SharpLink, one of the largest corporate treasuries focused on Ether, reported a significantly wider loss for the second quarter of 2026 as ETH’s price decline weighed on its balance sheet. The Miami, Florida-based firm posted a net loss of $394 million, compared with a $103 million net loss in the same quarter of the prior year.

In the company’s Monday announcement, SharpLink attributed the bulk of the loss to $321 million in unrealized crypto losses and $76 million in impairments related to staked Ether tokens. At the same time, the firm generated $11.5 million in revenue, including $11.1 million from ETH staking.

Key takeaways

• SharpLink’s Q2 2026 net loss widened to $394 million, driven largely by $321 million in unrealized crypto losses.
• Impairments tied to staked Ether amounted to $76 million, adding pressure beyond mark-to-market declines.
• Revenue remained positive at $11.5 million, with staking contributing $11.1 million.
• Cash and cash equivalents rose to $56 million from $28 million as of December 2025.

Unrealized losses dominate SharpLink’s quarter

SharpLink’s financial results underscore how sensitive large Ether treasuries are to ETH’s spot price and to accounting treatment for staked derivatives. The firm reported that its Q2 2026 loss included $321 million in unrealized crypto losses, reflecting changes in the valuation of its Ether exposure rather than realized selling losses.

That valuation pressure aligned with broader market conditions. Ether fell by around 23% during the second quarter of 2026, according to CoinMarketCap. While staking produced income, the scale of the unrealized mark-downs appears to have overwhelmed that support.

Staking income and staked-token impairments

SharpLink generated $11.5 million in revenue in the quarter, including $11.1 million from ETH staking, according to the company’s Monday announcement. For Ether-focused treasury strategies, staking can partially offset volatility by adding cash-flow-like yield.

However, SharpLink also recorded $76 million in impairments on staked Ether (ETH) tokens. This detail matters for investors because it suggests that performance isn’t determined solely by ETH price moves; the accounting and valuation of staked-token instruments can introduce additional losses even when staking revenue is present.

How much Ether SharpLink controls

SharpLink said it holds 632,784 Ether, worth about $1.2 billion, plus an additional 181,321 ETH—worth roughly $343 million—through various liquid staked Ether tokens. Combined, this creates a substantial balance-sheet exposure to Ethereum’s price direction, with liquid staked products carrying their own valuation and impairment dynamics.

SharpLink is currently described as the second-largest Ether treasury company. Based on StrategicEthReserve data cited in the report, Bitmine is the largest corporate Ether holder, holding 5.54 million ETH worth about $9.4 billion. SharpLink’s current holdings are estimated at 863,000 ETH, valued at about $1.46 billion.

Buying ETH after an eight-month pause

SharpLink’s latest results arrive alongside a notable change in its acquisition pattern. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the company resumed Ether purchases with a $7.8 million buy in late June after pausing for eight months. A second purchase followed days later, with SharpLink buying 10,000 Ether for about $16 million, as referenced by Cointelegraph.

That kind of buying at lower levels can be a strategic way to extend a treasury’s exposure when assets are discounted. Still, the Q2 financials show that even resumed accumulation doesn’t neutralize accounting losses in the near term when ETH declines sharply across the reporting period.

Treasury liquidity and equity-market reaction

SharpLink reported that its cash and cash equivalents totaled $56 million, up from $28 million in December 2025. Liquidity improvements can be important for corporate treasuries because they provide flexibility for operations and for potential future purchases—especially after a quarter marked by large unrealized and impairment charges.

On the equity side, SharpLink’s stock fell 3.9% on Monday, extending a 30% year-to-date decline, according to Yahoo Finance. For public Ether treasury companies, equity performance can reflect both the market’s view of treasury risk and expectations for how quickly staking yield and future purchases might offset volatility-driven drawdowns.

Going forward, investors should watch two things most closely: whether SharpLink’s staking revenue trend can stabilize amid continued ETH volatility, and how future quarters treat liquid staked token valuations and impairments—particularly if ETH’s price swings produce new mark-to-market pressure.

That amount is smaller than the ETF outflows. But in financial markets, price is set at the margin. The most recent buyers and sellers, not the cumulative volume over months, determine where the price goes. In a downtrend, when buying interest is already weak, even relatively modest and steady selling can have an outsized impact.

“Early year sales from public miners are an underdiscussed contributing factor [in] Bitcoin’s poor price performance in 2026,” the research and analysis division of Blockware Solutions said in its latest newsletter.

Many of these companies are facing squeezed margins, with the average cost to produce one bitcoin at $74,300. In response, a growing number are pivoting into AI and using their secured high-voltage electrical capacity to support that shift.

At the same time, mining difficulty, the computational work needed to add a new block, has fallen about 18% from its November peak, marking the longest stretch of declining hashrate.

In other words, the exodus and AI pivot of several large miners has eased competition, making BTC cheaper to mine and boosting rewards for those still in the game, a classic free-market reset that could lure new miners back in.

“In other words, the rest of the miners are earning ~18% more Bitcoin now than they were 10 months ago. The exodus of the largest players in the industry is improving the economics for the miners that remain,” Blockware said.

FlightAware, the aviation data company behind real-time flight tracking and status updates, has sued Kalshi in New York federal court over Kalshi’s use of FlightAware’s “data and name” to power prediction market contracts tied to flight cancellations. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday, accuses Kalshi of continuing to list event contracts using FlightAware’s registered trademark and purportedly “verified” flight-cancellation information despite repeated demands to stop.

The lawsuit adds a reputational and safety dimension to the broader legal battle already surrounding prediction markets in the US. FlightAware argues that wagering tied to flight disruptions could create incentives for manipulation and even interfere with air travel, while also positioning FlightAware as being involved in alleged “illicit” activity through unauthorized branding and data use.

Key takeaways

• FlightAware sued Kalshi in New York federal court, alleging continued use of FlightAware’s trademark and flight-cancellation data in prediction market contracts.
• The complaint frames flight events as safety-relevant, arguing wagers could incentivize participants to interfere with cancellations or pressure aviation workers to cut corners.
• Regulatory pressure on prediction markets is escalating, with states and federal regulators already contesting whether event contracts function as illegal gambling.
• FlightAware says customers may assume involvement due to the way Kalshi presents “verified by FlightAware” information and FlightAware branding.

Trademark and data-use claims put FlightAware at the center

According to the Monday filing in the Southern District of New York, FlightAware contends that Kalshi kept publishing event contracts related to flight cancellations even after FlightAware demanded Kalshi stop using its registered trademark. FlightAware also claims Kalshi continued to advertise those markets as being “verified by FlightAware’s data,” effectively tying FlightAware’s brand and information to the trading activity.

FlightAware’s lawsuit asserts multiple legal theories, including trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to its reputation, and unfair competition. The company characterizes the expansion of Kalshi’s trading into commercial flight operations—reported as starting in July—as amplifying the reputational stakes of unauthorized association.

“[T]here was widespread outrage and concern that the markets would incentivize unsafe tactics to impact cancellations, threatening public safety and creating the potential for massive disruption of air travel. Airlines condemned the markets,” said the lawsuit. “And due to Kalshi’s unauthorized use of FlightAware’s data and mark, customers immediately assumed that FlightAware was involved in the scheme.”

The complaint describes FlightAware’s requested remedy as preventing “harm to public safety” before any alleged damage grows—an argument that goes beyond branding disputes and into how flight-event markets might influence behavior.

Why flight-cancellation markets are central to the safety argument

While the lawsuit is anchored in trademark infringement and related business claims, it also makes a broader case that some prediction market structures can distort incentives—especially when participants may have information before it becomes public.

FlightAware’s filing points to concerns about manipulation in event contracts generally—particularly cases where traders might know more than the public until an event is formally disclosed. The filing references public reporting that has highlighted unusual betting activity in other contexts, including claims tied to political speech wording and allegations involving alleged nonpublic information.

On flight disruptions specifically, FlightAware argues Kalshi’s model risks creating incentives to affect outcomes that are operationally complex and safety-sensitive. In its complaint, FlightAware contends that:

“A market that allows the public to wager on whether flights will be delayed or cancelled creates an incentive for participants to interfere with air travel—including by causing or contributing to flight cancellations—to profit from their wagers.“

“Worse, wagers on flights being timely may incentivize airline, airport, or other aviation workers to cut corners to keep a flight on time.“

Advertisement

The practical implication for investors and users of prediction markets is that the debate is not only about legality; it’s also about whether these markets create behavioral pressures that regulators and consumers should treat differently from, say, entertainment-focused or purely informational forecasts.

Prediction markets face a wider legal showdown in the US

FlightAware’s suit arrives amid intensifying legal scrutiny of prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The company’s complaint is described as another step in a pattern of court challenges where gaming authorities have asked judges to halt or block event contracts for residents in their states.

Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Michigan has sought to block Kalshi’s sports betting contracts. More broadly, the continuing legal conflict is expected to develop into a standoff between federal regulators and state officials over whether certain prediction markets amount to illegal gambling under state law, with attention often focused on sports-betting-adjacent products.

Within that landscape, FlightAware’s complaint is notable for targeting the infrastructure behind a specific market type: the data feeds and branding used to connect aviation status information to tradable events. Even if a court ultimately decides the “wager” question in a different frame, the trademark and reputational claims could still materially affect how prediction markets partner with, or reference, data providers.

Market dominance and scale add pressure

The source also points to a report from Predicted’s “State of Prediction Markets – Q2 2026,” which says Kalshi and Polymarket combined controlled more than 90% of all prediction market volume, and together had more than $90 billion in second-quarter notional volume. While this figure is not part of FlightAware’s lawsuit, it helps explain why disputes involving major platforms and data sources attract immediate attention: the potential impact of any court outcome is amplified by the scale at which these venues operate.

At the same time, scale can cut both ways. For data providers and industry stakeholders, widely used prediction products increase the cost of getting the compliance picture wrong—especially when branding and “verified” claims link a company’s name to markets that may be perceived as encouraging unsafe interference or manipulation.

Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Kalshi for comment on the lawsuit but did not receive an immediate response.

Readers should watch how courts address both strands of this conflict—whether event contracts are treated as wagers under relevant laws, and whether unauthorized trademark and data-use claims can force changes to how prediction platforms source and present verified information. The next developments in the case could determine how far prediction markets can go in partnering with real-world data providers without triggering safety and compliance concerns.

ARP Digital, a Bahrain-based institutional digital asset infrastructure provider, has obtained a broker-dealer license from Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA). The approval enables the firm to provide regulated conversions between digital assets and the UAE dirham for eligible clients in the United Arab Emirates.

According to ARP Digital, the license is designed for UAE-based corporates, capital markets participants and qualified investors, including conversions involving stablecoins and dirhams. The company also positions the approval as a regulated route for institutions to convert digital asset capital for deployment into local UAE investments.

Key takeaways

• ARP Digital secured a VARA broker-dealer license, allowing regulated digital asset-to-dirham conversions in Dubai.
• Conversions can include stablecoins and UAE dirhams, targeting corporates, capital markets players and qualified investors.
• The license expands ARP Digital’s regulated footprint in the Gulf, following its authorization in Bahrain.
• Dubai’s VARA continues expanding its licensed market structure, with additional broker-dealer approvals reported alongside this move.

Broker-dealer approval for regulated UAE conversions

ARP Digital said the VARA broker-dealer license authorizes it to offer regulated “conversions between digital assets and the UAE dirham.” In practical terms, that matters for institutions seeking compliant on-ramps and off-ramps, particularly where stablecoins are used as a bridge asset between fiat and crypto exposure.

The firm’s stated scope includes both sides of the process: converting between stablecoins and dirhams, and providing a structured pathway for institutions to repurpose digital asset capital into investments tied to the local UAE market.

Bahrain license underpins the Gulf expansion

The VARA approval is described by ARP Digital as its second regulated Gulf market access point. In Bahrain, the company says it is licensed by the Central Bank of Bahrain and has handled more than $3.5 billion in processed volume for over 450 institutional and corporate counterparties.

ARP Digital also claims fourfold year-over-year growth in 2025 in its Bahrain operations. While the figures are company-provided, the broader implication for investors and institutions is clear: the firm is leveraging an existing regulated track record to extend similar infrastructure capabilities into Dubai’s expanding regulatory framework.

Institutional infrastructure beyond conversions

ARP Digital’s offering is not limited to fiat-crypto exchange services. The company lists institutional capabilities including:

• Over-the-counter (OTC) liquidity for large trades
• Cross-border settlement
• Fiat on- and off-ramps
• Wealth management

This matters because regulated conversion licenses can be a prerequisite for broader institutional workflows—particularly those that involve clearing requirements, risk controls, and compliance-oriented client onboarding. For market participants, the ability to access regulated routes for stablecoin and digital asset exposure can reduce operational friction compared with ad-hoc counterparties.

Dubai’s regulatory momentum and related broker-dealer approvals

The news arrives as Dubai continues to widen the perimeter of its regulated digital asset sector. VARA, established in 2022, regulates the provision, use and exchange of virtual assets in and from Dubai. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that VARA issued its 50th virtual asset service provider license in July.

Competition and market depth are also being shaped by new approvals. On Tuesday, Flowdesk—described as a crypto market maker backed by Coinbase Ventures and BlackRock—received a full VARA broker-dealer license. That authorization enables Flowdesk to serve qualified and institutional investors in and from Dubai.

Taken together, the sequence suggests VARA is not only expanding the number of licensed entities but also deepening the institutional services available under its framework—an important factor for liquidity, pricing efficiency, and the maturation of regulated crypto rails in the UAE.

What to watch next

With ARP Digital now licensed to conduct regulated stablecoin and digital asset conversions into UAE dirhams, institutions active in the region will likely focus on how quickly the firm ramps operational capacity, expands counterparties, and integrates its conversion services with broader OTC and settlement offerings. Observers should also track how VARA continues to scale licensing and enforce requirements as the Dubai market grows more crowded with specialized broker-dealers.

A painstaking investigation into crypto-focused recruitment tactics has exposed how suspected North Korean IT workers operate when they think they’re joining a legitimate startup. In a ruse carried out over five weeks, researchers built a fictitious company called Ballena Azul and invited suspected operatives to develop software and complete tasks inside controlled virtual environments—allowing analysts to observe their day-to-day tooling, workflows, and infrastructure choices.

As described in reporting by Cointelegraph, the project was designed and executed by Mauro Eldritch, founder of cybersecurity firm BCA LTD, and Heiner García, a cyber threat intelligence analyst at Telefónica Tech and founder of NorthScane. The operation leveraged infrastructure from cybersecurity platform ANY.RUN, and Cointelegraph joined for one stage of the contact with the supposed hiring team.

Key takeaways

• Researchers used a fake crypto startup, Ballena Azul, to study suspected DPRK recruitment and working methods inside controlled virtual desktops.
• One of the most valuable findings was the use of external intermediary servers—some linked to earlier North Korean malware campaigns that were still active.
• The suspected workers often relied heavily on AI tools to compensate for technical gaps and to help with coding, writing, and document manipulation.
• The scheme showed how threat actors can pose as employees to gain access to internal systems, code, and credentials without deploying malware immediately.
• Earlier cases reported by US and industry entities indicate this approach is evolving, spanning remote access strategies and identity manipulation.

From recruitment to “startup” onboarding

The Ballena Azul operation began when García connected with a recruiter via GitHub, after the recruiter was associated with Famous Chollima, a threat group linked to DPRK IT-worker activity. According to García, the startup needed software developers, and the recruiter offered multiple names for candidates—at least two of whom presented US identification.

As the interviews and onboarding progressed, the researchers used aliases to maintain the deception. Eldritch took on the persona of co-founder “Leonardo Nelson,” while García posed as “Andy Jones,” the team lead. Developers were assigned programming tasks inside controlled virtual desktop environments, which enabled the researchers to monitor what tools they reached for, how they responded when problems appeared, and how they handled technical obstacles.

To test the candidates’ responses, the researchers deliberately introduced issues, including selective network outages and changes to user interaction cues such as disappearing mouse cursors. In García’s account, the biggest surprise wasn’t only the tooling—it was the lack of a uniform corporate process. Instead, he described a pattern of improvisation rather than a rigid playbook.

Infrastructure clues and the “reuse” problem

Beyond the day-to-day behavior of the operatives, the investigation highlighted the role of infrastructure “in-between” moments. During the ruse, analysts identified external servers that acted as intermediary points before suspected workers connected to the controlled virtual desktops used by the researchers.

García told Magazine that some of those servers were associated with malware families tied to prior North Korean campaigns, including InvisibleFerret and BeaverTail/OtterCookie. He said at least some of the intermediary servers were still active, suggesting that operational components can remain in use for extended periods—an issue that matters for defenders because long-lived infrastructure increases the window for compromise and detection evasion.

At the same time, García noted that other servers appeared entirely new from an intelligence perspective, “clean” and not previously documented in mainstream threat feeds or blocklists. That combination—some reuse of known infrastructure alongside previously unseen resources—underscores why investigations focused only on established indicators may miss portions of an operation.

“Some of the servers we found were tied back to distributing InvisibleFerret and BeaverTail/OtterCookie in prior years and were active to this day,” García said, adding that others were not previously tied to intelligence tracking.

AI-assisted impersonation and credential theft risk

The working environment also revealed how the operatives attempted to maintain productivity. The researchers found extensive use of AI tools for coding and other tasks that candidates struggled to complete on their own. According to García, they used ChatGPT for writing and coding, including help answering basic questions and finishing assignments. For image alteration and document forgery, García said the group showed a preference for Google Gemini.

The investigation also documented the wider operational toolkit suspected workers used: remote desktop software, crypto wallets, and services designed for sharing two-factor authentication codes. The implication is not simply that these actors can deploy malware, but that they may not need to—once hired, they can use legitimate access to reach sensitive internal information. Researchers described the long-term advantage as well: staying undetected allows threat actors to collect salaries for as long as they remain in place, which can support DPRK funding objectives.

Cointelegraph’s reporting situates this in a broader pattern of AI adoption across DPRK-linked activity. The same piece points to Reuters reporting that another North Korean hacking group, Kimsuky, uses AI locally to automate parts of cyberattacks and generate more convincing phishing materials. While those accounts involve different operators and likely different goals, together they suggest a trend toward integrating generative tools into cyber workflows.

How the ruse unraveled—and what stayed hidden

After weeks of tasks inside the controlled environments, researchers staged an internal disruption to force the operatives to react. They introduced a new persona—“Benito Camella,” a co-founder who supposedly had been busy in Milan while hiring accelerated. When Camella “returned,” the confrontational sequence was meant to expose inconsistencies in identity and documentation.

During the confrontation, the chat room rapidly emptied. One developer, Espree, left the video call first, while another, Anderson, stayed longer before realizing the scheme was collapsing. Even after the meeting ended, the researchers maintained the facade through company communications: the fake CEO accused “Andy Jones” of bringing in “illegal workers,” and “Jones” responded that he was pressured to build quickly and believed he was not being compensated adequately.

That staged dispute ended with “termination” of the working relationship and friendship, framing the collapse as the result of a hiring disaster. Afterward, one suspected operative contacted García privately to apologize and check whether he was okay. Researchers said they never heard from the rest of the group again, and—importantly—believe the operatives remained unaware that they had spent weeks helping analysts extract intelligence.

Why this matters for crypto and broader cybersecurity

North Korea-linked IT-worker schemes have increasingly been linked to threats against the cryptocurrency sector and beyond. Cointelegraph notes industry and government-linked reporting that shows how these operations can involve recruiting developers through intermediary channels, using remote-access pathways to appear legitimate, and targeting organizations for access to internal systems and sensitive data.

Earlier examples referenced in the same reporting include ConsenSys’ statement in July that it engaged a North Korea-linked developer through a third-party service provider before cutting off access. The piece also highlights a US Justice Department case alleging nearly $1 million in cryptocurrency theft by four North Korean nationals charged in connection with remote job fraud using false identities. Separately, the US Treasury has stated that North Korean IT-worker schemes generated nearly $800 million in 2024 to support the regime’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

For crypto investors, operators, and builders, the practical takeaway is that supply-chain and workforce risk remains as relevant as direct hacking. Even without an immediate malware payload, credential exposure and internal access can provide a pathway to funds and sensitive operational data—especially when attackers use “legitimate work” as cover for months-long persistence.

As defenders analyze what the Ballena Azul ruse exposed—especially intermediary server reuse and AI-enabled workflow patterns—the next step for organizations will be to tighten verification and monitor remote-access and identity controls continuously, not only when known indicators appear. The most uncertain element for now is how quickly threat actors will adapt their operational tooling and infrastructure in response to investigations like this one.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley has won the Democratic primary race for Wisconsin’s governorship, toppling his Democratic socialist opponent, Francesca Hong, who had surged in the polls leading up to Tuesday.

What turned out to be a razor-thin contest wasn’t called by the Associated Press until early Wednesday morning, after a delay in tabulating votes from Milwaukee. Earlier in the night, Hong had urged her supporters to unite behind the eventual winner for the November general election against Republican nominee, Rep. Tom Tiffany, who has been backed by President Donald Trump. “No matter who’s on this ballot, y’all, we are going to fight to win for one another,” Hong said.

Crypto.com has launched tokenized stock derivatives tied to 1,500 U.S. equities and ETFs, giving eligible users access to the products from $1 with trading available around the clock.

According to Crypto.com’s official announcement on Wednesday, the Tokenized Stocks offering is available through its app to eligible users in the European Economic Area and other approved jurisdictions, with products tracking companies including Nvidia, Tesla and Apple.

The initial selection also covers exchange-traded funds such as SPDR Gold Shares and iShares Silver Trust, which provide exposure to gold and silver, respectively. Crypto.com said the products support fractional positions, fast settlement, and 24/7 trading outside the normal hours of U.S. stock exchanges.

Unlike buying shares through a traditional broker, however, Crypto.com users are not purchasing the underlying stocks. The Tokenized Stocks are derivative financial instruments designed to follow the price performance of the corresponding equities or ETFs.

As a result, holders do not receive legal or beneficial ownership of the securities or the shareholder rights attached to them. Eligible users may instead receive dividend-equivalent adjustments under the terms of the products.

Crypto.com tokenized stocks provide synthetic U.S. equity exposure

The structure means a Tokenized Stock referencing Apple is designed to move with the underlying Apple share price without turning the buyer into an Apple shareholder.

Crypto.com said the underlying assets supporting its Tokenized Stocks are held in custody with Alpaca, a U.S.-regulated self-clearing broker-dealer. According to the exchange, Alpaca provides infrastructure supporting more than 90% of the tokenized U.S. stock and ETF market.

The products are issued by Foris Capital CY Limited, the entity behind Crypto.com’s regulated investment services in Europe. Crypto.com acquired the Cyprus-based firm in May 2025, securing a Markets in Financial Instruments Directive license that allowed it to expand its regulated financial product offering across the European Economic Area.

Alongside 24-hour access, the exchange is offering zero-commission Tokenized Stocks trading to eligible users for a limited introductory period. Crypto.com cautioned that other foreign-exchange charges or spreads can still apply.

Kris Marszalek, co-founder and CEO of Crypto.com, described the product as another part of the company’s multi-asset strategy, saying users would receive “instant access to U.S. equity and ETF exposure.”

“Money never sleeps. Market access shouldn’t either,” Marszalek said.

The launch takes Crypto.com further outside its core cryptocurrency trading business as crypto platforms compete for users who want stocks, commodities and digital assets through the same trading interface.

Tokenized stock platforms are using different ownership models

Crypto.com’s derivative structure is one of several models now being used to offer stock exposure through crypto platforms.

Some products provide synthetic exposure to the price of a security, while other structures tokenize securities backed by actual shares and can preserve ownership rights attached to the underlying asset. The distinction determines whether a holder owns a security or simply holds an instrument designed to follow its price.

In June, Binance launched its bStocks product with tokenized versions of Nvidia, Tesla, Circle, Micron and SanDisk. The exchange said those assets are backed 1:1 by underlying U.S. securities and can be converted into direct stock positions without conversion fees.

Robinhood followed with another structure in July when it launched the public mainnet of its Ethereum Layer 2 network alongside tokenized stock trading. As crypto.news previously reported, eligible Robinhood Wallet users across more than 120 countries were given access to tokenized equities through supported decentralized exchanges.

Backpack also entered the market in July with 24/7 trading for tokenized U.S. stocks across more than 150 countries. Its tokenized stock offering was launched with direct ownership of selected equities and instant settlement, including exposure to companies such as SpaceX, Micron, and SanDisk.

The different structures have made ownership rights an important part of the tokenized equity market. Derivative products can follow the economic performance of a stock without transferring shareholder status, while tokenized securities can be structured to carry claims and rights associated with the underlying shares.

Tokenized equities draw more crypto platforms

Demand for onchain equity products has increased as exchanges, wallets, and tokenization companies add U.S. securities for investors outside the United States.

RWA.xyz data cited in the supplied report put the tokenized stock market at about $2.49 billion, representing an increase of roughly 600% over the previous year. Citi has estimated that tokenized securities could become a $5.5 trillion market by 2030, including about $2.6 trillion in tokenized equities.

Crypto trading firms have also started expanding how tokenized stocks can be used after purchase rather than limiting them to simple price exposure.

In July, Kraken allowed eligible users to use 10 xStocks assets as collateral for futures and margin trading on Kraken Pro. The collateral expansion lets traders support leveraged cryptocurrency positions with selected tokenized stocks and ETFs without first selling those holdings.

Bitget Wallet had already integrated more than 130 xStocks products in May, adding U.S. equities and ETFs to the same self-custodial interface used for crypto storage, swaps and trading. Other platforms, including Bybit, have also introduced forms of tokenized equity exposure for users outside the United States.

The market has consequently developed beyond one standard product design, with platforms using derivatives, fully backed tokens, custodial structures and blockchain-based securities to provide different forms of stock exposure.

Traditional market operators test tokenized securities

Established U.S. securities infrastructure providers are developing their own systems as crypto platforms add tokenized stocks.

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation has been working on a regulated tokenization service covering securities held in Depository Trust Company custody. In May, crypto.news reported that more than 50 traditional finance and crypto firms had joined a DTCC industry working group, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Circle, Robinhood, Ondo Finance, Nasdaq and NYSE Group.

DTCC said potential assets for its tokenization work include Russell 1000 stocks, major index ETFs and U.S. Treasury securities. The Depository Trust Company received a no-action letter from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in December 2025 allowing it to provide a defined tokenization service to participants and their clients for three years.

The infrastructure provider subsequently selected the Stellar public blockchain as part of its multi-chain strategy for tokenized securities. Under the plan announced in May, DTC custody assets eligible for tokenization include Russell 1000 components, major index ETFs, U.S. Treasuries and certain corporate and other bonds, with deployment on Stellar targeted for the first half of 2027.

NYSE has separately filed a proposed rule change with the SEC that would allow eligible tokenized securities to trade alongside traditional shares on the same exchange order book. Under the proposal, eligible tokenized assets would retain the same ticker, CUSIP, rights and privileges as their conventional counterparts, while clearing and settlement would continue through DTC.

US Senate Majority Leader John Thune has moved the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act toward a potential September floor vote by filing for cloture just before the chamber left for a month-long recess, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting. The bill is widely seen as a key attempt to formalize crypto market rules, but advocates say the path to enactment remains narrow as senators return with limited calendar time before multiple breaks tied to the November election.

The Senate is scheduled to come back from recess on Sept. 14. Even if lawmakers manage to schedule a cloture vote in September, they would have only about two weeks in session before another pre-election recess—and then a further stretch of time ending near the end of the year. In that compressed window, lawmakers would still need to resolve several disputed provisions rather than simply advancing the bill as-is.

Key takeaways

• John Thune filed for cloture to advance the CLARITY Act after the Senate broke for a month-long recess, setting up a possible September procedural vote.
• The Senate’s return on Sept. 14 leaves a short session window—about 14 days—before additional election-related recesses.
• Major sticking points reportedly include ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships and added restrictions around stablecoin rewards offered by crypto firms.
• If CLARITY stalls, regulators such as the SEC and CFTC have signaled they may proceed with rulemaking rather than waiting for Congress.

A rushed legislative runway after a long wait

Congress took more than a year to reach this point. Cointelegraph notes that the Senate had 13 months to consider the CLARITY Act after it was passed by the House last year. During that period, lawmakers faced political and procedural disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, while industry groups pushed for clearer market rules and some Democratic lawmakers raised concerns that earlier versions could enable what they described as “crypto corruption.”

Thune’s cloture filing is intended to keep momentum going, but it doesn’t eliminate the practical challenge: even under the best-case timeline, senators would still need to settle outstanding issues quickly. According to Cointelegraph, those issues include ethics-related provisions affecting the US president’s ties to digital assets and additional restrictions on crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.

That matters because procedural progress does not guarantee final passage. Should the Senate attempt a September cloture vote, the bill would still face the reality of remaining only a matter of days to address unresolved language before the chamber breaks again for the pre-election period.

Uncertainty grows around the November election

Even if the Senate clears procedural hurdles in September, election politics could complicate negotiations afterward. Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights that after November—when 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election—members of Congress could shift priorities or face turnover, potentially pushing resolution into the next legislative cycle.

For crypto market participants, that uncertainty is not just about timelines. Regulatory certainty can affect everything from compliance planning to product rollouts and institutional participation. When legislation is left in limbo, firms often continue to operate under existing frameworks—or in some cases under enforcement risk—until Congress or regulators provide clearer boundaries.

Regulators signal they won’t wait indefinitely

As the CLARITY Act remains in limbo for at least another month, attention is turning to regulators that can act without waiting for Congress to pass the bill. Cointelegraph notes that financial agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been publicly signaling their readiness to move.

The legislation is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. But with the bill still under consideration, both agencies have suggested they can proceed with their own regulatory approaches if Congress does not act.

In a July interview reported by CNBC, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress fails to pass CLARITY. Earlier, in April, CFTC Chair Michael Selig told Cointelegraph that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for overseeing crypto markets, referencing lawmakers passing the market structure bill.

Cointelegraph also points to coordination efforts between the agencies. The SEC and CFTC have reportedly taken steps to align oversight across financial markets, a sign that regulators are attempting to reduce duplication and inconsistent enforcement even when the legislative endgame remains uncertain.

What still needs to be solved in the bill

While supporters view CLARITY as a path to clearer rules for market structure, the bill’s most contentious elements appear to remain unresolved. Cointelegraph highlights two areas of debate: ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships, and additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.

These issues are consequential in different ways. Ethics provisions can determine how lawmakers structure guardrails around public officials’ exposure to digital asset activities, while stablecoin-reward restrictions could affect product design and customer incentives for certain crypto platforms. Both types of provisions can influence whether companies believe a bill would improve predictability—or instead impose new constraints.

For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that even a “September vote” scenario may not be sufficient by itself. What will matter is whether senators can agree on the remaining language quickly enough to complete the legislative path before recesses and election-related disruptions narrow the window further.

As Sept. 14 approaches, market watchers should focus less on the idea of a vote being scheduled and more on whether negotiators can close the gaps on the ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions—because if CLARITY slips, the SEC and CFTC have already signaled that rulemaking may not wait for congressional resolution.

Binance Chief Security Officer Jimmy Su said current quantum computers cannot break the cryptography protecting major digital assets, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, while warning that the industry needs to prepare before that changes. 

Su addressed the issue in an Aug. 11 Binance post covering five common questions about quantum computing.

Su said “current quantum computers are nowhere near the scale and reliability needed to break the cryptography protecting digital assets.” He described quantum computing as a long term security concern rather than an immediate threat to users.

Google research lowered the estimated quantum resources needed

The concern centers on Shor’s algorithm, which a sufficiently capable quantum computer could use to solve the mathematical problem behind elliptic curve cryptography. In theory, an attacker could derive a private key from an exposed public key and forge transactions. No quantum computer capable of doing that currently exists.

Google Quantum AI sharpened the debate in March. Its research estimated that breaking a 256 bit elliptic curve could eventually require fewer than 500,000 physical qubits and take minutes under specified hardware assumptions. That represents roughly 20 times fewer physical qubits than an earlier estimate, reflecting algorithmic improvements rather than a comparable leap in existing quantum hardware.

Su said “we’re talking about quantum now not because there’s an emergency today, but because waiting until there is an emergency could be much too late.”

Binance says ordinary security threats remain more urgent

For users, Binance is not recommending an immediate change in custody practices because of quantum computing. Su said phishing, malware, social engineering, compromised credentials and weak wallet security remain more immediate threats. He advised users to protect recovery phrases, use trusted software, keep applications updated and avoid unnecessary address reuse.

Su also cautioned against adopting untested products simply because they advertise themselves as quantum proof. 

“You could actually introduce more security risk today trying to protect yourself against a future threat,” he said. 

Binance said it is monitoring quantum developments and evaluating post-quantum security standards while preparing its infrastructure for eventual blockchain migrations.

Post-quantum work is already moving beyond research

The cryptographic tools needed for that transition already exist. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized ML-KEM, ML-DSA and SLH-DSA in 2024 and says organizations should begin migrating toward quantum-resistant cryptography now. Its current standards roadmap targets the eventual removal of vulnerable algorithms from NIST standards by 2035.

Crypto companies are also funding Bitcoin work. As previously reported, Strategy, BlackRock, Coinbase and six other firms pledged $15 million over three years to Bitcoin security research, with post-quantum cryptography among the consortium’s priorities. Galaxy separately committed up to $5 million for Bitcoin quantum readiness research and developer grants.

Ethereum is moving in the same direction. Its updated technical roadmap has moved quantum security higher among its development priorities, while researchers are testing account-level post-quantum protections.

Sui has gone further by announcing specific deployment targets. Its Aug. 6 roadmap plans quantum-safe vaults for mainnet in 2026, ML-DSA-65 accounts on testnet by year-end and native post-quantum account authentication on mainnet in the first quarter of 2027. The dates remain subject to audits and testing.

What happens next for crypto quantum security

The harder issue may be migration rather than designing algorithms. Bitcoin, Ethereum and other decentralized networks would need developers, wallets, exchanges, custodians and users to coordinate changes without stranding funds protected by older cryptography. Questions also remain over how networks should handle dormant or lost coins that cannot migrate voluntarily.

For now, Binance says no emergency action is required from ordinary holders. The industry’s growing research funding and network roadmaps instead point toward a gradual transition intended to finish before cryptographically relevant quantum computers become practical.

Bitwise Asset Management has cut 14% of its workforce, reducing its global team to about 155 employees as the crypto asset manager operates through a prolonged market downturn.

According to recent media reporting Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley confirmed the layoffs in an emailed statement, saying the staff reduction was completed last week and leaves the company positioned to continue expanding its business.

Horsley said the adjustment “equips us well for the ongoing growth we’ve seen this year and expect to continue as crypto further integrates into the global economy.”

Bitwise layoffs reduce global team to about 155

The 14% reduction means Bitwise entered August with a smaller workforce even as the company continued building its investment and staking businesses.

Market conditions have put pressure on some of the products managed by the firm. The Bitwise 10 Crypto Index Fund, or BITW, recorded a 31% drop in net assets during the first seven months of 2026, according to data cited by The Block.

BITW provides exposure to a basket of major cryptocurrencies, making the decline in its assets one measure of how the prolonged downturn has affected investment products tied directly to crypto prices.

Bitwise has continued launching and operating products despite the weaker market. In May, the company’s Hyperliquid exchange-traded fund recorded about $19 million in inflows during a single trading day, its largest daily inflow at the time.

Horsley said the fund generated roughly $22 million in trading volume that day, meaning most of the activity came from purchases. As previously reported by crypto.news, the Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF had launched on the New York Stock Exchange on May 15 with a 0.34% sponsor fee, which was waived for the first month on the first $500 million in assets.

Demand has also emerged for some of the company’s other altcoin products. In June, Horsley said Bitwise’s XRP exchange-traded products in the U.S. and Europe had collected more than $200 million in inflows since the beginning of 2026.

The inflows came while Bitwise continued expanding the range of regulated crypto investment products it offers, even as falling digital asset prices weighed on parts of its existing portfolio.

Acquisitions continue despite weaker crypto conditions

Alongside its fund business, Bitwise has used acquisitions to add services for institutional crypto investors.

In February, the asset manager completed its acquisition of Chorus One, an institutional staking provider. The transaction expanded Bitwise’s staking operations at a time when the company was continuing to build services beyond its core crypto investment products.

The workforce reduction therefore follows a period in which Bitwise has been adding businesses and launching investment vehicles while managing the effects of lower crypto prices.

Earlier in February, Horsley disclosed that one Bitwise wealth management client invested $11 million in Bitcoin during a market correction after spending roughly two years in contact with the company without previously buying crypto.

As covered in a February crypto.news report, Horsley said the purchase represented the client’s first crypto investment and argued that some institutional and high-net-worth investors were treating lower prices as an entry opportunity rather than simply reducing their exposure.

Bitwise’s latest staff cuts, however, place the company alongside several other crypto businesses that have reduced headcount during 2026.

Crypto layoffs have continued through 2026

In June, crypto custody and infrastructure company BitGo cut nearly 15% of its workforce as it redirected resources toward security, trading, stablecoins, settlement and artificial intelligence infrastructure.

BitGo CEO Mike Belshe described the reduction as a one-time action and said the company did not expect further cuts. The firm’s 2025 annual report listed 603 full-time employees at the end of that year, meaning a 15% reduction based on that figure would represent roughly 90 positions.

The company continued recruiting for selected positions after the cuts, with 51 roles listed across engineering, compliance, finance, sales, security and other departments. BitGo had also entered the public market in January after pricing its initial public offering at $18 per share and raising about $212.8 million. The June staff reduction came as its shares remained well below the IPO price.

Coinbase made a similar reduction in May, announcing plans to cut about 14% of its workforce while lowering costs during weaker crypto market conditions.

CEO Brian Armstrong linked the decision to both the market cycle and the company’s increased use of artificial intelligence. He said smaller teams were able to complete work faster with AI tools and outlined plans to limit the organization to five management layers below the CEO and chief operating officer.

Coinbase also planned to remove roles focused solely on management and test smaller teams in which employees could work across product, design and engineering functions. Coinbase announced the cuts while continuing to develop new products and expand its use of internal AI systems.

Kraken also reportedly cut around 150 positions in May as the exchange increased its use of AI across its operations. Bloomberg reported that the reductions could affect the timing of Kraken’s planned U.S. public listing, potentially pushing it into 2027.

Dune Analytics reduced its workforce by 25% during the same month, with CEO Fredrik Haga citing AI tools as the main reason for the restructuring while the blockchain data company concentrated resources on its core products.

Polygon Labs followed with another round of layoffs in July while working to complete its acquisition of Coinme and reorganizing its business around payments. The company had already been building a payments operation around Coinme, Sequence and its Open Money Stack after spending more than $250 million on the Coinme and Sequence deals.

Bitwise CIO sees signs of a Bitcoin bottom

While Bitwise has reduced staff, its investment team has remained positive about the direction of the crypto market.

Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan told Bloomberg on Tuesday that Bitcoin’s reaction to recent negative developments could mean the bear market has already reached its bottom.

Hougan pointed to Bitcoin’s ability to hold up despite delays involving the CLARITY Act and Bitcoin sales by Strategy. His view followed a July episode in which Bitcoin recovered after Strategy disclosed the sale of 3,588 BTC for about $216 million.

Horsley responded to that recovery at the time by writing that “Bitcoin wants to be higher.” Bitcoin had briefly fallen before moving back toward the $63,000 area, while Strategy said the sale was used to fund dividends tied to its Digital Credit securities.

Hougan also told Bloomberg that large wealth management platforms could become the “quiet catalyst” for the next crypto bull market, placing institutional distribution among the factors he expects to influence the market after the current downturn.