MoonPay has agreed to acquire North Capital in an all-stock deal valued at more than $60 million, pushing the crypto payments firm deeper into regulated US securities infrastructure. The acquisition is designed to support MoonPay’s broader push into tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), particularly private-market securities.

According to MoonPay’s announcement shared with Cointelegraph, the deal would enable the company to move into functions such as issuance, custody, and secondary trading of private securities, including tokenized securities. North Capital operates broker-dealer, alternative trading system (ATS), transfer agent, and investment adviser businesses—all registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Key takeaways

• MoonPay will pay for North Capital with an all-stock transaction worth more than $60 million, according to a person familiar with the matter cited by Cointelegraph.
• The target brings SEC-registered broker-dealer, ATS, transfer agent, and investment adviser capabilities, aligning the acquisition with MoonPay’s RWA strategy.
• North Capital reports having supported more than $8.7 billion in primary and secondary transaction volume.
• The companies’ boards have approved the deal, which remains subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions.

Why MoonPay’s move matters for tokenized securities

Tokenized RWAs have long faced a practical bottleneck: getting “onchain” products to connect with traditional capital markets functions such as custody, issuance workflows, and compliant secondary trading. MoonPay’s planned acquisition of North Capital is framed as an effort to bridge those components through “modern, programmable infrastructure,” as MoonPay CEO Ivan Soto-Wright said in the company’s statement shared with Cointelegraph.

For investors and market participants, the significance is less about a new headline promise and more about operational capabilities. North Capital’s existing regulatory footprint—covering broker-dealers and an ATS as well as transfer agent and investment adviser roles—suggests MoonPay could attempt to formalize end-to-end rails for private securities. That is particularly relevant for tokenized private market assets, where settlement, custody, and trading controls are typically expected to fit within established compliance frameworks.

North Capital’s infrastructure and reported scale

North Capital, based in Midvale, Utah, provides multiple lines of securities-market infrastructure. The company’s portfolio includes broker-dealers and an alternative trading system (ATS), along with services such as a transfer agent and an investment adviser, all registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

In its announcement, MoonPay said North Capital has supported more than $8.7 billion in primary and secondary transaction volume. While that figure does not, by itself, indicate what portion would be tied to tokenized assets after the acquisition, it does provide a baseline for the business’s market activity and indicates established relationships and operational readiness in US private securities workflows.

Under the terms described, North Capital will become a wholly owned MoonPay subsidiary after the transaction closes. Both companies’ boards approved the acquisition, and the deal is still subject to regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions.

Deal structure, valuation, and MoonPay’s funding backdrop

MoonPay’s agreement to acquire North Capital is structured as an all-stock transaction valued at more than $60 million, according to a person familiar with the matter cited by Cointelegraph. MoonPay has not been described as paying a cash premium in the provided details; instead, the focus is on combining equity-linked ownership with infrastructure expansion.

For context on MoonPay’s financial trajectory, Cointelegraph points to data compiled by Traxcn showing that MoonPay last raised funding in October 2021 through a $2.18 million seed round at an unspecified valuation. The same dataset places MoonPay’s valuation at $3.4 billion at the time of reporting, with investors including Karlani Capital and Fiduciary Trust International.

MoonPay’s valuation and earlier funding history are relevant because they frame the company’s capacity to pursue acquisitions as it expands from crypto payments into broader capital markets roles. Even without additional deal-specific terms in the source, the move signals a strategic reorientation toward regulated market infrastructure rather than relying solely on payment rails.

Building beyond crypto payments: MoonPay’s broader acquisition pattern

This North Capital deal is described as the latest entry in MoonPay’s acquisition push during the year, as the company expands beyond pure crypto payment services. Cointelegraph previously reported MoonPay’s purchases of key institutional crypto infrastructure provider Sodot and the DFlow trading infrastructure platform, as well as an AI finance operations platform called Entendre.

Taken together, those earlier acquisitions highlight a recurring theme: MoonPay is attempting to assemble a stack that supports institutional custody, onchain trading capabilities, and broader financial operations—then extend that stack further into compliant securities infrastructure via regulated entities like broker-dealers and ATS platforms.

For market observers, the key question is what changes after closing. Will MoonPay’s existing institutional toolset be used to onboard issuers and intermediaries into tokenized private securities workflows more efficiently? The provided details stop short of outlining specific product launches or timelines for tokenized secondary markets, so readers should watch for follow-through: regulatory filings, integration milestones, and any public expansion of tokenized securities offerings that leverage North Capital’s licensed roles.

As the acquisition moves through approvals, the most important uncertainties remain practical and regulatory: the pace of closing, how MoonPay integrates North Capital’s SEC-registered functions, and whether the resulting infrastructure can translate tokenized private securities into consistently compliant issuance and secondary trading at scale.

Story Continues

Bitcoin (BTC) was rejected near $87,000 on Wednesday as onchain data showed negative spot demand.

Key points:

• Bitcoin suffered a correction below $84,000 around Wednesday’s Wall Street open, causing $280 million in long liquidations over the course of four hours.
• Analysis saw $82,000 as key support to hold in the event of a further breakdown.
• Bitcoin cumulative spot demand remained negative on a rolling 30-day time frame

BTC price falls toward $84,000, nears week-to-date low 

Data from TradingView tracked a second attempt to break beyond $87,000 before BTC/USD fell to local lows under $84,000 into the Wall Street open.

BTC/USD one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

These levels marked the upper and lower boundaries of a narrow intraday range. Liquidity thickened on both sides of the spot price as traders attempted to force a breakout from the sideways range. Data from CoinGlass tallied liquidations over the four hours prior to the time of writing at $280 million.

BTC liquidation heatmap. Source: CoinGlass

Commenting on the current landscape, trader and analyst Rekt Capital flagged $82,000 as a level for bulls to hold should the low-timeframe structure break down.

“For bullish continuation and to avoid reverting back into the $60k-$80k Range, Bitcoin would need to stay above or at minimum successfully retest ~$82k on any future dip,” he wrote in a post on X.

BTC/USD one-week chart. Source: Rekt Capital on X.com

As Cointelegraph reported, the current range has implications for certain investor cohorts. The US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have their aggregate cost basis at just below $86,000.

Earlier, analysis highlighted $90,000 as the likely next area in which BTC/USD will consolidate due to the increased likelihood of profit-taking by traders.

Spot demand shows only modest improvement

Despite gaining over 35% since the week beginning Aug. 17, Bitcoin faces an ongoing struggle to attract spot-market demand.

Related: Crypto metric signals altseason as Bitcoin market-cap share stalls below 60%

In its latest research, onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant claimed that interest was still largely confined to derivatives markets.

“The negative value of $BTC spot demand has narrowed slightly, while futures demand continues to increase. Total demand is also showing a slight recovery compared to the previous day,” it reported in a blog post on the day.

An accompanying chart showed that cumulative 30-day apparent spot demand measured -180,000 BTC as of Tuesday. Negative values reflect supply outpacing demand over the 30-day lookback period.

“Although total demand remains in negative territory, the trend is shifting toward the positive. If the current momentum persists, spot demand will also flip to positive. That moment will mark the beginning of a more significant rally,” CryptoQuant added.

Bitcoin spot vs. futures apparent demand (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant

XRP price pulled back to about $1.51 on Sep. 23 after briefly rising above $1.65, leaving $1.60 as the first price level to reclaim while the XRP Ledger’s native lending proposals remain in validator voting.

XRPL Commons describes the proposed system as a way to bring pooled lending onto the XRP Ledger without deploying separate smart contracts. The plan depends on two amendments: XLS-65 would create Single Asset Vaults, while XLS-66 would let loan brokers use funds in those vaults for fixed-term credit. Both remain subject to validator approval.

XRP Ledger lending still needs validator approval

A Single Asset Vault would hold one type of asset, such as XRP, RLUSD, or another supported token. Depositors would receive shares representing their portion of the vault. Loan brokers could then arrange loans using the pooled funds, with the ledger recording terms, payments, and defaults.

The proposed system would leave borrower checks and lending decisions to the firms operating the loans. It also allows a broker to provide first-loss capital, which could absorb part of a default. Neither feature removes the risk that a borrower fails to repay or that depositors lose money.

A further amendment, LendingProtocolV1_1, would add vaults with set periods for deposits, lending and withdrawals. It would also count interest as income only when a borrower pays it. As crypto.news reported on the XRP Ledger’s 3.4.0 software release, adding those rules to server software did not activate them on mainnet.

The approval process matters more than the software release for timing. XRP Ledger amendments need support from more than 80% of trusted validators for two consecutive weeks before activation. XLS-65 and XLS-66 have yet to complete that process, so native lending has no confirmed mainnet start date.

Would lending create demand for XRP?

A lending launch would give developers and financial firms another reason to use the XRP Ledger, but the size of any effect on XRP would depend on which assets they lend. An XRP-funded vault would use XRP as its lending asset. A vault funded with RLUSD or another issued token would use that asset for its loans, while XRP would retain its role in network fees and account reserves.

That distinction is relevant to the planned RLUSD credit product previously covered by crypto.news. The product was being tested for working-capital loans to fintech and payment companies, with RLUSD rather than XRP serving as the credit asset. Its development shows a possible use for the lending rules, but it does not establish how much XRP borrowers or lenders would need to buy.

For U.S. holders watching the proposal, validator approval and actual use of the lending system are separate milestones. A vote could make the feature available; subsequent vault deposits and loans would show whether firms adopt it and whether XRP itself becomes a material lending asset.

XRP price faces another test near $1.60

XRP’s daily trading range shows why $1.60 remains the immediate test. The token opened near $1.57, reached $1.6581, and fell as low as $1.5070 before trading around $1.51 in the Sep. 23 chart snapshot. A move back above $1.60 would put the day’s high near $1.66 in view. The previous September spike near $1.70 marks the next visible area above it.

On the downside, the 20-day simple moving average near $1.40 sits below the current price. The chart also shows moving averages clustered around $1.28–$1.29. A loss of $1.40 would weaken the recent rebound and bring that lower area back into focus.

The 20-day Chaikin Money Flow reading stood at −0.09, indicating that buying pressure had not strengthened alongside the latest rise. XRP can still retest resistance, but the intraday retreat and negative money-flow reading leave the $1.60 break unconfirmed. The validator vote offers a development to watch; the chart has yet to show that it will carry XRP through resistance.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has moved to dismiss civil enforcement actions against multiple crypto-related companies that were filed under the prior administration, according to SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda. Speaking at the Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy’s Financial Markets Quality Conference, Uyeda said the agency’s decision was tied to an intended shift in how it approaches rulemaking and litigation strategy.

Uyeda, who served as acting SEC chair from January to April 2025 before Paul Atkins took over following confirmation, argued that continuing cases authorized under earlier leadership could undermine the SEC’s credibility if the agency’s legal posture changes. His remarks point to a broader tension at the intersection of crypto enforcement and evolving regulatory interpretation within the SEC.

Key takeaways

• SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda said civil crypto cases were dropped to avoid an “180-degree change” in positions becoming inconsistent in court.
• Uyeda linked the dismissals to preparations for a major shift in SEC rulemaking and litigation approach.
• The commissioner suggested there were doubts about whether the earlier cases were “justifiable under law,” as the SEC anticipated reversal in its stance.
• The SEC’s leadership structure is also in flux, with Commissioner Hester Peirce’s departure expected in November and no announced replacements by Trump.

Why the SEC moved to end crypto enforcement cases

Uyeda described the early-2025 decision as a pragmatic step to manage consistency between what the SEC argues in litigation and what it plans to adopt through rulemaking. He said the commission determined that litigators should not continue cases that had been authorized under the previous administration if doing so would conflict with a new set of policy objectives.

In Uyeda’s account, the SEC was concerned that courts could receive interpretations from the agency that effectively reverse course compared with the positions it had previously advanced. He said this would erode the agency’s credibility—especially when the SEC is attempting to persuade judges while simultaneously pivoting its regulatory framework.

Uyeda framed the issue around the potential for litigators to defend earlier arguments while the SEC prepares to issue a fundamentally different approach. “I’m not about to have our litigators… stand up in court and have a commission interpretation be issued that is a 180-degree change from what they’d been arguing for,” Uyeda said, according to his remarks at the conference (via Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy).

Dismissals under the prior administration’s approach

Uyeda’s comments align with reporting that the SEC dropped several crypto-related lawsuits earlier in 2025. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the commission dismissed a case involving Kraken, and it also dropped actions involving other industry names including Ripple Labs and Coinbase.

Those dismissals had drawn sharp criticism from opponents of the agency’s previous strategy, who described the moves as part of a politically charged shift rather than a purely legal recalibration. Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting tied the enforcement pattern to concerns about retaliation dynamics following President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. That reporting also pointed to Trump’s pledge to fire then-SEC Chair Gary Gensler “on day one,” with Gensler resigning the day Trump took office.

While Uyeda’s conference remarks focused on litigation coherence and institutional credibility, the political backdrop matters for how market participants interpret the SEC’s enforcement trajectory. For industry observers, the question is whether dismissals should be understood as a correction of legal weaknesses, a change in policy direction, or both.

Rulemaking overhaul and “credibility” in court

The SEC’s legal posture in crypto has long been contentious because enforcement actions often serve as a proxy for regulatory interpretation in the absence of comprehensive, sector-specific rules. In that context, Uyeda’s stated rationale—avoiding situations where the SEC’s court arguments would conflict with its future policy—highlights a core challenge for the agency: how to transition from one interpretive approach to another without weakening its ability to persuade judges.

Uyeda’s argument suggests the SEC is seeking to reduce the likelihood that it appears internally inconsistent. If an agency simultaneously pursues litigation based on one theory while planning to issue an opposing theory through rulemaking, the court may treat the shift as a retreat from prior positions rather than a natural evolution of policy. Uyeda said that outcome could harm the SEC’s credibility.

For investors and market participants, this matters because the SEC’s enforcement strategy can influence compliance expectations and legal risk premiums. Even when a case is dismissed, the underlying uncertainty about what the SEC considers acceptable activity may persist—especially in a regulatory environment where guidance and rules are still developing.

Leadership transition at the SEC adds uncertainty

Uyeda’s remarks came as the SEC itself is preparing for additional leadership change. He has served as an SEC commissioner since 2022 and is currently part of the agency’s leadership alongside Paul Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce. However, the source reporting indicates Peirce’s departure is expected in November.

That expected change could significantly alter the SEC’s internal balance at a time when the agency is already adjusting its posture toward crypto litigation and rulemaking. According to the same account, the agency would then have only two members on its leadership panel out of five, and Trump has not announced nominations to replace potential departing leadership.

For crypto market participants, fewer confirmed decision-makers can mean slower consensus on enforcement priorities and rulemaking direction. It also raises the likelihood that upcoming SEC leadership changes could influence whether earlier enforcement dismissals represent a pause, a broad retreat, or the beginning of a new era of regulatory strategy.

As the SEC continues navigating the shift Uyeda described, readers should watch for the next steps in rulemaking and any subsequent enforcement signals. The key open question is whether the agency’s “credibility” rationale will translate into clearer, consistent standards for crypto compliance—or whether legal uncertainty will simply move from active lawsuits to new forms of guidance and litigation.

Aerodrome liquidity farming has accounted for about $109 billion of the $121 billion in USDC transfers recorded on Sep. 23, according to an analysis by RyeBlocks.

On-chain analyst RyeBlocks posted the figures on Sep. 23, describing the Aerodrome activity as “inorganic farming.” The estimate leaves about $12 billion of the reported daily total outside the activity RyeBlocks identified. It does not establish that the remaining amount consisted entirely of payments.

The analyst also put one-tick farming at roughly 75% of the USDC transfer volume measured since Aerodrome launched. RyeBlocks linked to a Dune analysis, but the post does not spell out the full scope and filters behind that longer-term figure. It should therefore be treated as the analyst’s estimate for the measured data, rather than a verified share of every USDC transfer across all blockchains.

Why USDC transfers can outnumber payments

Aerodrome is a decentralized exchange on Base, the blockchain network developed by Coinbase. Traders use its liquidity pools to swap tokens, while liquidity providers deposit assets that support those trades. Aerodrome’s documentation says eligible providers can receive AERO token rewards, with allocations to pools determined through weekly voting.

In one-tick farming, a liquidity provider uses a very narrow price range for a position. As positions are managed, USDC can move through pool contracts repeatedly. RyeBlocks’ finding concerns the resulting transfer records: the value counted as moving onchain can rise each time the tokens change position, even when the activity does not represent a new purchase or a payment to another person.

Aerodrome says it launched on Aug. 28, 2023, and uses a concentrated-liquidity design called Slipstream alongside another type of liquidity pool. Its rewards system gives providers a reason to place funds in eligible pools. RyeBlocks has identified farming within that system as the source of most of the USDC volume in its Sep. 23 comparison.

The finding does not, by itself, show wrongdoing by Aerodrome or its users. Providing liquidity is a normal exchange activity. The measurement question is whether a headline transfer total tells readers how many dollars people used for payments, or whether it mainly counts repeated movements connected to trading and liquidity management.

A separate measure shows why the distinction matters on Base. In September, Aerodrome handled $557.1 million of tokenized-stock trades during a 30-day period, or 76% of that category’s volume on the network, according to Token Terminal figures previously covered by crypto.news. That measure counted completed swaps. RyeBlocks’ USDC figures concern token transfers, so the two totals describe different types of activity and should not be combined.

How stablecoin data providers separate the activity

Visa’s Onchain Analytics Dashboard draws a distinction between total stablecoin volume and an adjusted measure. Visa says public blockchains record activity initiated both by people and by software, including transactions that do not resemble conventional settlement. Its adjusted methodology seeks to remove potential distortions from bots, high-frequency trading, routing and repeated internal movements within a transaction.

Visa and its data partner Allium also classify transfers by use. The dashboard distinguishes payments for goods, services or person-to-person transfers from decentralized finance, exchange flows, trading and other categories. A USDC transfer into a liquidity pool can therefore be recorded onchain without being classified as a consumer or business payment.

The adjusted figure is not a simple count of payments, either. Visa says some DeFi activity can appear in adjusted volume, depending on how a transfer is classified and whether it passes the dashboard’s filters. Its methodology also uses address labels and transaction thresholds, which means results depend on the rules used to sort the data.

Dune describes a similar need to identify what a transfer represents. Its stablecoin data can classify activity such as a decentralized-exchange swap, a lending deposit, or a bridge transfer. Dune says users can choose which categories to include when calculating adjusted volume, rather than relying on one formula for every purpose.

Circle’s USDC figures cover several uses

For U.S. investors following Circle, the issuer of USDC, the difference between transfer volume and payments is relevant to how company activity figures are read. Circle reported $14.8 trillion in USDC onchain transaction volume for the second quarter of 2026, up 151% from a year earlier. As earlier coverage of Circle’s results noted, that total includes trading and transfers alongside payments. It is a quarterly, company-reported measure and is not directly comparable with RyeBlocks’ single-day estimate.

Circle has also reported a narrower payments figure. Its second-quarter results put USDC at 99.3% of the payment volume it measured through x402, a protocol that lets software pay for online services. The percentage applies to that protocol’s measured activity, not to all payments made with USDC.

In August, Bernstein used another measure when assessing Circle. The brokerage said adjusted stablecoin volume was running at an annualized rate of about $17 trillion through July, with its calculation excluding bots and high-frequency activity. That estimate covers stablecoins generally and uses a different period and method from the figures RyeBlocks reported.

Circle’s planned expansion into payments provides a separate point of comparison. In September, the company agreed to buy payments firm Tazapay for $400 million in stock. Circle said Tazapay processes more than $25 billion in annualized payment volume across payout routes spanning over 100 markets, with stablecoins involved in about 60% of its transaction volume. The deal remains subject to approvals, including clearance from the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

Story Continues

Visa released the results of a survey signaling that bank-level fraud protection and insurance could drive adoption in stablecoins for cross-border transactions among US users.

In a survey of 2,192 US-based customers published on Wednesday, Visa said that the “adoption intention” of stablecoins among US users could climb from 36% to 56% “in a hypothetical scenario with bank-level fraud protection and deposit insurance.” The findings from a survey by Morning Consult between February and March showed that Americans who were asked about financial terms like stablecoins were looking for faster and cheaper methods to send money abroad.

“Nearly two-thirds (64%) [of respondents] say trust depends more on who offers a payment method than on the tech itself,” said Visa. “Willingness to use stablecoins rises from 36% to 45% when offered through an existing financial provider.”

The survey posited bank-like protections for stablecoin issuers in the US at a time when companies are preparing for the enactment of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. The bill awaits finalized rules from key US financial agencies ahead of its effective date, expected in January 2027.

Related: Stablecoin cross-border flows surge 78%, defying crypto bear market 

Unlike products from traditional financial institutions like banks, stablecoins lack many of the protections from fraud and are not covered by deposit insurance provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Under GENIUS starting in January, US stablecoins are still not expected to have FDIC insurance or explicit fraud protection, but will include guidelines in an effort to address illicit activities.

EU banks push for changes to minimum bank deposit for stablecoins

On Tuesday, the European System of Central Banks called for changing the rules requiring that stablecoins have at least 30% of reserves held as bank deposits, or 60% for “significant” tokens. The group instead pushed for liquidity thresholds for the assets, citing potential risks from users quickly withdrawing deposits.

The proposed changes for how EU banks address stablecoins fell under the region’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, which began enforcing its rules on stablecoins in June 2024. 

According to payments infrastructure company Decta, the market capitalization of compliant euro stablecoins more than doubled from 2025 to 2026 leading up to the end of MiCA’s transition period. US dollar-pegged tokens like USDC and USDT continue to lead stablecoins with a combined market capitalization of about $260 billion.

Magazine: MiCA cracks down on USDT in Europe… but no one else cares

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Mark Uyeda, who served as acting chair of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before Paul Atkins’s confirmation, said the agency dropped civil cases against cryptocurrency companies filed under the previous administration because it was preparing a “180-degree change” in rulemaking.

In a Wednesday panel at the Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy’s Financial Markets Quality Conference, Uyeda said the SEC dropped cases involving crypto companies in early 2025 as it could have hurt the agency’s credibility in arguing positions in court contrary to its planned policy changes. Uyeda argued that there had been “significant concerns” that the cases against crypto companies were “justifiable under law.”

“I’m not about to have our litigators, even though they’re having cases that were authorized under the prior administration, stand up in court and have a commission interpretation be issued that is a 180-degree change from what they’d been arguing for that court,” said the commissioner. “I think that hurts [our] credibility as an agency.”

SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda. Source: Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy

Under Uyeda, who was acting SEC chair from January to April 2025, the commission dropped cases filed against Kraken, Ripple Labs, Coinbase and others in what many critics characterized as payback for the industry’s support of President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. Trump had promised to fire former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, under whom many of the cases were filed, “on day one” if elected. Gensler resigned the day Trump took office.

Uyeda has been a commissioner at the SEC since 2022 and currently serves at the agency’s leadership alongside Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce. With Peirce’s departure expected in November, the agency will have only two of its five members on its leadership panel, and Trump has not announced any nominations for potential replacements.

Related: SEC grants temporary exemption for tokenized US stock trading

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.