More users than ever. Less capital than ever. That contradiction tells you everything about where crypto actually is and why the entire marketing playbook needs to change.

The Number That Should Be Everywhere

559 million people worldwide now hold or use cryptocurrency.

That’s close to one in ten internet users on the planet.

That’s more than the entire population of the European Union.

That’s more users than Twitter at its peak. More than LinkedIn. More than TikTok had in its first three years.

559 million people. Using crypto. Right now.

And the market is down 48% from its all-time high.

That contradiction should be the most discussed story in crypto. Instead, everyone’s watching the price chart.

What The Numbers Actually Say

Let’s look at both data points together:

559 million users worldwide, the highest adoption number in crypto’s history, driven by regulatory clarity in major markets, spot ETF access in the US, and MiCA implementation across the EU.

$2.19 trillion total market cap, significantly below the October 2025 all-time high of $4.27 trillion.

In any other industry, record users with declining revenue would trigger an immediate strategic pivot. In crypto, everyone just keeps watching Bitcoin’s price.

But the data is telling a clear story if you’re willing to read it:

Crypto stopped being a speculation game. It became infrastructure.

And infrastructure doesn’t pump. Infrastructure just works.

Why More Users With Less Capital Makes Perfect Sense

In crypto’s early years, users and capital moved together. More users meant more buyers. More buyers meant higher prices. Higher prices attracted more users. The cycle was self-reinforcing.

That cycle is breaking, not because crypto is failing, but because it’s maturing.

Here’s what maturity looks like in every industry:

The early internet had millions of users and almost no revenue. Companies were burning cash, valuations were astronomical, and the actual utility was thin.

Then the bubble popped. Valuations collapsed. But users stayed. And the ones who stayed built the infrastructure that made the internet indispensable.

Crypto is at that inflection point.

559 million people using crypto aren’t all speculating. Many of them are using stablecoins for remittances. Using DeFi for savings in countries with broken banking systems. Using NFTs for digital ownership. Using crypto rails for cross-border payments.

They’re not trading. They’re using.

That’s infrastructure adoption. Not speculation adoption. And infrastructure adoption looks completely different on a price chart.

The Marketing Problem Nobody’s Solving

Here’s the strategic crisis that the 559 million number reveals:

Crypto’s entire marketing playbook was built for speculation. It doesn’t work for infrastructure.

Speculation marketing is easy: show price charts going up, promise life-changing returns, create FOMO, drive adoption through greed and fear.

It works. We know it works. It drove crypto from nothing to $4.27 trillion in market cap.

But it attracts the wrong users. Users who leave when the chart goes down. Users who have no loyalty to the technology because their loyalty was to the returns. Users who become critics when the price drops.

Infrastructure marketing is completely different: show reliability, prove utility, build trust slowly, demonstrate real-world use cases that don’t depend on price.

It’s slower. It’s harder. It requires patience that crypto culture was never built for.

But it’s the only marketing that works when your product has 559 million users and a declining price.

The Audience That Exists vs The Audience You’re Marketing To

Right now, most crypto marketing is aimed at a target audience that looks like this:

• Retail investor looking for the next 10x
• Crypto-native who already understands the technology
• Institutional investor looking for portfolio diversification
• Trader looking for volatility to profit from

But the 559 million people actually using crypto look like this:

• A Filipino worker sending remittances home cheaper than Western Union
• A Venezuelan saving in USDC because their local currency lost 80% this year
• A Nigerian freelancer getting paid in crypto because their bank won’t process international wires
• A small business owner in Southeast Asia using stablecoins to pay suppliers
• A European investor holding Bitcoin as a hedge through a Fidelity ETF

These people aren’t reading crypto Twitter. They’re not watching Bitcoin price alerts. They don’t care about the next altcoin cycle.

They care about whether the technology keeps working. Whether the fees stay low. Whether the product is reliable.

That’s a completely different user. And almost nobody is marketing to them.

Why The Price Chart Is The Wrong Metric

Crypto measures success in price. Every project’s homepage has a price chart. Every announcement mentions market cap. Every media outlet covers price movements first.

But with 559 million users, price is increasingly the wrong metric.

Think about how we measure the success of other infrastructure:

We don’t measure the internet’s success by the stock price of backbone providers. We measure it by uptime, speed, users, and transactions.

We don’t measure electricity grids by commodity prices alone. We measure them by reliability, coverage, and consumption.

We don’t measure banking infrastructure by bank stock prices. We measure it by accounts, transactions, and access.

Crypto has 559 million users, trillions in transaction volume, and critical infrastructure for millions of people’s financial lives.

And everyone’s staring at a chart that’s down from its ATH.

The measurement framework is wrong. And until the measurement framework changes, the marketing will keep targeting the wrong people.

The Trust Problem At Scale

Here’s what makes marketing to 559 million users fundamentally different from marketing to speculators:

Speculators need excitement. Infrastructure users need trust.

A speculator buys because they think the price will go up. Trust is almost irrelevant, if the price goes up, the speculator is happy regardless of whether the technology is trustworthy.

An infrastructure user relies on the technology for real financial needs. Trust is everything. A single hack, a single regulatory action, a single project failure can drive them away permanently, not because they lost money speculating, but because they lost something they were actually depending on.

Roughly 559 million people worldwide now hold or use crypto, close to one in ten internet users, largely due to strong regulatory clarity in major markets, spot ETF access in the US, and MiCA implementation across the EU. The audience has grown and moved further into the mainstream, yet trust is harder to earn. They are not looking for the next 100x thread on X. They are researching before they trust, and AI assistants are becoming part of that process.

That last line is critical. The new crypto user isn’t reading a whitepaper or following influencers. They’re asking ChatGPT if the product is safe before they use it.

Marketing that worked in 2021, hype, FOMO, influencer promotion, doesn’t build that kind of trust. It actively destroys it.

What Infrastructure Marketing Actually Looks Like

If you’re building crypto products for the 559 million who are already here and the next 559 million who haven’t arrived yet the marketing has to change completely.

Stop leading with price. Start leading with utility.

“Bitcoin is up 40% this year” speaks to speculators.

“Over 559 million people use crypto for real financial needs, here’s what they’re using it for” speaks to infrastructure users.

Stop creating FOMO. Start building trust.

FOMO drives speculation cycles. Trust drives infrastructure adoption. They require completely different content strategies, completely different channel choices, completely different measurement frameworks.

Stop targeting crypto natives. Start targeting the unmet need.

The Filipino worker sending remittances doesn’t identify as a “crypto user.” They identify as someone trying to send money home cheaply and reliably. Speak to the need. The technology is just how you solve it.

Stop measuring by price. Start measuring by utility.

Transaction volume. Active wallets. Use cases solved. Problems eliminated. These are infrastructure metrics. They don’t spike and crash with market cycles. They grow steadily over years.

The Opportunity In The Contradiction

The gap between 559 million users and a declining market cap isn’t a crisis. It’s an opportunity.

It means there’s an enormous, largely unaddressed audience of people who are already using crypto for real purposes but aren’t being spoken to by crypto marketing.

It means the next wave of adoption won’t come from convincing speculators to buy more. It’ll come from showing infrastructure users that crypto can solve more of their problems.

It means the brands that figure out how to market infrastructure, reliability, trust, utility, accessibility, will build something more durable than any price cycle.

The speculation era made crypto rich. The infrastructure era will make it indispensable.

Those are different goals. They require different strategies. And almost nobody is building the second strategy yet.

The Question Every Crypto Marketer Should Be Asking

Not “how do we make people excited about the price?”

But: “What are 559 million people actually using this for? And how do we make that experience better, more accessible, and more trustworthy for the next 559 million?”

That’s the marketing question crypto needs to be asking in 2026.

The users are already here. The capital will follow, but only if the infrastructure is worth trusting.

What are you actually using crypto for in 2026? Not investing using. Because that answer is more important than any price prediction.

BitMart’s official Chinese-language X account has issued a public ultimatum to the exchange’s founder, Sheldon Xia, demanding an explanation of customer funds and a repayment plan by Wednesday. The post alleges that some users still cannot withdraw funds and that certain employees have not received their final salaries or compensation, while urging Xia to disclose BitMart’s wallets, assets, liabilities, and available reserves.

The exchange, meanwhile, is already in wind-down mode. BitMart announced on July 26 that trading would end Aug. 26 and that operations would cease on Jan. 31, with new deposits and registrations stopped and withdrawals potentially subject to additional compliance and security reviews.

Key takeaways

• BitMart’s official “BitMart_zh” X account demanded founder Sheldon Xia publish a verifiable asset disclosure and repayment plan by Wednesday, threatening escalation to regulators and law enforcement.
• The post alleges continuing withdrawal failures for some users and unpaid final employee compensation, while calling for full transparency around BitMart’s wallets and reserves.
• Xia rejected the claims in a separate post, describing them as “fabricated rumors” and saying evidence has been preserved for a police report and legal action.
• On-chain reporting from Arkham attributed to BitMart wallets shows a sharp drop in tracked crypto holdings since late July, though the figures may not capture all assets and do not prove why balances declined.

A public deadline tied to fund transparency

In a Monday post, BitMart’s Chinese-language X account said some users remained unable to withdraw funds. It also stated that certain employees had not received final salary or compensation, and it demanded that Xia provide a repayment plan alongside a disclosure of BitMart’s wallets, holdings, liabilities, and available reserves.

According to a machine translation referenced in the reporting, the account warned that if Xia fails to deliver a verifiable disclosure and repayment plan by the deadline, it would continue submitting supporting evidence to regulators, law enforcement, lawyers, and the media.

It was not immediately clear who authored the post or whether the account still operates under company control. Cointelegraph said it reached out to BitMart for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

Founder’s rebuttal: “fabricated rumors” and legal escalation

Sheldon Xia responded on X on Monday, disputing the claims as “fabricated rumors.” In the response—again described via machine translation—Xia said his team had collected “full evidence” of what was posted on X and that it had been preserved for subsequent legal steps.

Xia said that during U.S. daytime hours he would file a police report and send a lawyer’s letter to X, requesting technical and data forensics. He also argued that employees were not being given priority over customers in how assets are handled, adding that “everyone is a client” and that there are no special privileges.

Earlier, Xia had denied that BitMart misappropriated user assets. In a separate message dated Aug. 8, he asked users not to rely on unverified claims or screenshots allegedly shared by current or former employees.

Wind-down timeline sets the context for withdrawal disputes

BitMart’s demand for transparency arrives amid a broader operational shift. As Cointelegraph previously reported, the exchange announced on July 26 that it would wind down its platform after its BMX token fell sharply and users reported withdrawal delays. BitMart said trading on the exchange would end on Aug. 26 and operations would stop on Jan. 31.

As part of the shutdown, the exchange stopped accepting new deposits and registrations. It also cautioned that some withdrawals could face additional compliance and security checks—an issue that often matters in wind-down scenarios, since custodial controls, account reconciliation, and eligibility review can affect withdrawal timelines.

The current dispute on X centers on whether those delays reflect normal wind-down procedures or an inability to access or account for funds. The account’s Wednesday deadline suggests it believes the missing transparency has become urgent enough to merit escalation.

On-chain snapshots: Arkham tracks a decline in BitMart-attributed wallets

Separate from the public back-and-forth, on-chain analytics provide a partial view of assets attributed to BitMart. According to Arkham’s wallet entity page referenced in the reporting, wallets tagged as BitMart held about $36.5 million in crypto assets as of Monday.

Arkham’s figures also show that this balance fell from roughly $71 million on July 26 and from around $102 million on July 6. While these numbers indicate a significant reduction over time, the tracked wallets may not represent all of BitMart’s controlled assets, and it remains unclear what caused the changes—whether customer withdrawals, internal consolidation, transfers to other wallets, or other movements.

For investors and users, this distinction is critical. In wind-down cases, decreases in tracked balances do not automatically translate to proof of full repayment or misappropriation. Instead, they raise questions about whether assets are moving to accessible withdrawal pipelines, to other custody locations, or into more opaque structures that may complicate verification.

What to watch next

The immediate focus is whether Xia will meet BitMart_zh’s Wednesday deadline with a verifiable asset disclosure and repayment plan—and whether the response can be independently substantiated. Beyond that, users should watch for clearer withdrawal communication tied to the exchange’s wind-down schedule, alongside any regulator or law enforcement activity stemming from the threatened escalation.

Tom Lee’s Ethereum treasury firm, Bitmine Immersion Technologies, has resumed accumulating Ether, adding 9,926 ETH in the week ending Aug. 16. The latest purchase brings the company’s total holdings to about 5.82 million ETH—around 4.8% of Ethereum’s circulating supply—bringing it close to a long-stated goal of owning 5% of all ETH.

While the move underscores Bitmine’s long-term conviction, the context is difficult. Ethereum’s extended bear market has meaningfully reduced the profitability of the treasury, with industry estimates indicating Bitmine is carrying more than $8.4 billion in unrealized losses on its ETH position.

Key takeaways

• Bitmine bought 9,926 ETH during the week ending Aug. 16, lifting total holdings to roughly 5.82 million ETH.
• That stake is valued at about $11 billion at a referenced ETH price of $1,893, but much of the ETH was reportedly acquired at higher prices.
• With holdings at ~4.8% of circulating supply, Bitmine is nearing its “Alchemy of 5%” target.
• Despite large unrealized losses, the firm continues staking more than 5 million ETH, supporting ongoing yield generation.
• Using a seven-day staking yield of 2.61%, Bitmine projects annualized staking rewards of about $287 million.

Bitmine’s weekly accumulation brings it closer to 5%

According to Bitmine’s disclosure on Monday, the company’s most recent tranche of purchases totals 9,926 ETH. The firm frames this as a continuation of its ETH treasury strategy, one that has led to weekly buying since launching the approach in June 2025.

By the end of the week ending Aug. 16, Bitmine’s ETH position totals roughly 5.82 million ETH. Based on the company’s own framing of Ethereum’s circulating supply, that equals approximately 4.8%. The firm has long described an “Alchemy of 5%” target—an ambition to accumulate 5% of the entire ETH supply—meaning it is now within striking distance of that milestone.

However, the purchase comes at a time when Ethereum’s market environment has punished portfolios built on aggressive accumulation. At an ETH reference price of $1,893, Bitmine’s holdings were valued at approximately $11 billion, but the article notes that a significant portion of the ETH was acquired at substantially higher prices.

Unrealized losses remain a central pressure point

The scale of Bitmine’s treasury continues to draw attention not just because of its size, but because of how far it has moved below prior acquisition costs during a prolonged bearish phase for Ether.

Industry data cited in the report suggests Bitmine is sitting on more than $8.4 billion in unrealized losses related to its ETH holdings. DropsTab’s estimate characterizes these unrealized losses as roughly 43% of the portfolio’s current value, based on the referenced valuation approach in the article.

This matters for investors and market watchers because a treasury strategy of this type is most resilient when it can offset price drawdowns with consistent yield. Without that, extended declines can turn accumulation into capital lock-up—especially when the target is based on a long-term percentage of supply rather than short-term price appreciation.

Staking keeps the treasury productive

Bitmine’s counterweight to unrealized losses is staking. The company said it is staking more than 5 million ETH, which it values at roughly $9.6 billion at current prices. By performing staking activities that help secure the Ethereum network, Bitmine continues to earn protocol rewards—turning part of its holdings into a more predictable cashflow stream tied to network participation.

Bitmine’s disclosure also highlights how staking yield can buffer volatility. Based on a seven-day staking yield of 2.61%, Tom Lee projected annualized staking rewards of roughly $287 million. The article frames these rewards as independent of Ether’s short-term price swings, emphasizing that yield accrues from staking activity even while market value fluctuates.

For readers assessing whether Bitmine’s strategy is sustainable, staking performance is therefore a crucial variable to monitor. If staking yields compress or if operational dynamics change, the balance between “paper loss” and ongoing earnings could shift.

What to watch as Bitmine heads toward 5%

As Bitmine pushes toward its “Alchemy of 5%” target, the next question is how quickly it can close the remaining gap from roughly 4.8% to 5% of circulating supply—while dealing with the reality that market pricing and acquisition costs may keep unrealized losses in focus. Investors should watch whether Bitmine maintains its weekly buying cadence, and whether staking yields remain strong enough to sustain the treasury’s economics during periods when Ether’s price lags.

BitMart’s official Chinese-language X account has demanded that exchange founder Sheldon Xia explain where user funds are, provide a verifiable disclosure of assets, and outline a repayment plan by Wednesday. The dispute comes as the troubled platform continues its wind-down process amid widely reported withdrawal delays and the earlier collapse in BMX token value.

In a Monday post, the account said some users were still unable to withdraw funds and that some employees had not received their final salary or compensation. It urged Xia to publish details including BitMart’s wallets, assets, liabilities, and available reserves, warning it would escalate the matter to regulators, law enforcement, lawyers, and the media if he did not meet the deadline. Cointelegraph previously reported that BitMart announced on July 26 it would wind down the exchange, with trading ending Aug. 26 and operations ceasing on Jan. 31.

Key takeaways

• BitMart’s official Chinese X account is demanding Sheldon Xia disclose BitMart’s wallet holdings and provide a repayment plan by Wednesday.
• The post alleges some users still cannot withdraw and that some employees have not received final compensation.
• BitMart has already entered a formal wind-down process, with trading set to end Aug. 26 and operations scheduled to stop Jan. 31.
• Sheldon Xia rejected the claims, saying the account’s accusations are “fabricated rumors,” and said he would pursue police and legal action.
• Arkham-tracked BitMart-attributed wallets reportedly fell from about $102 million (July 6) to around $36.5 million as of Monday, though the reasons are unclear.

Deadline set amid ongoing withdrawal complaints

BitMart’s latest challenge is framed around user access to funds and transparency. According to a machine translation of the account’s post, it said some users remained unable to withdraw and that internal compensation issues persisted for at least some staff members.

The account’s demand is not limited to a general explanation; it calls for a detailed and verifiable disclosure, including wallets, assets, liabilities, and reserves. It also set a clear escalation threat: if Xia does not deliver by the stated deadline, the account said it would submit evidence to regulators, law enforcement, legal representatives, and media outlets.

Cointelegraph attempted to contact BitMart for comment following the Monday post but did not immediately receive a response. It also remains unclear who authored the message, or whether the account is still operated under BitMart’s corporate control.

Wind-down timeline already in motion

These events are unfolding while BitMart carries out a pre-announced shutdown. As earlier coverage noted, BitMart said on July 26 it would wind down the exchange due to market and operational pressures, including BMX token volatility and user reports of withdrawal delays.

Under the company’s stated plan, BitMart ended new deposits and halted registrations as part of the wind-down. Trading on the platform is scheduled to end on Aug. 26, and the exchange’s operations are set to cease on Jan. 31. BitMart also warned that some withdrawals could undergo additional compliance and security reviews.

That backdrop matters because it suggests the dispute is not simply about whether an exchange will pay, but about the practical mechanics and timing of withdrawals and asset handling during the shutdown window.

Sheldon Xia denies wrongdoing and promises legal action

Sheldon Xia responded to the accusations in an X post on Monday, calling the claims “fabricated rumors” and saying he had preserved evidence. In a machine translation of his remarks, Xia said that during daytime U.S. time he would file a police report and send a lawyer’s letter to X, seeking technical and data forensics related to the post.

Xia further argued that employees were not being prioritized over customers, stating that “everyone is a client” and that there were no special privileges. He also previously denied that BitMart had misappropriated user assets.

In earlier communications, Xia told users not to rely on unverified claims or screenshots purportedly provided by current or former employees, reinforcing his position that the public allegations should be treated skeptically until substantiated.

Arkham wallet tracking shows sharp reductions—but interpretation remains unclear

Wallet movements are also central to what investors and users want to understand during a wind-down. According to Arkham’s on-chain entity tracking, wallets attributed to BitMart held about $36.5 million in crypto assets as of Monday.

Arkham’s data indicates a steep decline from roughly $71 million on July 26 and about $102 million on July 6. Those figures, however, come with important caveats. The tracked wallets may not represent the full set of assets controlled by BitMart, and it remains unclear how much of the reduction reflects customer withdrawals, internal consolidation, or transfers to other addresses.

In disputes like this, a key question is whether reductions in publicly tracked wallet balances reflect legitimate outflows to customers or whether they could suggest asset movement that is not fully explained. Until BitMart or Xia provides the kind of verifiable disclosure demanded by the X account—wallet list, liabilities, reserves, and a repayment framework—readers may be left comparing incomplete public signals.

What to watch next as the deadline approaches

With the promised Wednesday deadline now in focus, market participants will likely look for whether Xia provides a verifiable asset and liability disclosure and whether any repayment plan is detailed in a way that users can test against withdrawal status. Just as importantly, observers should watch how regulators and law enforcement respond to both sides’ public claims, and whether on-chain wallet tracking aligns with the explanations given for balance changes since BitMart began winding down.

Strategy has raised $333.7 million through common stock sales without buying or selling Bitcoin last week, leaving its holdings unchanged at 840,447 BTC.

According to a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 17, Strategy sold 3.46 million MSTR shares between Aug. 10 and Aug. 16 through its at-the-market offering program.

The company used $52.4 million of the proceeds to fund twice-monthly dividends on its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock, or STRC. Another $132.2 million went toward STRC repurchases, while $149.1 million was added to its U.S. dollar reserve.

Strategy reported no Bitcoin purchases or sales during the seven-day period, a week after it sold Bitcoin to help finance another round of STRC repurchases.

Strategy uses MSTR proceeds for STRC buybacks

During the latest reporting period, Strategy repurchased about 1.39 million STRC shares for $132.2 million under its Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program.

The company made no repurchases of its STRF, STRK or STRD preferred securities and did not buy back any MSTR common stock.

Following the STRC purchases, Strategy had about $653 million remaining under its $1 billion preferred securities repurchase authorization. Another $1 billion remained available under its separate common stock repurchase program.

Both programs were established under a capital framework approved in late June. As previously reported by crypto.news, Strategy’s board authorized up to $2 billion in security repurchases on June 29, split evenly between MSTR common stock and its preferred securities.

The same framework allowed the company to sell up to $1.25 billion of Bitcoin to fund its U.S. dollar reserve, preferred dividends, interest payments and security repurchases. The authorization did not represent a completed Bitcoin sale and gave Strategy the option to use its BTC holdings as a source of liquidity when required.

STRC, meanwhile, remained below its $100 par value. The preferred stock closed Friday at $94.78, down 1.03% during the session, and fell another 0.12% to $94.67 in Monday premarket trading, according to Yahoo Finance.

Strategy has been using several measures to support the preferred security after it fell well below par earlier this year. In June, CEO Phong Le personally bought $1 million of STRC and said he planned to hold the position until the security returned to par, likely longer.

At the time, Strategy had raised $335.5 million through MSTR sales and increased its dollar reserve to $1.4 billion, according to coverage published in June. STRC was trading below $90 when Le disclosed the purchase.

Strategy Bitcoin holdings remain at 840,447 BTC

Strategy’s decision not to buy Bitcoin last week came immediately after two consecutive weeks of BTC sales.

Between Aug. 3 and Aug. 9, the company sold 1,690 BTC for $108.6 million at an average price of $64,262 per coin. Strategy used the entire amount to repurchase about 1.15 million STRC shares.

The Bitcoin-funded STRC buyback reduced Strategy’s holdings to the current 840,447 BTC, while MSTR sales during the same week generated another $653.1 million. Of that amount, $650 million was directed to the dollar reserve and $3.1 million was added to unrestricted cash.

Strategy had sold another 1,638 BTC between July 27 and Aug. 2 for $104.7 million. Proceeds from that transaction were split between $52.4 million in STRC dividends and $52.3 million in preferred stock repurchases.

The two sales followed Strategy’s first Bitcoin disposal since December 2022. Between May 26 and May 31, the company sold 32 BTC for about $2.5 million, with the proceeds expected to help cover preferred stock distributions.

At the time, STRC had fallen below its $100 reference price while its annualized dividend rate had risen to 11.5%. The first Bitcoin sale broke a multiyear period in which Strategy accumulated BTC without selling any of its holdings.

Strategy later raised STRC’s annual dividend rate to 12% as part of its June capital framework. Management has said the dividend can be adjusted as it seeks to keep STRC trading close to its $100 par value.

Despite the recent disposals, Strategy remains the largest publicly disclosed corporate holder of Bitcoin. Its current 840,447 BTC were acquired for an aggregate $63.36 billion, including fees and expenses, at an average purchase price of $75,385 per coin.

Strategy dollar reserve reaches $4.80 billion

While Bitcoin holdings stayed unchanged last week, Strategy continued building the cash reserve used to meet obligations tied to its capital structure.

The company’s U.S. dollar reserve stood at $4.80 billion as of Aug. 16 after another $149.1 million was allocated from MSTR sales. The total includes expected proceeds from common stock transactions that had been executed but had not yet settled by Sunday.

Strategy created the reserve to fund dividends on its preferred securities and interest payments on outstanding debt. Its board retains authority over the use of the funds.

The cash position has increased quickly in recent weeks. Strategy entered August with a reserve of about $4 billion before adding $650 million during the Aug. 3 to Aug. 9 period, taking the total to $4.65 billion.

At the same time, Strategy has continued issuing common shares to provide liquidity. Last week’s sale of 3.46 million MSTR shares generated $333.7 million, following $653.1 million raised from the sale of about 6.59 million shares during the previous week.

The company still has substantial capacity to raise additional capital through its at-the-market programs. Its latest filing showed about $21.70 billion remained available for MSTR issuance and sales as of Aug. 16.

Strategy also reported no sales under its STRF, STRC, STRK or STRD at-the-market programs during the latest week. Remaining issuance capacity stood at about $17.51 billion for STRC, $1.62 billion for STRF, $2.10 billion for STRK and $4.01 billion for STRD.

The U.S. Treasury has proposed new rules defining when payment stablecoins are issued, offered, or sold in the United States as regulators prepare for key GENIUS Act restrictions beginning in January 2027.

The U.S. Treasury Department said on Aug. 17 that its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking focuses on Section 3 of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, opening another public comment process as the government works through the law’s remaining implementation requirements.

Under the proposal, Treasury would set the boundaries for what qualifies as issuing a payment stablecoin “in the United States,” a distinction that determines when an issuer must obtain a federal or state license under the GENIUS Act.

The department is also seeking to define when a digital asset company is considered to have offered or sold a payment stablecoin to a person in the United States. Treasury said the definitions are intended to give companies more certainty over when U.S. licensing and distribution restrictions apply.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the department was moving to implement the framework established by President Donald Trump and Congress while seeking feedback from companies and other stakeholders.

Bessent said the rules were intended to provide businesses with “regulatory certainty” while supporting U.S. innovation and maintaining the dollar’s position as the global reserve currency.

GENIUS Act rules would determine which issuers need licenses

Starting Jan. 18, 2027, the expected effective date of the GENIUS Act, companies generally will not be allowed to issue payment stablecoins in the United States unless they hold an appropriate federal or state license, according to Treasury.

Treasury’s latest proposal centers on determining when an issuer’s activities fall within that U.S. requirement. How the agency defines domestic issuance could determine which companies must obtain authorization before continuing to issue stablecoins accessible to U.S. customers.

The licensing requirements form one part of the federal stablecoin regime created after Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law on July 18, 2025. The legislation established separate paths for federally supervised issuers and qualifying state-regulated issuers while introducing reserve, redemption, compliance and disclosure requirements.

Regulators have spent much of 2026 developing the rules needed to put the law into operation.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency outlined its proposed framework in February, covering reserve assets, redemptions, capital, liquidity, custody, risk management and supervision for issuers falling under the agency’s authority. The proposal also included procedures covering applications and the wind-down of stablecoin operations.

Separate rulemaking has dealt with state oversight. In April, crypto.news reported on Treasury’s proposal for determining whether state regulatory systems are sufficiently similar to the federal framework. Under that process, issuers with less than $10 billion in circulation could remain under qualifying state supervision if the state regime meets federal standards.

Foreign stablecoins face separate U.S. restrictions

Foreign-issued stablecoins also fall within the latest proposal, with Treasury working to establish how tokens issued outside the country can continue to reach U.S. users.

Under the GENIUS Act, digital asset service providers generally cannot offer, sell or otherwise make a foreign-issued payment stablecoin available unless its issuer can comply with lawful orders and meets requirements tied to reciprocal arrangements between the United States and the issuer’s home jurisdiction, Treasury said.

The legislation gives Treasury a role in determining whether foreign stablecoin regulatory systems are comparable to U.S. requirements. Foreign issuers operating under qualifying regimes can gain access to the U.S. market if they also satisfy conditions imposed by the law.

Another restriction takes effect later. From July 18, 2028, digital asset service providers generally will not be permitted to offer or sell payment stablecoins to people in the United States unless the tokens were issued by a licensed issuer, according to Treasury.

Treasury’s proposed definitions of “offer or sell” and a person “in the United States” therefore affect exchanges, trading platforms and other digital asset businesses that make stablecoins accessible to American customers.

The agency previously sought industry views on many of the same jurisdictional questions through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in September 2025. The latest proposal moves that process forward by setting out Treasury’s planned implementation of the Section 3 restrictions.

Treasury rule follows other GENIUS Act compliance proposals

Compliance requirements for licensed issuers have been developing separately from the rules governing where stablecoins may be issued and sold.

Treasury proposed AML rules earlier this year that would place permitted payment stablecoin issuers under Bank Secrecy Act requirements and require anti-money laundering, counter-terrorism financing and sanctions compliance systems.

Under that proposal, issuers would need systems capable of identifying suspicious activity and taking required action against transactions, including blocking, freezing or rejecting them when applicable. Companies would also need a designated U.S.-based person responsible for their compliance systems.

Federal regulators have separately proposed customer identification requirements, while bank regulators have been developing standards covering reserves, capital, redemptions, custody and operational controls.

The rulemaking process has taken longer than the timetable originally set by Congress. Federal regulators missed the July deadline for completing key GENIUS Act regulations, with several packages still in proposed form when the July 18, 2026 deadline passed.

The OCC’s main framework remained unfinished at the time, while Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation rules covering issuers linked to FDIC-supervised banks were also still moving through the regulatory process. Customer identification, anti-money laundering and sanctions proposals had not been completed either.

Missing the one-year rulemaking deadline did not automatically delay the law’s expected Jan. 18, 2027 effective date. As a result, prospective issuers have continued preparing for licensing, reserve management, redemption, customer verification and compliance requirements while regulators complete the remaining rules.

Treasury opens 60-day comment period on stablecoin proposal

For the Section 3 proposal released Aug. 17, Treasury is asking issuers, digital asset service providers and other interested parties to submit feedback on how the restrictions should operate in practice.

The rulemaking focuses specifically on the geographic and transactional boundaries that determine whether stablecoin activity falls under U.S. law, including when issuance occurs domestically and when a sale or offer is made to someone in the country.

Treasury said public comments could address issues raised by the proposed framework and would be considered before the regulations are finalized.

Members of the public will have 60 days from publication of the notice in the Federal Register to submit comments, and responses filed during the consultation will be publicly available through the federal rulemaking system.

XRP price slipped 2.8% over the past seven days and briefly fell below the psychological $1 level as weak daily momentum, persistent capital outflows, and a broader downtrend kept buyers on the defensive.

XRP price action today

According to data from crypto.news, XRP (XRP) price was trading around $1.00 on Aug. 17 after briefly falling below the level during the latest sell-off. The token has now lost about 73% from its cycle high above $3, according to market analyst Crypto Patel, while the daily chart continues to produce lower highs and lower lows.

The decline accelerated during the first half of August as XRP fell from approximately $1.14 to a low near $0.98. A short recovery subsequently returned the price to $1.00, but buyers have yet to secure a sustained daily close above nearby resistance.

XRP’s struggle around $1 follows a wider retreat that began after the token traded above $2 in January. It fell sharply to approximately $1.40 in February, consolidated through May, and then resumed its decline in June.

The latest breakdown has placed the token at one of its most important psychological levels. A daily close below $1 would confirm that sellers can keep the price beneath a zone that previously attracted buyers, while a quick recovery could turn the move into a false breakdown.

Lower market participation has added to the pressure. With fewer buyers absorbing sell orders, relatively modest selling can produce wider price swings around the $1 threshold.

Daily indicators keep XRP under pressure

XRP remains below the middle line of its daily Bollinger Bands, which stands near $1.037. The middle band acts as a short-term trend gauge, meaning the token must reclaim it before the chart can show an early improvement in momentum.

The upper Bollinger Band sits near $1.099, creating a wider resistance zone between $1.04 and $1.10. XRP has not traded above the upper end of that area since early August, when an attempt to hold around $1.14 failed.

The lower band is positioned at approximately $0.975. Price is currently pressing against this side of the range, showing that the market remains stretched toward the downside. Lower-band contact can precede a temporary bounce, but it does not confirm that the wider decline has ended.

Chaikin Money Flow on the daily chart stands at -0.17. A reading below zero indicates that selling volume has outweighed buying volume during the indicator’s 20-session measurement period.

Persistent negative money flow weakens the case for a durable recovery because rallies are receiving limited support from fresh capital. XRP would need the indicator to move back toward zero, alongside a recovery above $1.037, to provide stronger evidence that accumulation has returned.

4-hour XRP chart shows an early bounce attempt

The 4-hour chart offers a slightly more constructive signal. XRP was trading around $1.001 while its Chaikin Money Flow reading had risen to 0.09, suggesting that some buyers entered near the latest lows.

XRP price has also moved marginally above the Ichimoku conversion line near $0.998 and the baseline around $1.000. Those levels show that very short-term momentum has stabilized after the recent decline.

However, XRP remains below the main Ichimoku cloud, with its upper boundary near $1.017. The cloud has also continued to slope downward, maintaining the bearish structure visible since late July.

A 4-hour close above $1.017 would provide the first meaningful sign that buyers are regaining control. The next resistance levels would then sit near $1.037 and $1.05, followed by the daily upper Bollinger Band around $1.10.

Failure to clear the cloud could leave XRP trapped between $0.99 and $1.02. Another rejection near $1.01–$1.02 would increase the risk of renewed pressure on the August low.

Liquidation heatmap places $0.98 at risk

CoinGlass’ three-day liquidation heatmap shows a dense concentration of leveraged positions immediately above XRP’s current price. The strongest nearby upside pool is located around $1.011, with additional liquidity near $1.02.

Price often moves toward areas containing large volumes of leveraged positions because liquidations can increase volatility once those levels are reached. A move through $1.011 could therefore trigger short liquidations and help XRP test $1.02.

The downside also contains several liquidity pockets. The clearest cluster sits near $0.98, close to the daily lower Bollinger Band at $0.975. Further concentrations appear around $0.96, although they are less immediate.

A decisive loss of $0.99 could expose the $0.98–$0.975 region and force leveraged long positions to close. If buyers fail to defend that range, XRP could extend its decline toward $0.96.

The heatmap leaves the token between competing liquidity pools, making $1.011 the immediate upside level and $0.98 the main downside target.

Analysts disagree over whether XRP has reached a bottom

Crypto Patel said XRP could fall another 20% to 40% before forming a major reversal. The analyst identified $0.85–$0.65 as a long-term accumulation range but said capital should be deployed gradually rather than used to catch an exact bottom.

Such a decline would require XRP to break the current $0.975 support and extend below the lower liquidity areas shown on the three-day heatmap. The analyst’s longer-term targets of $3, $5, $7, and $10 depend on a future reversal confirmation and are not supported by the current daily trend.

Analyst Gerla offered a more constructive interpretation, arguing that XRP is testing a long-term trendline while forming a bullish divergence on the relative strength index. A bullish divergence occurs when the price records a lower low while momentum produces a higher low, sometimes preceding a recovery.

The competing forecasts make confirmation around $1 more important than either projection. For US investors, the immediate setup remains tied to liquidity and broader risk appetite: reclaiming $1.037 would weaken the bearish case, while a daily close below $0.975 would expose $0.96 and potentially the analyst’s $0.85 accumulation level.

The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has granted World Liberty Financial conditional approval to operate as a national trust bank, a decision that immediately reignited political scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest involving President Donald Trump and members of his family.

In a Friday notice, the OCC said its conditional approval for World Liberty’s charter application would permit the company to proceed as “World Liberty Trust Company, National Association,” subject to regulatory and policy requirements. World Liberty’s filing indicates the bank would support US dollar-backed stablecoin issuance and would custody digital assets related to its USD1 token.

Key takeaways

• The OCC’s approval is conditional, allowing World Liberty to move forward as a national trust bank only under specified requirements outlined by regulators.
• World Liberty’s charter application contemplates issuing US dollar-backed stablecoins and providing custody for digital assets linked to its USD1 token.
• Criticism from US lawmakers centers on possible conflicts of interest tied to Trump family involvement and the OCC leadership appointment.
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced new legislation aimed at addressing what she described as “presidential corruption” in banking following the OCC’s action.
• The decision arrives amid a broader pattern of OCC approvals and conditional approvals for crypto firms seeking trust charters.

What the OCC approved—and what it still requires

The OCC’s Friday notice frames the action as consistent with statutory duties and ethical obligations. The regulator’s conditional approval means World Liberty may be able to operate under the proposed name—World Liberty Trust Company, National Association—but must satisfy the conditions attached by the OCC before fully realizing its intended banking activities.

According to World Liberty’s application, the planned business includes issuing stablecoins backed by US dollars and custodying digital assets connected to the company’s USD1 token. For investors and users watching the intersection of crypto rails and traditional finance, the significance lies in what a national trust bank framework can enable: a regulated structure for custody and, potentially, issuance-linked services, depending on how requirements are ultimately met.

Conflict-of-interest concerns drive the political backlash

Opposition to the approval is rooted in allegations that regulators and the White House could be subject to improper influence. The OCC’s action comes as lawmakers have pressed questions about relationships between World Liberty and the Trump family.

The OCC approval followed heightened scrutiny about potential conflicts of interest between the company and President Trump’s family. The president and three sons are described as affiliated with World Liberty. The head of the OCC, Jonathan Gould, was also nominated by Trump in 2025. Separately, World Liberty’s website has indicated that a Trump family entity controls 38% of the company’s equity interests.

While the OCC stated that it acted in line with its ethical obligations, the political dispute escalated immediately after the announcement. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she had introduced legislation “to stop this kind of unprecedented corruption,” calling the OCC’s move “the most brazen act of self-dealing our financial system has ever seen.” Warren and nine other senators introduced the “Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act” following the approval.

Warren’s comments and the filing of new legislation underscore a key uncertainty investors should track: the OCC may have issued conditional approval, but Congress could still push for legal and oversight changes that affect how—or whether—such bank charters are granted or operated when political relationships are at issue.

Gould said review would be apolitical earlier

Prior to Friday’s decision, Gould had indicated the charter review would be conducted through an “apolitical and nonpartisan process.” Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Gould made this point while referencing the review process after correspondence from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

In the Friday notice, the OCC emphasized that its “Comptroller and staff acted consistently with their statutory duties and ethical obligations with respect to the Application.” The regulator’s language suggests it believes the same standards applied regardless of the controversy—an important distinction for market participants assessing regulatory risk.

Still, the rapid pivot to legislative action suggests the dispute is not confined to regulatory conditions. The coming months will likely determine whether Congress focuses on reinforcing ethical firewalls for bank licensing in crypto-adjacent businesses, particularly where political ties are alleged.

World Liberty’s wider ecosystem ties remain under investigation

Beyond US regulatory concerns, the approval also reopened questions about World Liberty’s relationships with foreign entities. According to earlier reporting, an Abu Dhabi investment company backed by UAE national security adviser Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan reportedly purchased a 49% stake in World Liberty in January 2025 for $500 million. Another UAE entity, MGX, used World Liberty’s USD1 stablecoin to invest $2 billion in crypto exchange Binance. The same reporting notes that Trump later issued a presidential pardon for former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao.

A White House spokesperson has repeatedly said there were “no conflicts of interest“ with Trump’s investments, a position that lawmakers challenging the charter approval say does not address broader governance and transparency concerns.

The continued attention matters because national trust banking is tightly linked to trust, custody standards, and compliance. If lawmakers pursue investigations or new rules affecting how these relationships are disclosed or managed, the operational path for World Liberty’s stablecoin and custody plans could change.

How this fits into the OCC’s broader crypto charter push

The OCC’s conditional approval also reflects an ongoing trend under the Trump administration: approving or conditionally approving multiple applications from crypto companies seeking trust charters to expand their services in the US.

In December, the OCC approved applications from Circle, Ripple Labs, Crypto.com and Coinbase after passage of the GENIUS stablecoin bill in Congress, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph. That earlier wave of approvals sets a reference point for how the OCC has been moving toward regulated stablecoin and related services.

World Liberty’s case adds a new layer to that pattern because the controversy is not only about crypto compliance and licensing. It is also about the governance question of who benefits, who influences, and how regulators insulate decisions from political entanglement.

For readers, the next thing to watch is how the OCC’s conditions are spelled out and implemented for World Liberty’s charter to fully take effect, alongside whether Congress’s “Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act” gains traction that could reshape licensing standards for bank charters tied to politically connected firms.