Hunter Biden officially launched the politically themed “LAPTOP” memecoin on Wednesday, marking a high-profile entry into the crypto space for a figure long tied to US political drama. Early trading was volatile: the token was reported by CoinGecko at $2.0977 at 3:45 p.m. UTC after opening at $199.50, representing a sharp first-hour slide of 95.7%. CoinGecko also shows more than $13.4 million in volume during that initial period.

On-chain data analyst Bubblemaps said most of the largest holders appear to be wallets funded within the past 10 days, pointing to a rapidly assembled distribution rather than long-term accumulation. The project’s launch quickly drew both backlash and engagement across social media.

Key takeaways

• According to CoinGecko, LAPTOP’s opening price of $199.50 fell to $2.0977 within about the first hour, down 95.7% at 3:45 p.m. UTC.
• Bubblemaps data indicates a concentration of top holders in recently funded wallets, suggesting short-term positioning around the launch.
• Project disclosures describe LAPTOP as a tokenized digital collectible with no utility and no rights to profits, governance, or yield.
• Founders received 30% of the 1 billion-token supply, locked for six months and then vested monthly over 24 months.
• Airdrop allocations include up to 2% reserved for wallets that lost money on Trump-linked crypto, with eligibility tied to specific conditions outlined in the disclosures.

Launch volatility and early holder concentration

LAPTOP debuted on Ethereum’s Base layer-2 network and saw a rapid, dramatic drawdown from its first trade range. CoinGecko data, cited in the report, shows the token trading at $2.0977 at 3:45 p.m. UTC after an opening at $199.50. Trading activity accelerated quickly, with volume reported above $13.4 million in the early window.

Beyond price action, distribution patterns also stood out. Bubblemaps said that most of the top holders are wallets funded in the past 10 days, implying the token’s early ownership skewed toward accounts that positioned themselves close to the launch rather than participants with longer holding histories.

Such “fresh wallet” clustering is common in memecoin launches, but it can amplify downside risk for new buyers—particularly when supply dynamics include locked founder allocations and marketing-driven initial hype. Traders typically watch for whether holder counts stabilize after the first day and whether liquidity deepens, but those longer-term signals were not part of the early snapshot.

Biden’s response amid backlash over memecoins

Hunter Biden addressed the backlash publicly on X during Wednesday’s market reaction. In a post, he responded to criticism by framing the token’s ticker as “resilience, redemption and recovery.” He also said he understood the cynicism around memecoins and described President Donald Trump’s token as a “grift,” while warning buyers not to expect him—or others—to make LAPTOP more valuable.

The launch campaign is positioned around the “laptop narrative,” referring to a MacBook that Biden reportedly left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019. In the lead-up to the 2020 election, Trump allies promoted material they said came from that device, according to reporting referenced in the article.

Before the official launch, Biden teased the memecoin on Monday by posting the ticker alongside a montage of media coverage related to the laptop. The announcement drew criticism from prominent crypto commentators, including digital investigator Stephen Findeisen (known as Coffeezilla), who urged followers not to buy LAPTOP and called it a “shitcoin.” Other accounts told Biden there was “still time to walk this back,” underscoring that the project entered a market already primed for debate.

Base founder Jesse Pollak also weighed in, saying the project had contacted his team, but that Base made a “conscious decision” not to help with the token’s design or promotion. In other words, while the token launched on Base, the platform’s founder indicated the broader development and promotion workflow was not supported by the network’s team.

What the disclosures say: collectible framing, fixed supply, founder vesting

The project’s own disclosures, published as a PDF, describe LAPTOP as a digital collectible with no utility and no rights to governance, voting, yield, or profit-sharing. The disclosures set a fixed supply of 1 billion tokens, with 350 million tokens circulating at launch.

Founder allocation is central to understanding how the token’s supply may behave after the initial trading frenzy. The disclosures state that founders—including Biden—receive 300 million tokens (30% of the total supply). Those tokens are locked for six months and then vested monthly over the following 24 months. That schedule can matter for investors because it defines when additional tokens may enter the market under the project’s control, potentially affecting liquidity and price pressure during vesting windows.

Another 30% of supply is allocated to a mechanism tied to “political, cultural and crypto predictions,” with tokens burned when specified outcomes occur and released to charity if outcomes do not occur as described. The disclosures also outline airdrop structure, including an initial round representing 10% of total supply.

Within that initial airdrop framework, 2% of the total supply is reserved for wallets that lost money on TRUMP, while 8% is allocated for eligible subscribers to Biden’s “Where’s Hunter” Substack newsletter. The disclosures also describe a separate 10% future airdrop distributed at a foundation’s discretion, which means overall airdrops account for 20% of supply—but the specific TRUMP-loss allocation remains capped at 2%.

For readers assessing risk, the combination of a fixed supply, locked and vested founder tokens, and conditional burning/release mechanisms suggests LAPTOP’s long-term behavior may depend less on external demand shocks and more on whether vesting schedules and outcome-based rules play out as outlined.

Why the TRUMP-loss allocation became part of the narrative

Even before the launch day price action, the memecoin drew attention for tying its distribution to a “reimbursement”-style concept aimed at wallets that lost money on a Trump-linked token. That approach immediately raises questions—especially in memecoins—about eligibility, enforcement, and what qualifies as a “loss.” The disclosures cap the relevant allocation at 2% of total supply, but they do not change the underlying reality that only a limited slice of supply is earmarked for that purpose.

Hunter Biden’s earlier criticism of Trump-adjacent crypto ventures also helped shape the hypocrisy debate surrounding the launch. Earlier posts, as referenced in the article, accused a Trump-linked finance project of leveraging political influence and centralized control to benefit founders. The launch of LAPTOP then positioned Biden as both critic and participant—an asymmetry that appears to have fueled the intensity of social media reactions.

For traders, the key watchpoint is whether the token’s early speculative demand fades into sustained activity, and whether any follow-through occurs around claimed “laptop narrative” momentum beyond day-one attention. For builders and compliance-minded participants, the explicit disclosures are noteworthy: the project is framed plainly as a collectible without utility or profit rights, which can help clarify expectations during ongoing debate about memecoin value propositions.

Going forward, market participants are likely to focus on three things: how much liquidity remains after the initial volatility, whether holder concentration shifts away from newly funded wallets, and how the project’s vesting and airdrop rules—particularly the TRUMP-loss portion capped at 2%—are handled in practice as eligibility and execution become clearer.

BitMart appointed Alvarez & Marsal as its financial adviser on Sept. 9 as the crypto exchange reviews its financial position, withdrawal restrictions and possible paths following the suspension of trading.

The exchange said A&M would work alongside its legal advisers to assess its finances, stakeholder matters and arrangements for an “orderly withdrawal” process. BitMart also said it would examine a potential phased business restart and proposals from unidentified third parties.

The appointment does not reverse BitMart’s trading halt or provide users with a confirmed repayment schedule. The exchange has not published independently verified asset and liability figures, customer shortfall estimates or expected recovery rates.

BitMart gives itself three weeks to produce an action plan

BitMart said it would progressively announce its proposed action plan, user consultation process and feedback mechanisms during the next three weeks. That timetable points to further information by approximately the end of September, although the company did not provide a specific date.

The exchange plans to establish a dedicated website through which users can submit opinions about withdrawals and BitMart’s future direction. It promised to publish the link within five business days of the Sept. 9 announcement.

A&M will review BitMart’s current operations and asset position before the exchange releases related financial information. BitMart said independent review was needed to ensure that future disclosures were accurate.

However, the announcement did not specify what records A&M would examine, whether its findings would be published in full or whether users would receive an independently audited balance sheet. A search of A&M’s public website did not identify a separate statement confirming the engagement at the time of reporting.

Withdrawal arrangements remain unresolved

BitMart acknowledged that users had faced withdrawal restrictions and resulting uncertainty. It said withdrawal arrangements, asset status and future procedures were among the matters now being reviewed.

The exchange did not say how many users remain unable to withdraw, which assets are affected or how much customer property is awaiting release. It also did not provide a date for clearing pending withdrawal requests.

BitMart said it would appoint another independent third party to oversee operations and asset custody during the review. The company did not identify that party or explain its authority over wallets, private keys and transaction approvals.

This leaves several central questions unanswered. Users still lack verified figures showing BitMart’s available assets against customer liabilities. No court-supervised restructuring, bankruptcy petition or regulator-led creditor process has been announced publicly.

Claims on social media that assets are missing or that every withdrawal has failed remain unverified. BitMart’s own acknowledgement of withdrawal restrictions confirms an operational problem, but it does not establish the size or cause of any potential shortfall.

BitMart had already halted trading during its wind-down

BitMart announced an orderly wind-down on July 26, citing its operating conditions, market environment and future strategy. The original notice scheduled the end of spot, futures and other trading services for Aug. 26.

The exchange initially planned to complete the wider platform closure by Jan. 31, 2027. It encouraged users to close positions, complete identity checks and submit withdrawals as early as possible.

BitMart later began considering a restructuring that could combine creditor distributions with a phased restart. It appointed White & Case as restructuring counsel and promised an update by Sept. 9.

As crypto.news previously reported, the exchange was evaluating creditor distributions and a phased operational restart without disclosing reserve figures, creditor eligibility rules or payout percentages. The A&M appointment satisfies the promised update but does not answer those financial questions.

The company’s support pages and main website remain online. Some promotional product pages also remain visible, but their presence does not establish that centralized trading services have resumed.

A business restart remains only one possible outcome

BitMart said it would explore “various feasible follow-up actions.” Those options include a possible orderly restart and third-party proposals, but the exchange did not identify potential investors, buyers or financing providers.

The company also did not commit to reopening. Any restart would depend on the financial review, available assets, legal advice and negotiations with affected stakeholders.

User feedback may influence the assessment, according to BitMart. However, the feedback portal is a consultation channel rather than a formal creditor vote or legally binding claims process.

The next confirmed deadline is the publication of that portal within five business days. Users should then expect additional action-plan details within three weeks. The most consequential disclosures will be independently verified asset and liability figures, the status of pending withdrawals and the identity of the proposed custody supervisor.

Until those disclosures appear, BitMart’s financial condition and users’ expected recoveries remain unknown.

Ethereum price hovered around $2,500 on Sep. 9 as buyers defended short-term support, but weakening momentum and negative capital flows kept a breakout above $2,535 out of reach.

Ethereum (ETH) price traded near $2,486 at the time of writing on Sep. 9 after briefly rising above $2,520 earlier in the session. Price remained almost unchanged on the daily chart as buyers and sellers competed around the psychological $2,500 level.

The narrow move followed several days of consolidation after ETH recovered from its early-September low near $2,430. Buyers have repeatedly stepped in around $2,478–$2,485, but each attempt to extend the recovery has met selling pressure between $2,525 and $2,535.

Spot Ethereum exchange-traded fund outflows have reduced one source of institutional demand during the consolidation. Broader risk appetite has also remained weak ahead of the Federal Reserve’s Sep. 15–16 policy meeting, while higher energy prices linked to the U.S.-Iran conflict have added to inflation concerns.

Regulatory uncertainty ahead of the expected U.S. Senate procedural vote on the Clarity Act on Sep. 15 has given institutional investors another reason to limit exposure. Ethereum has consequently struggled to separate from the wider risk-off tone across the crypto market.

Ethereum price momentum weakens below $2,500

The 4-hour chart shows ETH trading at $2,486 after a rejection from an intraday high of $2,523. Price moved below the 20-period simple moving average at $2,490, placing buyers under immediate pressure.

Ethereum remained above the 50-period and 100-period moving averages, located at $2,467 and $2,468, respectively. The close grouping of those averages creates an initial support zone between $2,465 and $2,470.

A break below the cluster would expose the recent range floor around $2,435–$2,445. Deeper selling could place the broader $2,350–$2,360 support zone back in focus, where the weekly liquidation heatmap shows the largest pool of downside liquidity.

The 200-period moving average remains much lower at $2,243, showing that ETH’s medium-term structure has not broken despite its inability to clear nearby resistance.

Still, the Chaikin Money Flow reading of -0.09 points to net capital leaving the asset on the 4-hour timeframe. Continued negative CMF would make it harder for buyers to sustain a breakout, even if ETH briefly returns above $2,500.

Daily momentum also warrants caution. The Awesome Oscillator remains positive at 239.44, but its contracting bars show that bullish momentum has cooled since the sharp August advance. ETH is therefore consolidating below resistance rather than accelerating into a new upward leg.

The daily chart places $2,500 at the Murrey Math 8/8 resistance level. A confirmed close above it would improve the immediate outlook, although buyers would still need to overcome repeated supply around $2,525–$2,535.

Market analyst Jules identified $2,478–$2,485 as the key short-term pivot and said repeated rebounds from the area showed active demand. However, the analyst warned that ETH remained in compression until it closed above the resistance band.

“Both sides have clean levels. The longer this squeeze lasts, the more the eventual break will matter.”

According to Jules, a strong close through $2,525–$2,535 could clear the way toward $2,580–$2,600. Losing the pivot would instead weaken the setup and bring $2,435–$2,445 back into play.

Analyst Ted Pillows also identified $2,550 as a major resistance level. Pillows said a strong weekly close above the barrier could support an advance toward $3,000, although the current charts do not yet confirm such a breakout.

Liquidation clusters could shape the next ETH move

CoinGlass’s one-week liquidation heatmap shows leverage building on both sides of Ethereum’s current price.

Advertisement

The closest large overhead clusters appear between $2,520 and $2,550. A move into the region could force short positions to close and provide additional momentum, but the same zone has repeatedly attracted spot selling.

More liquidation liquidity is visible between $2,580 and $2,610. Buyers would first need a sustained break above $2,535 and $2,550 before the upper cluster becomes a realistic target.

Downside liquidity is concentrated around $2,430, followed by a much larger band near $2,355–$2,365. A loss of $2,478 could pull price toward the first cluster, while a break below $2,430 would increase the probability of a deeper liquidity sweep.

Ethereum’s next directional move therefore depends on whether buyers can reclaim $2,500 and convert $2,525–$2,535 into support. Failure to do so would leave ETH exposed to another test of $2,478, followed by $2,445 and $2,430. A daily close above $2,535 would strengthen the bullish case and place $2,550, $2,600, and eventually $3,000 on the upside map.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Advertisement

Hyperliquid price remained close to its record high on Sep. 9 as buyers absorbed an estimated $820 million token unlock, although weakening daily momentum and heavy liquidity near $87–$90 could slow the next advance.

Hyperliquid price consolidates below $90

Hyperliquid (HYPE) price traded at $85.84 at the time of writing on Sep. 9, holding most of its gains after a volatile six-day period. HYPE opened near $81.82 on Sep. 3, placing its net gain at approximately 4.9%.

The token initially climbed to $87.99 before market-wide selling interrupted the advance. HYPE then recovered and reached an all-time high of $89.57 on Sep. 6, showing greater relative strength than several large-cap cryptocurrencies during the broader correction.

Price action has since narrowed between roughly $84 and $88 as traders test demand below the record high. The daily chart shows that buyers have repeatedly stepped in around $84.70–$85, while attempts to hold above $87 have attracted selling.

HYPE’s daily Relative Strength Index stood at 62.98, down from its RSI moving average of 66.88. The indicator remains above the neutral 50 level but shows that bullish momentum has cooled since the record-setting move.

The daily moving average convergence divergence indicator has also weakened. Its MACD line fell to 5.301, below the 5.788 signal line, while the histogram slipped to -0.486. The bearish crossover points to slower short-term momentum rather than a confirmed reversal, as the token remains near its high.

Token unlock meets sustained protocol demand

HYPE’s resilience followed the Sep. 6 unlock of about 9.92 million tokens allocated to core contributors. The tokens were worth approximately $820 million at the prices recorded around the event.

Large unlocks can raise selling pressure by expanding the amount of supply available to holders. However, only a small portion of the newly unlocked HYPE was reportedly claimed or moved toward venues associated with selling, limiting the immediate impact on the market.

Demand from Hyperliquid’s fee-funded assistance fund also helped offset supply concerns. The mechanism uses most of the protocol revenue assigned to the fund to purchase HYPE from the market, linking token demand to activity on the trading platform.

Hyperliquid open interest reached $14.3 billion during the period, indicating that traders maintained substantial derivatives exposure despite the broader market decline. High open interest can support trading-fee generation, though it also raises the risk of sharper moves if leveraged positions unwind together.

Broader markets faced pressure as tensions between the United States and Iran pushed oil toward $100 per barrel. Strong U.S. employment data and a rise in the 10-year Treasury yield to 4.784% also reduced demand for risk assets.

The resulting crypto sell-off liquidated about $188 million in long positions on Sep. 4. HYPE briefly fell toward $83.68 during the event but recovered faster than much of the market.

HYPE price faces resistance from $87 to $90

The four-hour chart places HYPE close to its 20-period simple moving average at $85.91. A sustained move above that level could give buyers another opportunity to challenge $87 and the record-high region.

Lower support comes from the 50-period SMA at $84.80 and the 100-period SMA at $83.29. The alignment of the 20-, 50-, 100-, and 200-period averages remains bullish, with each shorter average positioned above the longer one.

The four-hour Aroon Up reading of 64.29% also exceeded Aroon Down at 21.43%. The gap suggests that recent highs still carry more weight than recent lows, although neither reading shows complete control.

CoinGlass’ 24-hour liquidation heatmap shows a nearby concentration of leveraged positions around $86.80–$87.20. A move through that area could force short liquidations and help HYPE retest $88–$90.

Liquidity below the market is concentrated near $84, $83.50, and $82. Larger bands appear around $80.70–$81.50, making that region a potential downside target if the nearer moving-average support fails.

A daily close above $89.57 would place HYPE in price discovery and bring the psychological $100 level into view. Failure to defend $83.29 would weaken the short-term structure and expose $82, followed by the four-hour 200-period SMA near $72.31.

Analysts remain cautious near the supply zone

Crypto analyst CryptoPatel said in a Sep. 8 post that HYPE was trading inside a daily supply and resistance zone between $84 and $90. The analyst viewed $90 as the invalidation level for a corrective setup and identified $76, $68, and $60 as possible downside levels if sellers take control.

Team LAMBO Charts separately placed the main resistance area between $90 and $95. The analyst said sellers had previously entered around that region and wanted to see stronger volume before treating another test as a confirmed breakout.

Both views identify $90 as the level that separates continued consolidation from a possible bullish expansion. Their longer-term support projections sit well below the immediate levels shown by the four-hour moving averages, reflecting the difference between a short-term pullback and a wider structural correction.

For U.S. traders, Treasury yields, oil prices, and expectations for Federal Reserve policy remain external risks. HYPE has resisted the latest market decline, but another increase in yields or inflation concerns could trigger renewed deleveraging across speculative crypto positions.

The immediate setup, therefore, depends on whether buyers can reclaim $87 and close above $89.57. Until then, HYPE remains in a bullish broader trend but faces fading momentum and concentrated resistance below $90.

For many crypto believers, retirement planning isn’t about giving up Bitcoin—it’s about deciding whether staking a meaningful portion of future spending power on a volatile asset is actually prudent. A growing debate is emerging at the intersection of personal finance and crypto’s place in mainstream portfolios, with retirement researchers and market participants increasingly focused on the same question: how much (if any) should belong in a long-term retirement allocation?

While some retirement industry professionals argue there is a “sweet spot” near minimal exposure—or even none at all—others say Bitcoin can be integrated more thoughtfully, including as a potential replacement for part of equity risk. The practical challenge is not only whether crypto can deliver returns, but whether investors can survive large drawdowns at the exact moment they need stability most.

Key takeaways

• Public sentiment remains cautious: a National Institute on Retirement Security survey found 77% of Americans view cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans as risky.
• Industry views diverge sharply, ranging from MIT finance professor Jonathan Parker’s “yes, zero” stance to portfolio designers who suggest small Bitcoin allocations for risk-tolerant investors.
• Financial planners often frame crypto as a small, controllable risk sleeve—commonly capped around 5%—rather than a core retirement holding.
• Retirement timelines change the math: volatility that can be absorbed during earning years may become difficult for those near retirement.
• Institutions appear to be gaining exposure through regulated vehicles and crypto-adjacent public equities, even when direct participation is limited.

Americans see retirement crypto as risky—so why is exposure growing?

Despite crypto’s increasing visibility in finance, trust is not universal. According to a survey by the National Institute on Retirement Security, 77% of Americans consider cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans risky. That skepticism exists even as regulators, asset managers, and major institutions have gradually expanded access to crypto-related products over recent years.

BlackRock has argued that a modest Bitcoin allocation—on the order of 1% to 2%—can be reasonable in a diversified portfolio for investors who can tolerate volatility, while Fidelity has suggested higher ranges (2% to 5%) may improve outcomes. The underlying premise in both cases is similar: the position is not meant to dominate retirement planning, but to introduce upside potential while constraining downside.

For investors, the key issue is that these proposals depend on behavior as much as math. A small allocation may be manageable in theory, but retirement is when emotions and cash-flow needs often become least forgiving.

“Yes, zero” versus a capped allocation approach

MIT finance professor Jonathan Parker, whose work spans portfolio choice and retirement finance, is notably blunt about where crypto fits. In the reporting, Parker argues the answer is “Yes, zero,” emphasizing that crypto is not an instrument that naturally serves the role many retirement portfolios are designed to fulfill.

The position contrasts with guidance from some financial planners who treat Bitcoin as an adjustable component within an otherwise conventional asset mix. Ryan Firth, founder of Mercer Street Personal Financial Services and a planner specializing in digital assets, describes Bitcoin not as a stand-alone retirement bet, but as something that could potentially replace a portion of stock exposure rather than simply adding another layer of risk.

Firth tells the magazine that Bitcoin may offer “higher return potential than stocks but with more volatility.” His rule of thumb is that crypto should not exceed 5% of an investor’s investable assets, with a conservative framing: invest only what you could realistically afford to lose.

That advice highlights the difference between “conviction” and “concentration.” Even if someone believes Bitcoin is important to the future of money, retirement planning still requires controlling how much of their lifestyle depends on a single, hard-to-predict market outcome.

Institutions look beyond Bitcoin as a core retirement asset

One reason this debate is moving from academic to practical is that institutional investors are increasingly finding ways to gain exposure. Public filings show pension funds and other large investors holding regulated spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Others seek exposure through publicly traded companies tied closely to the crypto ecosystem.

CalPERS, described as the largest public pension fund in the United States, has disclosed an investment in Strategy—identified in the reporting as a major corporate Bitcoin treasury holder—within an index-oriented public equity portfolio. CalSTRS, the largest educator-only pension fund, tells the magazine it has not made direct cryptocurrency investments, but it has invested in firms “some might consider crypto companies,” including Coinbase, a publicly traded company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform.

As presented in the article, the nuance is significant: institutional interest may not always be about making Bitcoin a central retirement asset. Instead, some investors may be positioning their portfolios to participate in crypto industry growth or to capture returns through regulated structures and publicly traded equities.

Why timing and withdrawals matter more than long-run belief

Bitcoin’s risk profile is not only about whether prices rise over time, but about whether investors can remain invested through severe drawdowns. The reporting draws a clear line between long investment horizons and the vulnerability created when retirement withdrawals begin.

Bill Bengen—credited for research behind the widely cited 4% retirement withdrawal rule—argues that capital preservation should be the primary priority for retirement portfolios. In the piece, Bengen recommends limiting volatile assets like Bitcoin to no more than 5% in order to “help prevent a disaster.”

Firth also emphasizes that the real question is not simply if Bitcoin recovers, but whether investors have the capacity to tolerate waiting. His concern, as quoted, centers on whether people will stay disciplined when prices inevitably fall, and what happens if the asset’s long-term outcome diverges from expectations.

That “behavioral resilience” point is often overlooked in purely theoretical allocation debates. Retirement planning introduces a new constraint: spending needs can force investors to sell at the worst possible moment, turning a temporary drawdown into permanent damage to future purchasing power.

What if the investment thesis is wrong?

Even among committed holders, a common stress test is unavoidable: what happens if the core thesis fails. The reporting highlights the concern that retirement savings could become too dependent on one idea being correct—whether that means Bitcoin declining under future risks or another technology displacing it.

Parker’s broader critique aligns with that stress test. He suggests investors in retirement should not treat crypto as cash-like peer-to-peer currency, and should not treat it like a substitute for holding cash either. In the article, Parker argues that currencies are for transacting rather than investing, and that investors should prefer assets tied to economic activity that pay interest, coupons, or dividends.

Importantly, Parker’s alternative is not a demand that investors avoid crypto-related exposure altogether. He proposes that those who want exposure to crypto industry success or failure should consider owning equity or debt of companies generating revenue from the sector, rather than holding Bitcoin directly.

Belief and bet don’t have to be the same thing

The underlying message across the different perspectives is that belief in crypto’s long-term role does not automatically translate into a justified retirement allocation. As Firth frames it, crypto does not have to be “all-or-nothing.” Investors may still support the broader thesis for technology or market structure without letting one volatile asset determine whether they can fund decades of spending.

What to watch next is how retirement-focused guidance continues to evolve as more regulated crypto vehicles become familiar to institutions and as lawmakers and regulators weigh in on how (and where) digital asset exposure can fit within retirement accounts—especially during the moments when withdrawals turn portfolio volatility into real-life risk.

Coinbase has expanded its Morpho-powered lending product to eligible Brazilian customers, offering market-based returns on USDC without a fixed lock-up period.

Coinbase brings USDC lending to Brazilian users

Coinbase said in a Sep. 9 announcement that its DeFi Earn product would become available to eligible customers in Brazil over the coming days.

Users can access the service through the Lending tab in the Coinbase app, where they choose how much USDC to allocate. Coinbase then transfers the stablecoins onchain to Morpho, a decentralized lending protocol that connects lenders with borrowers.

Deposited USDC enters a vault curated by Steakhouse Financial. According to Coinbase, the vault has undergone an audit, while Steakhouse manages how funds are allocated among available lending markets.

Borrowers supply crypto assets as collateral and pay interest to access the USDC provided by lenders. The interest they pay generates the returns distributed to depositors, creating a two-sided lending market without Coinbase setting a fixed rate.

Unlike a term deposit, the product does not require users to commit their funds for a set period. Coinbase said customers may withdraw their USDC and accrued rewards at any time, although access to funds in an onchain lending market can depend on available liquidity.

Returns will change with supply and demand on Morpho rather than remaining at a guaranteed level. When demand for USDC loans rises relative to the available supply, the lending rate may increase; additional deposits or lower borrowing activity can reduce it.

Coinbase One members may receive an added rate increase where the benefit is available. The company did not state the rate Brazilian customers would receive at launch or whether the boost would apply to every eligible Coinbase One account in the country.

Morpho routes deposits through an audited vault

The Brazil rollout extends a lending model that Coinbase first introduced in other markets in Sep. 2025. As crypto.news previously reported, the original product routed USDC into Morpho vaults on Base, Coinbase’s Ethereum layer-2 network.

Under the setup described at the time, Coinbase created a smart contract wallet for a participating user and directed the deposited USDC into vaults curated by Steakhouse. Customers gained access through the exchange’s app, while the lending transactions took place through Morpho’s onchain infrastructure.

Rates reached as high as 10.8% annual percentage yield when the service launched, but the figure was variable and did not represent a fixed return. Coinbase now says the product has accumulated nearly $500 million in total supply and has recently offered rates of up to 7.4% APY.

The current return may therefore differ from both figures as borrowers enter or leave Morpho markets. Coinbase’s regular USDC Rewards program remains separate from the onchain lending product, meaning the two services use different methods to produce payments for customers.

Coinbase also expanded its in-app lending menu in June by adding an Ethena-powered USDC vault. Morpho supplies the lending infrastructure for that product, while Steakhouse also oversees its vault allocations.

The June product uses a different collateral profile from Coinbase’s Prime USDC vault. Its high-yield option includes markets linked to Ethena assets, while the Prime vault has focused on collateral such as cbBTC, cbETH and wrapped staked Ether.

Different collateral structures can expose lenders to different liquidity and smart contract conditions. Coinbase has not said that the Brazilian launch includes the Ethena-linked option, and its Sep. 9 announcement describes access to its existing Morpho-powered DeFi Earn service.

Coinbase separates lending from standard USDC rewards

Coinbase presents the Brazil expansion as another use for USDC balances alongside staking and its regular stablecoin rewards program. Regional Managing Director for the Americas Fabio Plein said the product was part of the exchange’s effort to “make users’ assets work harder for them.”

Plein also linked the launch to Coinbase’s Everything Exchange strategy, under which the company has been adding financial products to a single platform. His statement identified staking and USDC Rewards as other services customers can use to earn from supported holdings.

The lending option carries mechanics that differ from simply holding USDC in an exchange account. Deposits move into an onchain vault, and the available return comes from borrowers rather than a rate set in advance by Coinbase.

Access through the main app removes the need for customers to connect a separate wallet to Morpho or manually select lending markets. Onchain execution, however, means the funds still interact with smart contracts and lending pools even though Coinbase handles the user-facing process.

For US customers, Coinbase introduced the same general model with access in most states but excluded New York when the product first launched in 2025. The Brazil rollout does not change US eligibility or the terms available to American users, though it expands the geographic reach of a product first tested in the US market.

Brazil adds crypto oversight as stablecoin use grows

Coinbase is adding the product as Brazilian authorities place more controls on crypto businesses. In June, the country’s central bank added independent audit requirements to the authorization and license-renewal process for virtual asset service providers.

Required reviews cover anti-money laundering measures, customer asset segregation, internal risk controls and employee compliance programs. Auditors must also be registered with Brazil’s securities regulator, the Comissão de Valores Mobiliários.

Brazil established its first virtual asset framework in 2022 before assigning primary oversight of crypto service providers to the central bank in 2023. Existing firms were later given until October 2026 to meet a framework covering licensing, custody, governance and stablecoin supervision.

A Chainalysis estimate cited in the June report put Brazil’s crypto transaction volume at about $318 billion across 2024 and 2025. Stablecoins account for much of that activity, with central bank Governor Gabriel Galípolo saying dollar-linked tokens represented about 90% of the country’s reported crypto flows.

Recent commercial activity has also extended beyond trading. An August report on Brazilian stablecoin payments found that providers were developing services for financial institutions, cross-border commerce platforms and digital asset companies as regulators increased scrutiny of international transfers.

Brazil’s central bank has restricted the use of virtual assets within supervised electronic foreign-exchange channels under Resolution BCB No. 561. The rule does not prohibit private crypto trading or stablecoin transfers through exchanges and wallets, but regulated eFX providers must use foreign-exchange transactions or non-resident real accounts when settling with overseas counterparties.

U.S. Bank says it has successfully completed a live cross-border payments pilot using its proprietary USBDC stablecoin issued on the public Stellar network. The test involved transfers between U.S. Bank entities in North America and Europe, while also exercising key stablecoin controls such as minting, redemption, freezing, and clawback.

The bank described the pilot as a validation of its internally developed Digital Asset Platform, which is designed to connect tokenized assets and stablecoin operations with existing banking risk, compliance, and operational systems. U.S. Bank said Wednesday that it is now evaluating additional use cases, including cross-border treasury operations, liquidity management, and moving collateral onchain.

Key takeaways

• U.S. Bank completed a live cross-border payment test with USBDC on Stellar, transferring value between entities in North America and Europe.
• The pilot included not just transfers, but also operational stablecoin capabilities like minting, redemption, freezing, and clawback.
• U.S. Bank framed the exercise as proof of its Digital Asset Platform’s ability to integrate stablecoin workflows with traditional bank controls.
• The bank is exploring next-step applications such as onchain collateral movement and cross-border treasury and liquidity management.

USBDC pilot targets real payment and stablecoin controls

According to U.S. Bank, USBDC was issued and transferred on the public Stellar blockchain during the pilot. Unlike smaller demonstrations that focus primarily on technical connectivity, this test centered on a banking-grade flow: moving funds between separate U.S. Bank entities across regions, with the stablecoin acting as the settlement mechanism.

Importantly, U.S. Bank said the trial also validated the stablecoin’s administrative and risk features—specifically minting and redemption, as well as the ability to freeze and claw back funds. For banks, those controls are not optional “nice-to-haves”; they are central to compliance and operational governance when tokenized value is used outside of internal ledgers.

U.S. Bank linked the results to its Digital Asset Platform, a system the bank has been building to bridge tokenized assets and traditional banking infrastructure. The bank’s emphasis on integration with risk, compliance, and day-to-day operations suggests the institution is trying to move beyond proof-of-concept toward something that can fit within existing regulatory and internal control frameworks.

Digital Asset Platform becomes a bridge between banking and token rails

U.S. Bank said the transaction helped confirm that its Digital Asset Platform can connect the stablecoin lifecycle to established banking workflows. In practical terms, that means the institution is working to ensure that token issuance and transfer activity can be managed with the same operational disciplines used for conventional banking systems.

The bank is also exploring broader applications for the platform. U.S. Bank specifically pointed to cross-border treasury operations and liquidity management, along with moving collateral onchain—areas where the operational overhead of settlement and the speed of fund movement can materially affect how financial institutions manage capital and risk.

The bank’s framing matters for investors and market participants because it highlights a recurring theme in institutional stablecoin adoption: the technology itself is only part of the story. The ability to integrate with compliance, governance, and operational monitoring often determines whether a pilot can progress into a repeatable product.

U.S. Bank expands on earlier Stellar work

This cross-border pilot builds on U.S. Bank’s earlier digital asset efforts. The bank said it launched a dedicated Digital Assets and Money Movement organization in October 2025 focused on stablecoin issuance, crypto custody, asset tokenization, and digital money movement. That internal structure indicates the project has been treated as a longer-term initiative rather than a short-lived experimental desk.

U.S. Bank also previously indicated that it has been testing custom stablecoin issuance on Stellar since at least November 2025. In that earlier phase, the bank said it was working alongside PwC and the Stellar Development Foundation. Taken together, the timeline suggests the institution has moved from stablecoin issuance testing on a blockchain to a broader operational exercise that includes cross-border transfers and full stablecoin administrative functions.

Readers watching the institutional stablecoin space should note what appears to be the bank’s progression: first establishing the issuance capability and ecosystem partnerships, then refining operational mechanics, and finally running a live cross-border settlement scenario designed to stress the operational and governance layer.

Broader banking stablecoin momentum continues

U.S. Bank’s announcement lands as the wider banking sector continues to accelerate stablecoin projects, even as parts of the industry have pushed back on how stablecoins should be allowed to behave in markets.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that American banks have raised objections to proposals that would let stablecoin issuers and crypto platforms offer yield or rewards. Even so, major lenders and financial institutions are still moving ahead with their own token plans, often positioning them around payments, settlement, and institutional workflows rather than consumer yield incentives.

Cointelegraph also reported that on Sept. 1, 21 large financial institutions—including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and UBS—announced plans to form a company to issue stablecoins. The group’s plan, as described in that reporting, is to launch a U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027 before expanding to other G7 currencies, with a target spanning wholesale, institutional, and retail use cases. The stated focus includes cross-border payments and digital asset settlement.

Separately, Fidelity has already entered the stablecoin market with its Fidelity Digital Dollar (FIDD), issued through Fidelity Digital Assets and available to retail and institutional investors. According to DefiLlama data referenced by the original coverage, FIDD had about $50 million in circulation at the time of writing, with DefiLlama providing ongoing stablecoin supply tracking: DefiLlama—Fidelity Digital Dollar.

For market participants, these parallel efforts underscore that the industry is not waiting for a single “breakthrough” policy moment. Instead, large banks appear to be pursuing stablecoin infrastructure that can support cross-border and settlement use cases while they work through regulatory and market-structure questions.

Next, investors and builders should watch whether pilots like this translate into broader deployments with measurable adoption—such as increased settlement frequency, expanded corridor coverage, or more formal linkage to treasury and collateral workflows—and how institutions manage stablecoin governance features under real-world regulatory scrutiny.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center has asked a federal court to dismiss CME Group’s lawsuit against the CFTC, arguing that the derivatives exchange lacks standing and cannot rely on the Commodity Exchange Act provisions cited in its complaint.

Hyperliquid policy group disputes CME’s standing

The Hyperliquid Policy Center said in a Tuesday X announcement that it had submitted an amicus brief supporting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in its legal fight with CME. An amicus filing allows a person or group outside a case to offer arguments that may help the court consider the dispute.

HPC, an advocacy group with ties to the Hyperliquid Foundation, based its request on two alleged defects in CME’s case. Its first argument concerns whether CME has suffered the type of injury required to bring the lawsuit in federal court.

CME has relied on a legal principle known as competitor standing. Under that doctrine, a business may establish an injury when government action increases competition in a defined market and creates a predictable economic disadvantage for the company bringing the case.

According to HPC, the CFTC’s decision does not meet that standard because it allows every registered U.S. futures exchange, including CME, to seek approval for comparable perpetual products.

“The CFTC order it challenges does nothing of the kind,” the group said while rejecting CME’s competitor-standing argument.

Rather than placing CME under different rules from its rivals, the agency’s policy provides registered exchanges with a route to list perpetual futures if their products comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. HPC therefore contends that CME cannot treat its decision not to use the same route as an injury caused by the regulator.

A recent dismissal request from the CFTC made a similar argument. The regulator told the court on Sep. 2 that CME could seek permission to list comparable contracts and described any disadvantage created by its refusal to do so as “self-inflicted.”

The CFTC also cited CME’s trading data, noting that its Bitcoin and Ether futures volumes in June and August exceeded the levels recorded in May, when Kalshi’s contract received approval. According to the agency, the figures weaken CME’s claim that the decision produced a concrete competitive loss.

CME’s interests may fall outside CEA protections

HPC’s second objection focuses on the “zone of interests” test, which examines whether a plaintiff’s concerns relate to the purposes of the law it has invoked.

In its brief, the group argued that “CME is an unsuitable challenger because its interests fall outside the zone of interests of the CEA provisions it invokes.”

CME’s lawsuit relies on sections of the Commodity Exchange Act that govern how derivatives products are classified and approved. HPC maintains that the exchange is using those provisions to protect its commercial position rather than an interest Congress intended the law to cover.

The CFTC raised the same issue in its motion, arguing that the relevant parts of the Act do not protect an established exchange from lawful competition. A judge could dismiss the case on standing or zone-of-interests grounds without deciding the main question of whether perpetual contracts qualify as futures or swaps.

HPC also accused CME of using the lawsuit to restrict product development in U.S. derivatives markets. Since the CFTC’s decision applies to registered futures exchanges, the group said CME remains free to list a similar instrument but has chosen to challenge another venue’s approval.

“At least for now, CME has decided not to. But instead of leaving other futures exchanges to make their own commercial decisions, CME has asked a court to take the decision out of their hands,” HPC said. “We filed this brief because CME’s anticompetitive effort must fail.”

CME lawsuit centers on futures versus swaps

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 18, CME’s complaint challenges the CFTC’s May 29 approval of Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract and an agency policy statement addressing perpetual futures.

Perpetual contracts track an underlying asset without carrying a fixed expiration date. Funding payments between long and short traders help keep their prices aligned with the referenced market, allowing positions to remain open without traders having to move into a later-dated contract.

CME argues that the lack of a fixed expiry means the products are swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act rather than conventional futures. According to its complaint, the CFTC departed from its previous treatment of similar instruments and created a new regulatory approach without completing a formal rulemaking process.

The exchange has asked the court to vacate Kalshi’s approval and the related policy statement. Its complaint also alleges that the regulator acted arbitrarily and bypassed requirements established by Congress.

As earlier legal coverage from crypto.news explained, the classification determines which trading, registration, and oversight requirements apply. Treating the contracts as futures gives designated contract markets a more direct route to list them, while a swap classification would place the products under a different part of the federal derivatives framework.

The CFTC maintains that the Commodity Exchange Act does not require a futures contract to have a fixed expiration date. It reviewed Kalshi’s application under Regulation 40.3, which permits a designated contract market to request formal approval for a new product.

After assessing BTCPERP, the regulator found that the contract complied with the act and its rules. The agency also said the approval did not mean every perpetual design would qualify, as proposed contracts could still require individual review based on the underlying asset and product terms.

Kalshi was not named as a defendant in CME’s lawsuit. Coinbase, which received related regulatory relief for certain perpetual products, was also not named.

U.S. perpetual futures market continues to expand

For American traders, the court case could affect which regulated platforms can offer perpetual contracts and which legal framework applies to the products. Perpetuals had long been concentrated on offshore crypto exchanges, where access and leverage terms often differ from those permitted at CFTC-regulated venues.

Kalshi has continued adding contracts while the case remains pending. In June, the exchange filed for HYPE perps after rolling out Bitcoin and Ethereum perpetual futures for U.S. customers. The submission placed Hyperliquid’s native token among several crypto assets targeted for regulated derivatives products.

Hyperliquid itself operates an offshore decentralized perpetual exchange and restricts direct access from the United States. A separate route into the U.S. market could come through regulated infrastructure rather than opening the existing platform to American users.

In August, Hyperliquid Labs and Kraken parent Payward entered advanced discussions about offering selected Hyperliquid-linked contracts through Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated derivatives exchange owned by Payward. Under the reported structure, eligible U.S. traders would access selected products through Bitnomial instead of connecting directly to Hyperliquid.

Payward has presented the proposed arrangement to the CFTC, according to Bloomberg, but the parties have not announced regulatory clearance, a launch date, or the contracts that could be included.

Meanwhile, the CFTC’s dismissal motion has moved the CME case into its next procedural stage. CME must submit its response by Oct. 2, after which the regulator may file a reply, and the court will decide whether to dismiss the action or proceed to CME’s claims over the classification and approval process.

BitMine Immersion Technologies acquired 28,086 ETH for around $70.1 million last week. The purchase takes the Ethereum Treasury company’s total holdings to 5.93 million ETH, 4.9% of the token’s circulating supply.

Chairman Tom Lee is bullish on ETH, citing positive crypto legislation, tokenization, and blockchain-based AI as positive market developments.

BitMine Announces ETH Purchase

According to a treasury update, BitMine held 5,929,198 ETH as of September 7, following its latest purchase. The purchase was completed at $2,495 per token, with the company’s total holdings valued at around $14.79 billion. BitMine began purchasing ETH on June 30, 2025, with Lee stating the company has added ETH every week since.

BitMine’s previous purchase saw the company acquire 53,501 ETH, taking its total holdings to 5,901,112 ETH as of August 30. Other weekly purchases include 9,926 ETH in the week ending August 16, and 32,447 in the week after.

BitMine also disclosed it was close to reaching its target of owning 5% of Ethereum’s total supply. The company needs to hold approximately 6.1 million ETH to meet its target, a figure it calls the “Alchemy of 5%.” The company currently is 170,802 ETH short of its target, although this figure can change as Ethereum’s total supply fluctuates.

BitMine also disclosed it held 211 BTC, a $180 million stake in Beast Industries, a $91 million investment in Eightco Holdings, and $593 million in cash and marketable securities. The company valued its combined crypto, cash, securities, and strategic investments at $15.7 billion.

Staked ETH Revenue

BitMine also disclosed it had staked 5,067,309 ETH through the Made in America Validator Network and other external staking partners. The company’s staked position is worth around $12.6 billion at its reference price of $2,495 and accounts for 85% of its holdings. The company has estimated its staked ETH could bring in $330 million in annualized staking revenue, based on a seven-day annualized yield of 2.61%. If BitMine stakes its entire ETH holdings, it could generate $386 million in revenue. However, these figures are projections, not fixed revenue.

Staking is an important revenue generator for BitMine. A treasury report revealed the company generated $45.7 million through staking and validation in three months ending May 31, which is 98% of its quarterly revenue of $46.5 million. Staking also supports BitMine’s preferred stock structure. The company’s Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange. Lee has also said the company’s staking income could be used to fund preferred share dividend payments.

AI and Tokenization Could Support Ethereum

Lee has maintained a bullish outlook on ETH and other prominent cryptocurrencies, including BTC. Lee also stated that ETH outperformed the S&P 500 during the third quarter, making it the best-performing macro asset. He identified ETH, BTC, and SOL as the market’s strongest performers since June 30, arguing that institutional investors may want to increase their exposure to these assets.

“We believe there are multiple positive catalysts as we head into the final months of 2026.”

Lee named the upcoming vote on the CLARITY Act, tokenization, renewed crypto purchases, and the growing use of blockchains by AI agents. Lee believes tokenization and AI could benefit Ethereum more compared to Bitcoin. The BitMine chairman has previously linked Ethereum demand to blockchain and AI, and predicted that ETH will outperform BTC during the ongoing market cycle, witnessing growth similar to the 2017-2018 cycle, when ICOs supported price action, and 2020-2021, when NFTs drove network activity.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.