The Federal Reserve has proposed capital, redemption and other regulatory requirements for stablecoin issuers under its supervision as it moves to implement the GENIUS Act.

The GENIUS Act already requires stablecoin issuers to maintain reserves backing their tokens on a one-to-one basis and limits the types of assets they can hold, including cash, bank deposits and short-term US Treasurys. The law left federal regulators to establish more detailed capital, reserve-diversification and risk-management requirements.

Under the Fed proposal, issuers would face an operational-risk capital charge equal to 2% of the first $20 billion in stablecoins outstanding, 1.5% of the next $30 billion and 1% of amounts above $50 billion, along with additional capital requirements tied to credit and operational risks.

Issuers would generally be required to process redemptions within two business days. If reserves fall below the required one-to-one backing, an issuer would have to notify the Fed and either restore its reserves under a remediation plan or liquidate them and redeem outstanding stablecoins.

Issuers would also have to publish monthly reports detailing their outstanding stablecoins and the value and composition of their reserves. The disclosures would have to be examined by a registered public accounting firm and certified by the issuer’s CEO and CFO.

A separate proposal would establish an application process for Fed-supervised banks seeking approval to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries, including requirements to submit a business plan and financial information.

The proposals are open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Related: EU banking watchdog calls for crypto lending rules under MiCA

Barr says stablecoins must remain redeemable during market stress

Fed Governor Michael Barr supported the proposal on Thursday but said further work would be required for stablecoins to become reliable payment instruments.

“Stablecoins will only be stable if they can be reliably and promptly redeemed at par in a range of conditions. This includes during market stress, when pressure can be put on the value of even otherwise liquid government debt, and during episodes of strain on the individual issuer or its related entities,” Barr said.

Barr added that he was encouraged by the proposed limits on reserve assets and standardized capital requirements, while calling for public feedback on whether the framework adequately addresses interest-rate and foreign-currency risks.

He also said universal redemption rights should be clearly established in the final rule and raised concerns about a standard that would prevent the Fed from taking supervisory or enforcement action over an anti-money laundering deficiency unless the issue is considered “significant or systemic.”

The GENIUS Act is set to take effect on Jan. 18, 2027, or 120 days after federal regulators issue final implementing rules, whichever comes first.

Magazine: Winners and losers of the SEC’s new tokenized stocks rules

The case adds to a growing fight between prediction markets and state gambling regulators over who has the authority to oversee the products.

Prediction market companies argue that their event contracts are financial products overseen at the federal level by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). States have taken a different view, particularly when the contracts involve sports, arguing that the products are effectively bets and must follow state gambling rules.

New York has been one of the most active states in that fight. The state sued Kalshi in July after negotiations between the company and Hochul’s office broke down, seeking as much as $36 billion in penalties and disgorgement. Many of these court cases have gone to appeals courts, and a recent case between Kalshi and New Jersey has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Our gambling laws exist to protect New Yorkers, prevent the potential harms of problem gambling, and ensure funding for educational and public benefit programs,” James said in a statement.

The lawsuit comes less than a year after Polymarket returned to the U.S. market.

“Under the proposal, certain types of arrangements involving third parties would be presumed to be prohibited payments of interest or yield,” the Fed wrote, noting that its approach is consistent with the OCC’s. Though the regulations aren’t final, the agencies seem to be allowing a very narrow approach by crypto platforms to offer stablecoin rewards akin to credit-card incentive programs.

The question of how much companies such as Coinbase could reward stablecoin users was one of the sticking points in the debate over the recently failed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. As it stands, the GENIUS Act is now the primary law governing stablecoin rewards, because the efforts to revise it in the Clarity Act didn’t succeed.

Proposed rules like those offered by the Fed on Thursday need to gather input from the public before the federal regulator can revise them and publish them in final form — a process that usually takes several months, sometimes much longer.

The central bank’s first proposal on Thursday governs capital and reserve requirements meant to ensure that the stablecoins are fully represented by the most liquid assets and the issuers have a solid foundation in times of stress. It also outlines accepted stablecoin activities at its supervised banks, and it’s the proposal that includes the stablecoin rewards component.

Cardano’s ADA rose toward $0.26 as the Cardano Foundation and Fireblocks announced plans to add full support for tokens issued on the network by March 2027.

Fireblocks plans to add Cardano token support by March 2027

The Cardano Foundation and Fireblocks said on Sep. 24 that Cardano Native Tokens, or CNTs, will become standard assets on the Fireblocks platform. Banks, exchanges, payment companies and fintechs using the platform will be able to custody, send and receive the tokens under its existing security and policy controls.

Fireblocks has supported Cardano’s native coin, ADA, since 2021. The planned addition covers other assets issued on Cardano, including tokens that use the Cardano Token Registry standard, known as CIP-26, and the network’s onchain metadata standard, CIP-68. According to the announcement, handling those tokens has required extra manual steps until now.

The companies expect support to become available by March 2027. They also plan to assess further integrations with Cardano’s decentralized finance ecosystem during 2027.

Cardano Foundation CEO Frederik Gregaard said access through infrastructure institutions already used could help issuers of stablecoins and tokenized assets on Cardano reach those firms.

“Institutions rarely adopt a new asset on its own. Adoption happens through trusted infrastructure.”

The announcement concerns planned access to Cardano-based tokens. It does not report new token issuance, institutional purchases of ADA or a completed platform rollout.

ADA price faces another test near $0.26

TradingView’s ADA/USDT daily chart showed ADA near $0.247 late on Sep. 24, up about 3.65% for the day. Price had reached roughly $0.251 before pulling back, leaving the recent high around $0.26 as the next level to watch.

A Fibonacci retracement drawn from the chart’s June low near $0.138 to the recent high near $0.262 places the 78.6% level at $0.2359. ADA was trading above that level at the time of the chart. A move through the recent high would put $0.262 back in focus, while a drop below $0.236 would take price beneath the retracement level.

The daily relative strength index stood near 64, above its average of about 56. The moving average convergence divergence indicator was also positive, with its MACD line above the signal line. Both readings reflected the recent advance, though ADA had yet to clear the high used in the retracement.

On the 4-hour chart, ADA had retreated from a move above $0.26 before recovering to around $0.247. The Supertrend indicator remained below price near $0.2354. A rising trendline on the chart pointed toward the $0.25 area, making a sustained move above that level relevant to another test of the recent peak.

Liquidation levels cluster on both sides of ADA

CoinGlass’s 24-hour ADA liquidation heatmap showed a bright band near $0.252, just above the price at the end of the chart. Other visible bands sat around $0.242 and $0.236, with a larger group of levels lower down near $0.23.

Those bands show where leveraged positions could face liquidation if price reaches them; they do not establish where ADA will trade next. The nearby $0.252 band also falls below the recent high around $0.26, so ADA would need to pass both areas to confirm a stronger breakout on the displayed charts.

The Fireblocks rollout gives Cardano token issuers a timetable for access to institutional custody and transfer tools, including firms serving the US market. For ADA holders, the nearer test remains technical: whether price can regain $0.25 and break above $0.26 while holding the $0.235–$0.236 support area on a pullback.

Crypto exchange Bitget had $351.6 million dollars exposed to a system breach on Thursday, CEO Gracy Chen announced in a social media post.

In a post on X, Chen said that Bitget’s cold wallets and user funds were safe, and that there were “unauthorized transfers from some of our hot wallets.” The exchange maintains a “user protection fund” that had over $464 million in it, she said.

“Cold wallets remain fully secure. Bitget operates a three-tier wallet architecture — the breach contained only a portion of the hot wallet and warm wallet layers,” she added.

Deposits and trading remain online, she said, but the exchange is “temporarily” pausing withdrawals until it can finish a security review.

Onchain data and independent blockchain researchers had earlier flagged unusual wallet movements, initially reporting that around $183 million in digital assets had moved from wallets labeled as belonging to the exchange.

Emmett Gallic, an analyst at blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence, said in an X post that the transactions involved three Bitget hot wallets and one cold wallet across multiple blockchains, with the funds consolidated into a single address. The assets included ETH, BNB, AVAX and USDT0, according to his analysis.

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

DoubleZero has launched a dedicated fiber-based market data feed for Hyperliquid, aiming to give professional trading firms a more reliable way to consume the decentralized exchange’s full order book. Instead of relying on Hyperliquid’s public APIs, participants can access an ordered, continuous stream of market data over a private network connection—an approach designed for market makers and quantitative desks that prioritize speed and consistency.

The feed covers Hyperliquid’s native perpetual futures markets and also markets run by trade[XYZ], which uses Hyperliquid’s infrastructure to offer perpetual contracts linked to assets including oil, gold, and silver. DoubleZero says the service was developed alongside validator operators and ecosystem partners such as Hyperion DeFi, MAVAN, and Kinetiq.

Key takeaways

• DoubleZero’s Hyperliquid feed delivers the full order book via a fiber network, avoiding the limitations of public API updates.
• The service supports Hyperliquid native perps and trade[XYZ]-hosted markets, including perpetuals tied to oil, gold, and silver.
• DoubleZero cites reduced update frequency and depth in Hyperliquid’s public APIs as a key reason firms may need a dedicated data stream.
• Hyperion DeFi CEO Hyunsu Jung frames the development as “onchain markets adopting” the professional market-data distribution model, not as a direct replacement for traditional exchange infrastructure.

A dedicated order book feed for onchain venues

For many professional traders, the challenge with onchain venues is not just execution—it’s the quality and cadence of market data. DoubleZero’s new offering is positioned as an alternative to stitching together order book views from public API responses or from running one’s own nodes.

In its announcement, DoubleZero said that firms previously seeking a complete picture of Hyperliquid’s order book had to aggregate public data themselves or operate Hyperliquid infrastructure. It also argued that changes to Hyperliquid’s public APIs have reduced both the frequency and the depth of the updates available through those endpoints.

The DoubleZero feed is designed to address that gap. According to DoubleZero, it provides a continuous, ordered stream of market data intended for market makers and quantitative and proprietary trading firms that depend on fast, consistent order book refreshes.

Built with ecosystem partners and validator operators

DoubleZero did not present the initiative as a solo effort. It said the Hyperliquid feed was built with input and support from validator operators and ecosystem partners in the broader onchain ecosystem, including Hyperion DeFi, MAVAN, and Kinetiq.

The feed’s scope is also broader than a single venue’s flagship product. In addition to Hyperliquid’s native perpetual futures markets, it includes perpetual markets operated by trade[XYZ]. Those contracts are linked to assets such as oil, gold, and silver—showing that the data pipeline is intended to serve professional participants operating across multiple perpetual offerings within the Hyperliquid ecosystem.

DoubleZero further said the infrastructure is part of its wider “Edge” market-data service, which is already available for other venues. The Hyperliquid feed is presented as the third location offered through that service, after Solana and prediction market operator Kalshi.

Closer to traditional exchange data distribution—without pretending it’s identical

Hyperion DeFi CEO Hyunsu Jung described the direction of travel as convergence in the market-data layer rather than the trading model. In comments to Cointelegraph, Jung compared DoubleZero’s fiber-based distribution to how traditional electronic exchanges deliver professional market data.

Jung explained that exchanges such as CME and Nasdaq distribute professional data through dedicated networks, enabling automated trading firms to receive a consistent, ordered stream with high speed. In that sense, he said, Hyperliquid data can now be consumed through a similar fundamental model: “publish once, distribute simultaneously over dedicated fiber.”

However, he stressed the important differences remain. Traditional exchanges allow firms to reduce latency by placing trading systems physically closer to the exchange infrastructure that processes orders. Hyperliquid’s execution happens onchain, which means placement advantages still operate at the level of physics and connectivity.

As Jung put it, the “convergence is not Hyperliquid becoming CME.” Instead, onchain markets are adopting market-data infrastructure patterns that professional traders already use. At the same time, he cautioned that the move does not eliminate latency differences—such as the advantage a firm in Tokyo may still hold over a firm in New York.

Why this matters for professional traders and market makers

Dedicated order book data feeds can be consequential for firms that treat the order book as the primary signal. When update cadence slows or when public endpoints provide less depth, traders face a trade-off: either accept higher uncertainty in their models or invest additional effort into alternative data paths.

DoubleZero’s positioning suggests the latter option is becoming more practical as onchain venues mature. By distributing ordered market data over fiber rather than through public API calls, the service aims to deliver the predictability that quantitative systems often require to manage strategies, risk controls, and routing decisions.

It also highlights a shift in how professional onchain participation may evolve. Instead of relying solely on “build your own stack” approaches—such as running nodes or aggregating public data—firms can increasingly buy into infrastructure layers designed specifically for low-latency, consistent streaming.

For investors and observers, the broader takeaway is that the competitive edge between trading venues may increasingly depend not only on smart contract execution or liquidity incentives, but on the surrounding operational tooling: data transport, ordering guarantees, and the practical latency realities of trading systems.

What readers should watch next is how widely this approach is adopted across onchain venues and whether additional venues follow the same pattern of dedicated, ordered distribution. Equally important is whether Hyperliquid’s public API changes continue to push more high-frequency and market-making activity toward fiber-based or provider-managed data channels.