Frgmnt has partnered with Anchorage Digital to give institutional clients access to its fUSD stablecoin and sfUSD staking product through Anchorage’s existing custody infrastructure.

In a press release shared with crypto.news, Frgmnt said institutions will be able to hold, mint, stake, unstake and redeem fUSD through Anchorage Digital, allowing clients to use the stablecoin without setting up a separate custody arrangement.

The integration covers both fUSD and sfUSD, two assets operated by Frgmnt on Base. fUSD is minted against USDC, while holders can stake the token to receive sfUSD and earn rewards generated by the protocol’s underlying strategies.

“Institutions should be able to access onchain financial products through infrastructure that meets their operational and custody requirements,” Frgmnt CEO and co-founder Aurélien Roussel said.

Roussel said bringing the two assets into Anchorage Digital’s institutional environment would make Frgmnt accessible to funds, corporate treasuries and fintech companies already using institutional digital asset infrastructure.

Anchorage Digital gives fUSD an institutional custody route

Frgmnt deploys the USDC backing fUSD across selected onchain lending markets. Users who want exposure to the rewards generated by those strategies can stake their fUSD for sfUSD.

The partnership puts those functions inside Anchorage Digital’s custody and operational environment, where institutional clients can manage the process alongside other digital assets.

Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. operates under a federal charter and is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Its platform provides services including custody, staking, trading and settlement.

The company has expanded the range of onchain services available through its custody infrastructure this year. In July, Anchorage integrated Lido, allowing institutional clients to mint and burn wrapped staked Ether without moving assets outside its custody environment. Clients could access Ethereum staking rewards while retaining Anchorage’s custody, governance, reporting and settlement infrastructure.

A separate July partnership connected Anchorage with Binance for off-exchange settlement. Institutional clients gained the ability to trade on Binance while pledged crypto and U.S. dollar collateral remained in segregated custody through Anchorage’s Atlas platform.

For Frgmnt, the same custody model gives institutions a route into its onchain lending and staking system while keeping asset management within infrastructure they already use.

“Institutional adoption of onchain finance depends on combining access to innovative protocols with the security and operational standards institutions expect,” Anchorage Digital CEO and co-founder Nathan McCauley said.

“Supporting Frgmnt gives our clients another way to access onchain opportunities through trusted institutional infrastructure,” he added.

Anchorage has expanded its stablecoin business

The Frgmnt partnership follows several stablecoin integrations involving Anchorage Digital as the company builds services around issuance, custody and institutional access.

In May, Anchorage Digital began providing regulated custody for CADD, the Canadian dollar stablecoin issued by Tetra Digital Group. CADD is backed one-to-one by Canadian dollars held at a licensed Canadian trust company and was made available for institutional custody through Anchorage.

Anchorage has taken a more direct role with other stablecoins. Western Union launched its USDPT payment stablecoin on Solana in May, with Anchorage Digital Bank serving as the token’s issuer. USDPT is fully backed by U.S. dollars and was designed to operate within Western Union’s payment network.

Earlier in May, McCauley said around 20 partners were exploring stablecoin launches through Anchorage as the company moved away from taking a leading position in the Global Dollar alliance. Anchorage wanted to operate more neutrally while building infrastructure that could serve multiple stablecoin issuers.

Institutional access to stablecoins has expanded outside Anchorage as banks and digital asset infrastructure companies build custody, issuance and settlement services around the asset class. In June, BNY opened direct USDC access through its Digital Asset Custody platform, allowing institutional clients to mint, redeem, store and transfer the stablecoin within the bank’s infrastructure.

BNY already served as the primary custodian for assets backing USDC before adding the client-facing services. The bank said at the time that it planned to support more stablecoins and digital cash workflows, although it did not identify which assets would be added next.

Frgmnt deploys fUSD backing into onchain lending markets

Frgmnt takes a different approach from stablecoins designed primarily for payments or settlement because USDC deposited against fUSD can be deployed into selected lending markets.

The protocol makes its positions and performance metrics available onchain through its own statistics tools and third-party analytics platforms including Dune and DeFiLlama.

Users who mint fUSD can hold the asset or stake it for sfUSD. Rewards attached to sfUSD come from the protocol’s underlying strategies instead of being paid directly to fUSD holders.

Frgmnt has been controlling inflows through capped deposit waves while the protocol scales. According to the company, another deposit wave is scheduled to open in September.

The protocol runs on Base, Coinbase’s Ethereum layer-2 network, where native USDC has been available since September 2023. Circle introduced native USDC on Base without requiring users to bridge the stablecoin from another blockchain.

Frgmnt uses that USDC as the asset against which fUSD is minted before deploying backing across the lending markets selected by the protocol.

fUSD and sfUSD functions move inside Anchorage infrastructure

Under the new integration, an institution using Anchorage Digital can move through the fUSD lifecycle from minting to redemption within the same operational environment.

Clients can mint fUSD, hold it in custody and stake it for sfUSD. They can later unstake sfUSD and redeem fUSD without creating a separate custody setup specifically for Frgmnt.

Anchorage Digital serves institutional customers through several regulated entities. Anchorage Digital Bank operates in the U.S. under its federal charter, while Anchorage Digital Singapore is licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Anchorage Digital NY holds a BitLicense from the New York Department of Financial Services.

The company was founded in 2017 and has received funding from investors including Andreessen Horowitz, GIC, Goldman Sachs, KKR and Visa. Its valuation stands at $4.2 billion, according to the company.

Frgmnt said institutions seeking access to fUSD and sfUSD through the integration can work through their existing Anchorage Digital representative or contact Frgmnt directly.

Coinbase has teamed up with Moov, a financial platform focused on community banking payments, to expand access to stablecoin infrastructure for more than 1,000 community banks and credit unions in Moov’s network. The partnership aims to bring stablecoin payment acceptance, settlement, and real-time funding capabilities to institutions that typically have fewer resources than large national banks.

In a Thursday announcement, Coinbase said the integration will combine its regulated digital asset infrastructure with Moov’s payments platform, enabling consumer stablecoin payments, merchant settlement and payouts, and providing businesses access to Coinbase custodial accounts.

Key takeaways

• Coinbase and Moov plan to deliver stablecoin payment acceptance, settlement, and real-time funding to over 1,000 community banks and credit unions.
• The rollout is designed to support consumer payments as well as merchant settlement and payout workflows.
• Businesses using the infrastructure can also gain access to Coinbase custodial accounts for stablecoin operations.
• The move follows broader momentum among U.S. banks and payments firms testing stablecoin infrastructure.

Stablecoins move deeper into community finance

Community banks in the U.S. generally operate at smaller scale than major institutions; the announcement notes that they typically have less than $10 billion in total assets. That matters because stablecoin infrastructure—especially when paired with compliance and custody—often requires operational and regulatory capabilities that smaller players may not easily build on their own.

By partnering with Moov, Coinbase is effectively positioning its regulated stack as a service layer for these institutions, rather than limiting stablecoin pilots to the biggest banks. For Moov’s customers, the value proposition is practical: integrate stablecoin payments into existing payment acceptance and settlement processes, rather than treating stablecoins as a standalone product.

What the infrastructure is intended to support

According to Coinbase’s announcement, the combined platform is structured around three operational needs: stablecoin payment acceptance, settlement, and real-time funding. The company also said the infrastructure can support multiple use cases, including consumer stablecoin payments, merchant settlement and payouts.

For merchants and businesses, the announcement adds another layer of functionality by pointing to access to Coinbase custodial accounts. Custody is often the missing piece in stablecoin adoption for enterprises that want regulated custody and account infrastructure to sit behind their customer-facing payment flows.

Part of a wider U.S. stablecoin push

Coinbase’s partnership arrives as stablecoin infrastructure continues to attract experimentation from large U.S. banks and payments players. The article notes that some of the biggest institutions have been testing stablecoin-based rails and issuance concepts.

For example, earlier this week the source highlights that U.S. Bank completed a live cross-border payment using its proprietary USBDC stablecoin on the Stellar blockchain. Separately, it points to an effort earlier in the month where 21 financial institutions—including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and UBS—announced plans to form a company intended to issue stablecoins, with a U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoin targeted for the first half of 2027.

While those initiatives are aimed largely at large-scale institutions and networked settlement, the Coinbase–Moov deal targets a different segment: community banks and credit unions. That difference may be important for how stablecoin services eventually spread across the financial system. If community institutions can participate using infrastructure offered by regulated providers, stablecoin payment usage could become less dependent on participation by only the largest players.

Non-bank competition keeps pressure on adoption

The stablecoin ecosystem is also being reshaped by firms outside traditional banking. The source points to Western Union’s August partnership with stablecoin infrastructure provider Rain, which resulted in a digital wallet and a Visa-branded card allowing users to hold and spend a U.S. dollar-backed stablecoin.

This matters because payments demand is often driven by consumer convenience: easy onboarding, straightforward spending, and reliable settlement. As non-bank channels make stablecoin spending more accessible, incumbent financial institutions face increasing expectations—both from customers and from partners—regarding how quickly they can integrate stablecoin functionality into everyday payment experiences.

What to watch next for the partnership

For community banks and credit unions, the key question is execution: how quickly Moov’s network can onboard institutions to the Coinbase-backed stablecoin capabilities and how smoothly those flows integrate with existing payment operations. Readers should also monitor whether this partnership expands beyond payment acceptance and settlement into broader stablecoin services, and how regulatory and market developments in the U.S. continue to shape the pace of mainstream stablecoin infrastructure adoption.

Ethereum price traded near $2,457 on Sep. 11 after recovering from a drop toward $2,400, but resistance around $2,500 continued to limit its advance.

Ethereum price action today

Ethereum (ETH) was trading at $2,457 at the time of writing, below the psychological $2,500 level after failing to hold an intraday recovery.

The daily candle remained up about 0.8%, having opened near $2,438 and reached a high of $2,485. However, the broader short-term chart showed repeated rejection between $2,490 and $2,530, preventing buyers from extending the rebound that began in August.

ETH has consolidated mainly between $2,400 and $2,530 since its sharp rally from below $2,000. The price tested the lower end of that range on Sep. 10 before buyers pushed it back above $2,450.

Persistent outflows from U.S. spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds have reduced one source of institutional demand. Sticky U.S. inflation and expectations that interest rates could stay elevated have also weighed on risk assets by keeping Treasury yields competitive with assets that do not generate fixed income.

Ethereum’s changing supply dynamics add another concern. Lower transaction fees following network upgrades such as Dencun have reduced the amount of ETH burned, weakening the deflationary case that previously supported the asset’s long-term investment narrative.

Ethereum technicals show support at $2,400

The daily Bollinger Bands showed Ethereum trading just below the middle band at $2,464.93. Reclaiming that level would improve the chances of another test of the upper band at $2,530.38.

The lower Bollinger Band stood at $2,399.48, reinforcing $2,400 as the most important nearby support. A daily close below that area could confirm a loss of the current range and expose ETH to a deeper pullback.

The daily relative strength index was 59.28, below its moving average of 63.97. The reading remained above the neutral 50 mark but showed that momentum had cooled since the August advance. ETH was not oversold, meaning the indicator did not yet signal that selling had reached an extreme.

The 4-hour structure offered a firmer signal. The Supertrend remained bullish and marked dynamic support at $2,423.40. ETH would preserve its short-term recovery structure while trading above that line.

Aroon Up stood at 64.29%, compared with Aroon Down at 14.29%. The gap favored buyers and showed that recent highs were more relevant than recent lows, although neither reading pointed to overwhelming momentum.

Liquidation levels frame ETH’s next move

CoinGlass’s three-day Ethereum liquidation heatmap showed concentrated leverage on both sides of the current price.

The nearest large overhead clusters appeared around $2,490 and between approximately $2,525 and $2,540. A move above $2,500 could force short positions to close and draw ETH toward the stronger $2,530 liquidity zone.

The heatmap also showed a substantial downside concentration around $2,390 to $2,405. Losing the 4-hour Supertrend support at $2,423 could therefore pull the price toward $2,400, where leveraged long positions face greater liquidation risk.

Smaller liquidity bands were visible near $2,440 and $2,470. Those levels may keep price action uneven inside the broader $2,400–$2,530 range until either side produces a confirmed breakout.

Liquidity concentrations can attract price because forced position closures add trading volume. They do not guarantee direction, however, and the clusters can change as traders open or close leveraged positions.

Analysts identify $2,400 as the key level

Analyst Ted Pillows said Ethereum was holding up better than Bitcoin after ETH quickly recovered from its fall to $2,400. According to the analyst, buyers remain in control as long as the price stays above that level.

His chart placed current resistance near $2,530 and the next major resistance around $2,800. It also identified support around $2,200, followed by a lower level near $1,955 if the current rebound fails.

Crypto Patel presented a much longer-term setup, arguing that Ethereum was testing a multi-year resistance area for the third time while remaining above an ascending accumulation zone. The analyst listed speculative breakout targets of $5,000, $10,000, and $15,000.

Those targets depend on Ethereum clearing its multi-year resistance and sustaining the breakout. They do not describe the immediate setup, which remains defined by the much narrower range between $2,400 and $2,530.

US data could decide the breakout

U.S. inflation and interest-rate expectations remain important for Ethereum because tighter monetary policy can reduce demand for volatile assets. Higher Treasury yields may also encourage fund managers to retain exposure to fixed-income products instead of increasing crypto allocations.

ETF flows provide another measure of U.S. institutional demand. Continued withdrawals would leave Ethereum more dependent on spot buyers, while a return to net inflows could help the price challenge the $2,500–$2,530 resistance area.

For now, Ethereum retains a mildly bullish short-term structure above $2,423, but buyers still need a daily close above $2,530 to confirm an upside breakout. A loss of $2,400 would invalidate that setup and shift attention toward lower support levels.

Blockstream says it will not negotiate with the parties it describes as hackers behind the recent Liquid Network incident, insisting that the demand for a bounty amounts to theft rather than “responsible disclosure.” In a statement posted Friday, the Bitcoin infrastructure firm said it engaged with the attackers in good faith to recover user funds, but will not comply with their conditions.

The dispute centers on remaining Bitcoin held after the Liquid federation network was disrupted earlier this month. Blockstream argues the actors’ behavior crossed a clear line: taking assets without authorization and withholding their return is a crime, not an attempt to improve security.

Key takeaways

• Blockstream rejects a demanded “bounty” payment and says the remaining funds should be returned voluntarily.
• Following engagement attempts, Blockstream says it will escalate by working with law enforcement, exchanges, service providers, and forensic specialists if funds aren’t returned.
• The incident began after self-described “white-hat” actors withdrew roughly 4,000 BTC from Liquid’s federation wallet.
• After bridge nodes were patched, about 3,400 BTC were returned, leaving approximately 598 BTC outstanding.
• Liquid resumed block production with emergency updates, but transactions and transfers into or out of the network remained suspended at the time of the report.

Blockstream draws a hard line on “bounty” demands

Blockstream’s position is unambiguous: it will not pay to regain assets it says were taken without authorization. The company called the behavior “theft,” adding that it does not qualify as white-hat activity or responsible disclosure.

Blockstream also addressed the timing and intent of its interactions. According to the company, it worked with the hackers in good faith to attempt to recover user funds, but the firm will not accept the attackers’ demands.

Those demands, as described in the reporting, were presented via an onchain message. The message reportedly asked Blockstream to pay a bounty equal to 10% of the requested amount using its own funds, while threatening Liquid holders with a 15% loss if Blockstream did not comply. The onchain appeal was shared publicly by Jan3 CEO and former Blockstream chief strategy officer Samson Mow.

In its response, Blockstream urged the remaining Bitcoin holders to return what’s still at issue without further conditions. If voluntary return does not happen, the firm indicated it will pursue tracing and identification—leveraging cooperation with law enforcement, exchanges, service providers, and forensic specialists.

What happened to Liquid—and what returned so far

Liquid is a Bitcoin sidechain that relies on a federation model. The disruption came after self-described “white-hat” actors removed roughly 4,000 BTC from Liquid’s federation wallet. At the time, the amount was reported as worth about $320 million.

Following that withdrawal, Liquid paused operations. The reported pause reflected the urgency of the situation: bridge-related components and network procedures needed emergency attention before normal activity could resume safely.

Later, after Blockstream said affected bridge nodes were patched, the actors returned 3,400 BTC. That left around 598 BTC still outstanding, according to the subsequent reporting referenced in this article.

Blockstream’s latest statement frames the remaining balance as funds that should never have been withheld in the first place. The company’s escalation plan—moving from engagement to potential investigative and legal coordination—signals that it sees the situation less as a negotiated remediation and more as a recoverable loss that requires external enforcement support.

Liquid network status: resumed block production, suspended transfers

Liquid’s recovery has been partial and operationally cautious. After emergency software updates, the network resumed block production. However, the resumed production produced empty blocks, reflecting that core transaction flows were not fully restored immediately after the fixes.

At the same point in the timeline described in the article, transactions and Bitcoin transfers into and out of Liquid remained suspended. This matters for users because even when a network is “running” again in terms of producing blocks, it may still be functionally limited—particularly if transfers depend on bridge components or other safeguards that require additional validation.

The contrast between resumed block production and ongoing suspension of transfers highlights a common post-incident reality for sidechain and federation-based systems: restoring consensus activity is not the same as restoring end-to-end movement of assets. Users and integrators typically need certainty that both issuance and redemption pathways are secure before reactivating deposit and withdrawal workflows.

Why Blockstream’s refusal to pay changes the dynamic

Refusing to pay a demanded bounty can matter as much for incentives as for outcomes. When attackers attempt to convert exposure into payment, companies must decide whether negotiating sets a precedent that encourages future incidents. Blockstream appears to be choosing the deterrence route—arguing that paying would legitimize unauthorized appropriation as a “disclosure” process.

The firm’s approach also shifts the practical path to resolution. Rather than relying on the attackers to continue responding to pressure, Blockstream is signaling a move toward forensic tracking and coordinated action with third parties that can help identify flows and locate responsible parties. That includes exchanges and service providers that may be able to freeze or trace funds, depending on jurisdiction and access.

There is also a tension in the broader narrative: the attackers previously described the actions as “white-hat,” and a portion of funds has already been returned after technical remediation. But Blockstream’s messaging stresses that returning some assets does not absolve withholding the remainder under a payment threat.

For Liquid users, the key uncertainty remains straightforward: whether the roughly 598 BTC still held in connection with the incident will be returned without further conditions. Even if the network resumes certain functions, asset recovery timelines may depend on the interaction between technical fixes, the ability to trace funds, and any legal or regulatory steps that follow.

Going forward, traders, wallets, and bridge operators should watch for updates on whether Liquid transfers remain suspended, whether additional emergency patches are required, and—most importantly—whether the remaining Bitcoin is returned in line with Blockstream’s demand for voluntary restoration rather than conditional payment.