Tether-backed Bitcoin-focused company Twenty One Capital has reported a $413.5 million net loss for the second quarter of 2026 after Bitcoin’s decline reduced the value of its holdings.

Bitcoin losses have dominated Twenty One Capital’s results

According to Twenty One Capital’s second-quarter financial report, a $401.5 million decline in the value of its Bitcoin holdings accounted for most of the company’s quarterly loss.

Twenty One Capital’s latest loss has shown how strongly its financial statements depend on Bitcoin’s price at the end of each reporting period. Because the company holds the cryptocurrency as its main asset, changes in Bitcoin’s fair value pass through its reported earnings even when it does not sell the coins.

The $401.5 million reduction tied to Bitcoin represented about 97% of the total second-quarter loss. Remaining expenses accounted for roughly $12 million, based on the two figures in the report, although the source did not provide a complete breakdown of those costs.

A similar effect appeared in the company’s first-quarter accounts. Twenty One Capital reported an $859.7 million net loss for the three months ended March 31, according to its SEC quarterly filing. An $847.8 million decline in the fair value of its Bitcoin holdings caused most of that loss.

As of March 31, Twenty One held 43,514 BTC with a reported fair value of $2.95 billion, down from $3.80 billion at the end of 2025. Its cost basis for the holdings stood at about $3.69 billion, while the price used to value each coin fell from $87,316 on Dec. 31 to $67,832 on March 31.

Combined, the first two quarters have produced reported net losses of about $1.27 billion. Nearly $1.25 billion of that amount came from the lower accounting value of the company’s Bitcoin, based on the first-quarter filing and the second-quarter figures.

Such fair-value losses do not necessarily represent cash leaving the business. The first-quarter filing shows that Twenty One sold one Bitcoin and recorded a $3,180 gain on that disposal, while the much larger loss came from revaluing the coins it continued to own. Bitcoin’s closing price in later reporting periods can reverse part of a previous loss or create another expense under the same accounting treatment.

Twenty One Capital plans businesses beyond its treasury

New CEO Raphael Zagury has said Twenty One cannot rely only on holding Bitcoin and must develop businesses capable of producing cash flow. His plan centers on buying operating companies, using debt and equity markets to raise capital, and offering loans secured by Bitcoin.

Zagury took over from Strike founder Jack Mallers on July 20, according to the company’s leadership announcement. Mallers stepped down to concentrate on Strike but remained involved in the leadership handover.

“Twenty One holds one of the largest Bitcoin balance sheets in the public markets,” Zagury said in the announcement.

“My job is to build the operating company around it, with the discipline, governance, and executional rigor of an institution.”

The company identified five strategic priorities when Zagury became CEO. In addition to acquisitions and Bitcoin financial services, management plans to develop its capital markets operation, manage its Bitcoin reserves through debt and equity transactions, and keep a holding-company structure for acquired businesses.

Zagury has experience across both traditional finance and Bitcoin infrastructure. Before taking the top job, he served as a Twenty One director and interim audit committee chair. His earlier roles included positions at Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and Merrill Lynch, while he also helped lead Bitcoin mining and infrastructure company Elektron Energy.

In May, Twenty One said it was considering a combination with Strike and Elektron that would have joined payments, mining, treasury management, and financial services. The company later removed Strike from consideration after Mallers left the CEO position, leaving the payments business as an independent company.

Tether has tightened control of the Bitcoin company

Twenty One began with support from Tether, Bitfinex, SoftBank, and Cantor Equity Partners. Its 2025 launch plan valued the business at $3.6 billion and called for more than 42,000 BTC, alongside capital raised through convertible notes and a private investment in public equity.

Tether later acquired SoftBank’s full interest in the company, crypto.news reported in May. The transaction removed a large outside shareholder and increased Tether’s influence over the listed company.

The original structure had included Bitcoin contributions from Tether, Bitfinex and SoftBank. A separate financing package consisted of convertible senior secured notes and common equity, with the proceeds allocated mainly to additional Bitcoin purchases and corporate expenses.

By the time Twenty One entered the public market in December 2025, its treasury had grown to more than 43,500 BTC. Earlier coverage of its debut noted that falling Bitcoin prices were already putting pressure on the stock and other digital-asset treasury companies.

Investors were also questioning whether Twenty One could develop enough operating revenue to distinguish its shares from direct Bitcoin holdings or spot exchange-traded funds. At the time, the company employed four full-time workers and had not provided a product-launch schedule.

Under Zagury, management has placed more attention on acquiring businesses and generating income rather than measuring performance only by the size of the Bitcoin reserve. Twenty One still uses Bitcoin per share, expressed in satoshis, as one of its internal performance measures.

The company’s first-quarter filing showed 12,557 satoshis per Class A share at both Dec. 31 and March 31. Twenty One had 346.5 million Class A shares outstanding at the end of the quarter, while its Bitcoin balance fell by one coin.

U.S. investors face Bitcoin and company-specific risks

Twenty One trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker XXI, giving U.S. investors access to its Bitcoin holdings through a regulated public stock. That exposure also includes corporate expenses, debt, management decisions, and share issuance, which do not apply when an investor holds Bitcoin directly.

The shares were trading near $4.59 on Aug. 11, while Bitcoin changed hands around $63,802. Because XXI represents an operating company rather than a spot Bitcoin ETF, its stock price can trade above or below the value of the Bitcoin attributable to each share.

Twenty One has also used Bitcoin to support its financing. Its first-quarter SEC report listed about $484.4 million of convertible notes and said 16,116 BTC served as collateral for them. Management stated that the pledged coins could not be treated as an available source of liquidity while they remained tied to the notes.

At the end of March, the company held $114.1 million in cash and $117.9 million in net working capital. Management said those resources were sufficient to fund operations for at least one year from the filing date and did not expect to sell Bitcoin during that period to meet ordinary liquidity needs.

A governance issue emerged after SoftBank’s representatives left the board following Tether’s purchase. As crypto.news covered in June, the NYSE warned Twenty One that its audit committee no longer met the exchange’s independence rules.

The exchange gave the company until June 5 to appoint a qualified independent audit committee member before attaching a below-compliance indicator to its listing. Twenty One appointed an independent director on June 8, according to its investor-relations records.

XRP continues to underperform amid market uncertainty and delays surrounding the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, while UE Crypto gains attention for yield options.

The cryptocurrency market has remained relatively calm, with a slight downward trend, while XRP has fallen to the bottom.

Over the past few weeks, the broader market has remained in a period of relatively stable volatility, while XRP, the cryptocurrency associated with the founders of payments company Ripple, has continued to underperform. When other cryptocurrencies rise, XRP tends to gain less; when other cryptocurrencies fall, XRP tends to decline more sharply.

The reason may be the current lack of transparency in the market — or, more specifically, the delay surrounding the long-awaited Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.

As investors explore cloud mining and yield opportunities, the weakness in XRP’s price has driven increased interest in UE Crypto.

Amid continued market volatility, XRP holders seeking cloud mining and yield strategies continue to show interest in UE Crypto.

XRP fell 1.24% on the day, while UE Crypto is promoting the development of long-term cryptocurrency yield solutions.

Today’s cryptocurrency charts show that the market is cooling down. Among the top ten cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, XRP recorded the largest seven-day decline, falling 4.96%, while Solana gained 3.64% and Bitcoin rose 1.17% over the same period. XRP also fell 1.24% on the day, while the broader market remained largely flat. The token’s price action appears to indicate that the Clarity trade is being unwound.

Driven by market sentiment, XRP’s price fell to a recent low, causing its market capitalization to shrink and temporarily losing its position as the world’s fourth-largest digital asset. The increase in short-term volatility has prompted some investors to reassess their future XRP investment strategies.

At the same time, an increasing number of XRP holders are considering other options: while maintaining a bullish long-term outlook for XRP, is there a way to mitigate the impact of short-term price volatility while generating consistent additional returns from their XRP holdings?

It is against this backdrop that the UE Crypto cloud mining platform has attracted increasing attention from investors seeking to hedge against market volatility and enhance returns through cloud mining and yield aggregation mechanisms.

As XRP volatility increases, UE Crypto emerges as a new option for investors

In light of the recent increase in XRP price volatility, more and more XRP holders are turning their attention to UE Crypto. They are seeking to explore more stable and sustainable yield models through cloud mining and yield aggregation mechanisms while maintaining their long-term digital asset holdings.

Unlike highly volatile leveraged trading or strategies that rely solely on price appreciation, the UE Crypto cloud mining platform provides a more accessible way to participate in digital asset activities. Users do not need to deploy mining machines or maintain hardware; they simply need to select a computing-power contract to participate in the mining service. This allows them to maximize the utility of their digital assets while maintaining their focus on the long-term outlook for XRP.

About UE Crypto

UE Crypto is headquartered in the United Kingdom and operates within European regulatory frameworks such as MiCA and MiFID II, continuously improving its transparency, operational standards, and user protection mechanisms.

The platform adopts a multi-layer security architecture, including:

• Annual financial and security compliance audits by PwC.
• Digital asset custody insurance provided by Lloyd’s of London.
• Enterprise-level network protection from Cloudflare and McAfee® security systems.
• Bank-grade data encryption technology and professional security infrastructure to provide multiple layers of protection for user assets and accounts.

UE Crypto supports a range of major digital assets, including XRP, BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC, DOGE, LTC, and SOL, providing users with a more flexible and convenient digital asset service experience.

Start earning daily returns in just three steps

1. Register an account

Visit the official UE Crypto website and register using an email address to receive a $20 trial bonus.

2. Choose a mining package

Based on personal budget and requirements, select a suitable cloud mining contract and start mining with a single click.

3. Start earning

Once the contract is activated, the system will automatically allocate computing power, and returns will be settled automatically every 24 hours. Users can withdraw their returns at any time or continue participating according to their needs, enabling long-term compound growth of their assets.

Popular UE Crypto contracts

• BTC (Beginner Experience Contract) Investment Amount: $100，Contract Term: 2 days，
  Daily Return: $4，Total Return at Contract Expiration: $100 + $8
• DOGE (Digital Intelligent System Contract) Investment Amount: $500，Contract Term: 5 days，Daily Return: $6.25，Total Return at Contract Expiration: $500 + $31.25
• BTC (Super Computing System Contract) Investment Amount: $1,000，Contract Term: 10 days，Daily Return: $13.10， Total Return at Contract Expiration: $1,000 + $131
• LTC (Algorithm-Driven System Contract) Investment Amount: $5,000，Contract Term: 25 days， Daily Return: $72，Total Return at Contract Expiration: $5,000 + $1,800
• BTC (Quantitative Intelligent System Contract) Investment Amount: $10,000，Contract Term: 35 days， Daily Return: $158，Total Return at Contract Expiration: $10,000 + $5,530

For more details about the contract plans, please visit the official UE Crypto website.

Summary

Bullish case

A daily close above the $1.0486 Fibonacci resistance level would provide the first evidence of buyers entering the market, potentially opening the way toward the EMA cloud and the $1.0887–$1.1066 golden zone. This would require the Clarity Act narrative to regain momentum rather than simply remain stalled.

Bearish scenario

A break below the $1.0128 low, followed by a loss of the psychological $1 level, could initiate a gradual decline toward and below $0.90. Both the death cross and negative squeeze momentum point in the same direction. At present, an upside move does not appear to be the more likely path.

The bullish case remains, but it is not yet sufficient. XRP is being viewed as a proxy for the Clarity Act, while market pricing suggests that the probability of the bill passing has fallen to 21%. For users holding XRP over the long term, market attention is shifting from relying solely on price appreciation toward more diversified ways of participating in the digital asset ecosystem.

For example, DeFi cloud mining services provide users with additional options for long-term participation in the digital asset ecosystem, allowing them to focus on the long-term value of their assets while exploring more stable and sustainable yield management strategies.

Join UE Crypto today and earn daily passive income through digital assets.

Majority Leader John Thune has moved the US Senate toward a potential September vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, using a cloture filing that would allow the sweeping crypto market-structure bill to be considered on the Senate floor. The measure is now set to face a tight procedural and legislative timeline once lawmakers return from a month-long recess.

However, the path to final passage remains uncertain. Senate Democrats and industry stakeholders have flagged key sticking points—including proposed ethics-related language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital-asset connections and additional limits on how crypto firms may offer stablecoin rewards. Even if cloture happens in September, the Senate could still have only limited time to resolve outstanding disputes before the chamber breaks again ahead of the November election.

Key takeaways

• Thune filed for cloture on the CLARITY Act shortly before the Senate’s August recess, setting up a possible September floor push.
• After lawmakers return on Sept. 14, they would have 14 scheduled session days before another recess tied to the November election calendar.
• Major unresolved issues include ethics provisions involving President Trump’s digital-asset ties and restrictions on stablecoin-reward offerings.
• If the Senate misses its window, election-year dynamics could further complicate negotiations during the next Congress.

A narrow procedural window after the September return

The Senate is expected to return from recess on Sept. 14, with only 14 days scheduled to be in session before the chamber breaks again ahead of the November election. After that pre-election recess, lawmakers would face another gap—followed by additional time before the end of the year—meaning the practical window for resolving disputes over the CLARITY Act could be measured in weeks rather than months.

Thune’s cloture filing is a procedural step that can bring a bill closer to floor consideration, but it does not settle the substantive questions that have delayed action. According to reporting referenced by Cointelegraph, lawmakers had not publicly announced deals on several provisions that remain contentious.

The stakes for market participants are straightforward: CLARITY is intended to create clearer market-structure rules for digital assets by setting out how responsibilities should be allocated across regulators. Without the bill’s passage, companies and exchanges are left navigating a patchwork of existing regulatory approaches and enforcement-driven expectations.

Why the Senate’s unresolved provisions matter

At the center of the political friction are provisions that would shape the compliance landscape and business models for parts of the crypto industry.

Cointelegraph’s coverage notes that the Senate version of the CLARITY Act has drawn attention to ethics language linked to President Trump’s digital-asset ties. Opponents have previously described the measure as enabling “crypto corruption,” a critique that contributed to scrutiny of earlier versions and broader resistance from many Democrats during the bill’s protracted journey.

Another major point of contention involves additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards. Stablecoin incentives have become a common customer-acquisition and retention tool in parts of decentralized and centralized finance, and limits in this area could affect how issuers and platforms structure programs, marketing, and risk disclosures.

Even if cloture is secured in September, lawmakers would still need time to address these unresolved elements before a potential floor vote—and the calendar may not provide enough runway to find compromises acceptable to both chambers.

How election-year uncertainty could reshape negotiations

The CLARITY Act has already taken more than a year to travel through Congress after the House passed it last year. During that period, the Senate faced multiple disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, along with sustained pushback from within the political system and from industry leaders. Opposition has also been fueled by concerns about conflicts of interest and the ethics framework attached to the legislation, as described in earlier coverage referenced by Cointelegraph.

Looking ahead, a procedural setback in September could carry consequences beyond simple delay. After November, 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election. Election outcomes can significantly affect committee priorities, legislative bandwidth, and which members remain in office—potentially slowing or resetting negotiations into the next Congress.

For investors and operators, election-year uncertainty can be more than a political inconvenience. Regulatory clarity delays often translate into longer periods of compliance experimentation, more reliance on legal interpretations and agency guidance, and greater sensitivity to enforcement risk—even when market activity continues.

Regulators may fill the gap if Congress stalls

With the legislation back in limbo, some market participants are turning their attention to federal agencies—particularly the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—for regulatory signals and rulemaking momentum.

Cointelegraph’s cited reporting indicates that the legislation would be expected to give the CFTC more authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. Still, the broader point for the crypto sector is practical: if lawmakers do not finalize CLARITY, agencies have indicated they can move forward through their own rulemaking or enforcement frameworks.

In a July interview highlighted by Cointelegraph, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress failed to pass CLARITY. Separately, Cointelegraph cited statements from CFTC Chair Michael Selig in April indicating that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for oversight—referring to the expectation of legislative passage that would clarify roles.

Both agencies have also reportedly taken steps to coordinate oversight of financial markets, according to Cointelegraph’s reference to a memo describing efforts to align regulatory approaches. That coordination matters because market structure rules can otherwise become fragmented—leading to inconsistent treatment depending on which regulator asserts primary jurisdiction.

In other words, even without CLARITY, market participants may not be waiting in a vacuum. The question is whether agencies’ actions will provide the kind of stability that a comprehensive market-structure law is designed to deliver.

For now, the most important thing to watch is whether the Senate can convert Thune’s cloture filing into actual floor movement during the post–Sept. 14 schedule—while negotiations continue over ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions; if that narrow window closes, both the political calendar and regulator-driven rulemaking could become the main determinants of how quickly compliance expectations evolve.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed separate civil lawsuits against Goliath Ventures and founder Christopher Delgado over an alleged crypto Ponzi scheme that raised about $400 million. 

The SEC said Goliath raised at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through an unregistered securities offering. Investors were told their money would be placed in crypto liquidity pools, but the agency alleged none of the funds or crypto assets were invested and Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use. 

In a separate action, the CFTC said approximately 1,600 customers contributed at least $397 million after Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The agency is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. 

The actions add securities and commodities-law consequences to a criminal case that has already produced a guilty plea, allowing the agencies to seek investor compensation, penalties and market bans beyond the consequences available through Delgado’s plea.

Delgado agrees to settle SEC case 

According to the SEC, Goliath promised monthly returns of 3% to 10%, generated from fees paid by traders using its liquidity pools, while guaranteeing investors’ principal. The complaint alleges the company instead used funds and crypto assets from new and existing investors to pay earlier investors and fabricated account balances and performance metrics. 

The SEC said Goliath paid commissions to sales agents who recruited investors. By November 2025, the company could no longer raise money quickly enough to meet obligations, stopped making monthly distributions and collapsed, according to the agency. 

Related: ‘I failed them’: Goliath Ventures CEO charged with crypto Ponzi apologizes

Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval, that would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the complaint. He would also be barred from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and from associating with a broker or dealer. The court will determine disgorgement, prejudgment interest and a civil penalty. 

Delgado previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. On June 30, the US Department of Justice said at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. He also agreed to forfeit properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme. 

Magazine: Japanese pension fund tips 1% in crypto, G7 urges action on NK hackers: Asia Express

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have filed separate civil lawsuits targeting Goliath Ventures and its founder, Christopher Delgado, accusing the firm of running a crypto-linked Ponzi scheme that raised roughly $400 million from investors.

The SEC alleges an unregistered securities offering that raised at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors, while the CFTC says approximately 1,600 customers deposited at least $397 million after Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The civil actions broaden the regulatory and financial consequences beyond Delgado’s already-entered guilty plea in a related criminal case, potentially enabling additional compensation efforts and market bans.

Key takeaways

• The SEC claims Goliath raised at least $425 million through an unregistered offering, with customer funds allegedly misused rather than invested as promised.
• The CFTC alleges around $397 million was solicited for Bitcoin and Ether trading, with the agency seeking restitution, disgorgement, and penalties.
• Delgado has agreed to settle the SEC case in a way that could impose long-term restrictions tied to the securities-law violations in the complaint, pending court approval.
• Both agencies’ civil suits aim to expand consequences beyond the criminal case outcome, including investor compensation tools and trading or registration bans.

SEC’s allegations: unregistered offering and diverted funds

According to the SEC, Goliath collected at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through what the agency characterizes as an unregistered securities offering. In the SEC’s account, investors were told their capital would be placed into crypto liquidity pools. The SEC alleges that no funds or crypto assets were actually invested in the way described to investors, and that Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use.

The SEC further alleges that Goliath told investors it would generate returns of 3% to 10% each month, purportedly funded by fees from traders using its liquidity pools, while also guaranteeing investors’ principal. Instead, the complaint states that the firm used money and crypto assets from newer and existing investors to pay earlier participants and that it allegedly fabricated account balances and performance figures to sustain the scheme.

The SEC also claims Goliath paid commissions to sales agents who recruited investors. It says that by November 2025, the company could no longer raise funds quickly enough to meet its obligations, stopped making monthly distributions, and ultimately collapsed.

The SEC’s case was filed in a civil posture, and it points to securities-law violations that go beyond what a criminal plea alone may fully address for market conduct and investor remedies. The SEC’s litigation release is available at SEC enforcement documentation.

CFTC case: alleged solicitation for Bitcoin and Ether trading

In a separate action, the CFTC said it received allegations that Goliath solicited funds from about 1,600 customers for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The CFTC stated that those customers contributed at least $397 million.

The CFTC’s complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. Those remedies are aimed at both financial recovery for affected customers and preventing continued misconduct or re-entry into regulated trading activity.

The CFTC announcement is posted at the CFTC press room.

Settlement terms in the SEC case, pending court approval

The SEC states that Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement—meaning parts of the agreement are subject to court approval. The proposed resolution would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the SEC complaint. It would also bar him from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and prohibit him from associating with a broker or dealer.

Under the SEC’s description, the court will determine the remaining components including disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. While settlements in these cases can limit certain future disputes, the ultimate financial numbers still depend on what the court orders.

The settlement agreement matters to investors because a court-ordered civil remedy can create a pathway for recovery and impose enforceable restrictions that reduce the risk of similar conduct returning through related entities or roles.

How the civil suits build on the criminal case

The civil filings come after Delgado previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The SEC and CFTC actions add securities and commodities-law consequences that can be pursued even when criminal proceedings already concluded certain issues through a plea.

Earlier coverage cited the role of the U.S. Department of Justice in the criminal matter, including a statement that at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. That same DOJ process included a forfeiture agreement covering properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts, and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme. These details underscore the breadth of alleged harm and the government’s view that the misconduct involved significant investor funds.

Viewed together, the SEC and CFTC suits reflect how U.S. regulators typically seek to address both investor protection failures and ongoing market integrity risks: criminal cases can punish wrongdoing, while civil actions can impose longer-lasting bans, restrict future participation in regulated activities, and pursue restitution-focused remedies.

What to watch next

The immediate next step is court approval of Delgado’s proposed settlement terms in the SEC case, along with the final determination of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. For affected investors, the larger open question is how the SEC and CFTC remedies translate into compensation and whether the civil findings strengthen broader efforts to freeze or recover misappropriated assets.