liquidations. As crypto.news reported, the plaintiffs are seeking the return of 622.66 BTC plus damages. The claims remain allegations and have not been proven in court.

BitMEX will move into reduce-only trading on Aug. 26, preventing users from opening new positions. The exchange will close on Sept. 23, ending an 11-year run. Customers have been asked to close positions and withdraw their assets before operations end.