Connect with us

Crypto

Hester Peirce’s exit puts the SEC’s unfinished crypto agenda in two hands

Published

on

Hester Peirce’s exit puts the SEC’s unfinished crypto agenda in two hands

Hester Peirce plans to leave the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 2, leaving Chair Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda to handle a crypto offering proposal still open for comment. The agency can legally operate with two commissioners. Whether the two agree on what its final rules should say is the question her exit brings forward.

Summary

  • Peirce plans to leave on Oct. 2, leaving 2 commissioners in office unless a replacement arrives.
  • SEC rule 200.41 permits a quorum of 2 when only 2 commissioners hold office.
  • A federal appeals court upheld an SEC decision issued by 2 commissioners in 1996.
  • Comments on Regulation Crypto Assets are due Oct. 20, 18 days after Peirce’s planned exit.
  • The SEC’s Sept. 17 stock trading exemption lasts 5 years under its published terms.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s largest proposed crypto offering rule cannot be finalized before the public finishes commenting on it. That deadline is Oct. 20. Hester Peirce plans to leave the commission on Oct. 2, according to her resignation letter. Count the dates: the final 18 calendar days of public comment on Regulation Crypto Assets will arrive after the commissioner who led the agency’s Crypto Task Force has left.

That does not stop the proposal. Nor does it prevent a vote by the two commissioners expected to remain, Chair Paul Atkins and Mark Uyeda. The SEC’s own quorum rule permits the commissioners in office to constitute a quorum when fewer than three hold office. A federal appeals court upheld that arrangement in a case nearly 30 years ago. The question after Peirce leaves is less dramatic and more consequential: can Atkins and Uyeda agree on a final text after comments arrive, and who will carry the task force’s work to that decision?

Advertisement

Peirce has not been the only official shaping the agenda. Atkins chairs the commission and publicly supports the proposal. Uyeda helped launch the Crypto Task Force while serving as acting chair in January 2025 and has issued his own statement supporting the August proposal. The three have approved work together. From Oct. 2, if the membership remains as currently listed, there is no third vote available to resolve a disagreement between the two who remain.

The departure date moved forward, and the rulemaking did not

Peirce joined the SEC in 2018. The commission’s membership page currently lists her alongside Atkins and Uyeda and says her term expired in 2025; SEC commissioners may remain for a limited period after a term expires if they have not been replaced. She had previously indicated that she would join Regent University School of Law, leading earlier accounts to place her departure in November. Her subsequent resignation set Oct. 2 as the exit date. As of Sept. 27, the SEC’s membership and Crypto Task Force pages still identify her as serving. Their status should be checked again on the day she actually leaves.

The date corrects a point in our own archive. An earlier crypto.news feature on the SEC’s delayed crypto vote said she would depart in November and suggested that operating with two members would create an untested quorum problem. The new Oct. 2 date supersedes the earlier calendar. More significantly, the quorum claim needs correction: the rule expressly allows two sitting members to form a quorum, and a federal appeals court has already upheld its use. The risk of a divided two-person commission is real, but it is a voting and policy risk, not an automatic inability to meet.

The pending Regulation Crypto Assets docket, file S7-2026-27, gives this change an unusually clear measure. The SEC issued the proposal on Aug. 18. The Federal Register published it on Aug. 21. The docket lists Oct. 20 as the deadline for public comments. The proposed rule contains two tailored Securities Act registration exemptions for investment contracts involving crypto assets: one for up to $5 million over four years and another for up to $75 million in any 12-month period. It proposes a conditional route for an asset to cease being subject to an investment contract once promised essential managerial work has ended.

Advertisement

Those numbers are proposed limits, not permissions that an issuer can use today merely because the SEC published a draft. The SEC must review comments, decide whether to revise the draft and vote on a final rule before the new exemptions can operate. A material revision could require further notice and comment. An Oct. 20 deadline starts the next stage; it is not a deadline by which the commission must approve the measure.

Two commissioners are a lawful quorum, not an unprecedented experiment

The SEC ordinarily has five seats, and the standard quorum is three. Rule 200.41 contains an exception: when fewer than three commissioners are in office, the members who are in office constitute the quorum. The SEC’s listed membership as of Sept. 27 consists of three officials. If Peirce leaves Oct. 2 and no replacement takes office, Atkins and Uyeda would meet the text of that exception.

This is not merely an agency’s untested assertion about its own powers. In Falcon Trading Group v. SEC, 102 F.3d 579, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered a challenge to an SEC decision issued in December 1995 when only two commissioners held office. The petitioners argued that a five-seat commission could not act through two members. In December 1996, the court upheld the SEC’s quorum rule and the decision made under it.

The court reasoned that Congress had empowered the SEC to make rules needed to carry out its functions and had not imposed a conflicting statutory quorum. That is a direct precedent for the legitimacy of the two-member quorum. It concerned an enforcement-related administrative decision, not Regulation Crypto Assets or a final crypto rule. It therefore does not pre-approve the contents or procedure of any future crypto regulation. A party could still challenge a final rule on other statutory or administrative grounds.

Advertisement

The practical limit is arithmetic. Two commissioners voting yes can approve a measure that requires commission approval. If one supports a proposed final rule and the other opposes it, there is no third sitting member to make a majority. An abstention or recusal would raise a distinct procedural question that cannot be resolved by simply assuming the remaining official may act alone on every matter. Staff can continue preparing recommendations, receiving comments and administering existing rules while a commission vote is unavailable. The exact authority for a particular staff or delegated action depends on its own governing rule.

The finding changes how to read Peirce’s departure. Losing a commissioner reduces the number of decision makers and leaves less room to negotiate a contested final text. It does not switch off the SEC. The difference matters because a project deciding whether to submit a comment by Oct. 20 should not assume that its submission will go to an agency legally incapable of finishing the work.

The Crypto Task Force loses its named leader, not its entire staff

The SEC’s Crypto Task Force page still identifies Peirce as its leader. Uyeda announced its formation on Jan. 21, 2025, while serving as acting chair. He said then that the task force would coordinate work across SEC divisions and offices. The commission has since issued an interpretation, a proposed offering rule and relief for a specific tokenized stock trading model. They are agency actions or proposals, not personal orders signed by Peirce alone.

Advertisement

The agency has not, on its public task force page as of Sept. 27, identified a successor. That is a specific open question. Atkins could name a new commissioner or otherwise reorganize the work, subject to the powers available to the chair and the commission. The present record supports neither the assertion that the task force will close nor the claim that a named replacement has already taken over. Its channels for public submissions and meetings are still displayed on the SEC site.

Peirce’s role has nevertheless been distinctive. Her 2020 token safe harbor proposal argued that teams building decentralized networks should have time to develop before facing all the consequences of conventional securities registration. When the SEC proposed its new offering framework on Aug. 18, she described the proposed exemptions in her own statement. She has pressed the agency to write paths a project can follow instead of relying on individual enforcement cases to set the boundary. Removing her from the commission removes one participant in the final vote and one source of institutional memory about the arguments behind the draft.

It does not remove the work from everyone else. Uyeda’s statement on the same Aug. 18 proposal thanks staff in the divisions of Corporation Finance, Trading and Markets, Investment Management and Economic and Risk Analysis, along with the task force and other offices. Drafting, economic analysis, legal review and public comments run across that structure. A public announcement of who will lead the task force after Oct. 2 would reveal how the SEC intends to coordinate those people, but the people do not all depart with Peirce.

The unfinished rules are at different stages

Three frequently grouped SEC crypto measures have different legal statuses. Confusing them makes Peirce’s exit seem either more destructive or less important than it is.

Advertisement

First, the SEC’s March 17 interpretation of federal securities law has already been issued. It explains the commission’s view of how existing law applies to certain crypto assets and activities, including staking and wrapping. A change in personnel does not automatically withdraw it. An interpretation also lacks the same permanence as an act of Congress; future agency action or a court’s reading of the statute could change the operative guidance.

Second, Regulation Crypto Assets is a proposed rule. Its $5 million and $75 million offering paths remain drafts. The SEC’s docket gives the public until Oct. 20 to respond to file S7-2026-27. This is the measure whose next substantive steps will fall most clearly to the commission after Peirce’s departure. Its final content can change in response to comments on investor disclosures, investor eligibility, state-law treatment and the conditions under which an investment contract ends.

Third, the SEC issued a temporary innovation exemption on Sept. 17 for a defined model of trading tokenized National Market System stocks on permissioned automated market maker venues. Crypto.news covered the five-year exemption when it was issued. Its published conditions include limits on symbols and volume, equivalent shareholder rights and coordination with trading halts in the underlying stock. The order says the exemption is set to expire five years after publication and requests comments on possible changes. Peirce leaving does not erase relief already granted. Whether the agency modifies, replaces or extends the arrangement later is a separate choice.

There is another pipeline item relevant to tokenization: the SEC’s September transfer agent proposal would update recordkeeping and other obligations for the firms responsible for shareholder registers, including the use of newer technology. Crypto.news reported on the proposed overhaul when it appeared. Like Regulation Crypto Assets, it is not final law. A tokenized stock trading exemption and a transfer agent proposal address different parts of the securities market, so neither substitutes for the other.

Advertisement

The transfer agent docket supplies a second test of the new commission’s capacity. Its comment deadline is Nov. 3, more than a month after Peirce’s planned departure. Unlike the offering proposal, this rule reaches ordinary securities infrastructure as well as digital assets: transfer agents track changes in legal ownership, maintain records and perform services for issuers. Changes to the register matter for a company whose shares are recorded using blockchain technology because an investor’s token and the legally recognized shareholder entry need a dependable connection. A trading exemption cannot fill a gap in ownership records. Staff will have to weigh comments on operational controls, costs and the relationship between electronic records and existing transfer-agent duties before commissioners decide whether to adopt a final rule.

Put the dates in sequence. Oct. 2 removes one commissioner if her resignation takes effect as announced. Oct. 20 closes comments on crypto offering exemptions. Nov. 3 closes comments on the transfer-agent proposal. The first two dates are 18 days apart; the latter deadline falls 32 days after the departure date. Neither docket says a final vote follows the next morning. Both may require revision, legal review and an explanation of why the agency chose one approach over alternatives raised in the record.

The stage of each measure is the first practical filter. An interpretation stays in place unless changed or superseded. A temporary order operates under its conditions and expiry. A proposed rule still needs the commission to finish notice and comment, consider the record and approve a final version. Peirce’s exit changes the voters for the last task; it does not reset every item to zero.

The final vote belongs to Atkins and Uyeda if no one else joins

The strongest case against a narrative of paralysis comes from the two officials expected to remain. Atkins proposed the crypto offering package as chair, saying the commission wanted tailored pathways for raising capital while Congress considered a longer-lasting market framework. Uyeda, who formed the Crypto Task Force, supported advancing the proposal. They have shared public positions on the direction of the SEC’s crypto work. If those positions continue through the public comment process, a two-member commission can approve a final rule without Peirce.

Advertisement

The opposing case is not that the rule is unpopular. It is that support for a proposal does not commit either commissioner to every detail of a final text. The agency could receive objections to how an exemption treats disclosures, a $75 million annual fundraising ceiling or the proposed separation of a crypto asset from an investment contract. One commissioner could decide that a revised version gives too little investor protection, while another could view additional conditions as defeating the point of the safe harbor. With three members, an internal disagreement might still yield two votes. With two, it cannot.

This is an inference about incentives and arithmetic, not a reported disagreement between Atkins and Uyeda. Their Aug. 18 statements show support for issuing the draft. They do not reveal how either will vote after comments are analyzed. Public records matter more than assumptions about party affiliation: even commissioners who agree on the objective can disagree on a sentence that determines who is exempt.

The task force’s public consultations may become more significant under that constraint. The SEC can respond to a well-supported objection by changing a provision before seeking a final vote. A measured change that satisfies both commissioners can move the file forward. A change one regards as essential and the other rejects could stall it. The public comment docket will expose some of that pressure, although internal negotiations need not be public.

The Senate can change the membership by confirming nominees if the president puts names forward. The SEC is designed for up to five commissioners, with no more than three from the same political party, according to the agency’s membership page. The current public roster names Atkins, Uyeda and Peirce, not an incoming replacement. A future appointment is possible, but the article cannot assign a date or presume it will happen before the proposal reaches a final vote.

Advertisement

Peirce’s last work illustrates what can move without a new rule

On Sept. 25, SEC Corporation Finance staff published questions and answers on the March interpretation. They address, among other things, staking receipt tokens, representations about managerial effort and when a token associated with a functioning network might be treated differently from an investment contract. The document is staff guidance about an existing commission interpretation. It is not Regulation Crypto Assets finalized in miniature.

That distinction illustrates what continues when the commission has only two members. Staff can explain an existing interpretation and answer questions within their authority. Staff guidance does not create a new statutory exemption or bind a future commission in the way a duly adopted rule might. Someone designing a crypto offering cannot substitute the Sept. 25 FAQ for the conditions and effective date of a future Regulation Crypto Assets rule.

Peirce’s public Sept. 23 remarks to a securities industry conference show why she thought these lines mattered. As more assets, intermediaries and uses enter the category, the SEC must identify the transactions that fall within securities law and avoid treating every technological arrangement as the same instrument. Her view has shaped the discussion, but a speech remains a commissioner’s perspective. The agency’s published releases and orders identify what it has formally done.

That division of labor will remain after Oct. 2. The chair can speak for his program, divisions can publish staff guidance where authorized, the task force can gather input if it continues, and the commission can vote on action requiring commission approval. None of these acts is interchangeable. Crypto.news traced the rulemaking underway after the CLARITY Act vote, but the SEC’s interpretation, proposal and exemption each demand a separate test of what changed. Readers trying to judge whether the crypto rulebook is actually changing should look at the document’s legal form as closely as its headline.

Advertisement

The comment record will test the rule’s limits

The most important work between an Oct. 20 deadline and any vote is sorting the objections by the provision they address. The $5 million pathway and the $75 million pathway solve different financing problems. A smaller issuer may care most about the cost of preparing disclosures across a four-year period; a larger issuer may care about whether a 12-month cap can accommodate a capital raise without ordinary registration. If comments show that either exemption can be divided into successive offerings to evade its limits, staff would have to decide whether to propose an aggregation rule or recommend rejecting that approach. Those are examples of questions the final record could raise, not defects the SEC has already found.

The proposed route for separating a crypto asset from an investment contract creates another choice. Its practical value depends on how an issuer demonstrates that promised essential managerial efforts have ended and what happens if a promoter later resumes them. Commenters can ask for clear evidence, time periods and disclosure duties. The commissioners then must decide whether a workable test can be written under existing securities law. A final release that merely repeats the proposed aspiration would give firms and courts less to apply than a release that explains how it handled competing examples in the comments.

Public comments do not amount to a referendum. The SEC need not adopt the position with the most submissions, and submitting a comment does not give the writer a vote. The agency does need a reasoned basis for its final choices and must operate within the authority Congress gave it. If it makes a substantial change that people had no fair opportunity to address, a further round of public comment may be needed. That possibility makes the Oct. 20 date a checkpoint in the process rather than a finish line.

For a reader following the rule, the useful comparison is concrete: line up the proposed exemption conditions with the final adopting release and its response to significant objections. The text will show who qualifies, what an issuer must disclose, when the limits reset and when a token’s treatment can change. The accompanying explanation will show whether Atkins and Uyeda reached the same account of investor protection and market access. A final rule adopted with both votes would settle their immediate disagreement on that text; it would not settle every court challenge or bind Congress from changing the law.

Advertisement

What the exit does not decide

Peirce’s departure will not itself determine whether a token is a security, whether the proposed safe harbor becomes final or whether Congress passes a digital asset market structure law. Those questions are governed by legal texts and future decisions. The SEC can act only within its statutory authority, and the pending congressional debate concerns powers an agency cannot simply give itself.

Nor does Falcon Trading guarantee that every action approved by two commissioners will survive litigation. It validates the SEC’s reduced quorum under the circumstances before that court. A new rule could still be challenged for its substance, the scope of its exemption, its treatment of comments or procedural defects unrelated to headcount. Conversely, saying the two-member commission is inherently invalid ignores a directly relevant court decision.

This article cannot name Peirce’s successor at the Crypto Task Force because the SEC’s public page still lists her as leader as of Sept. 27. It cannot say how Atkins or Uyeda will vote on a final rule because the comment period remains open. It can identify the next documents that will answer those questions: a revised task force leadership page or announcement, the comment docket after Oct. 20, a final adopting release and the votes recorded for it.

The timetable is plain. Peirce’s stated exit is Oct. 2. Public comments on the flagship proposal close Oct. 20. The gap is 18 days. Under the current rule and precedent, Atkins and Uyeda can act as the commission if no replacement arrives; each would then be indispensable to a contested final crypto rule. Nothing in the SEC’s docket promises that the final vote will occur in October or even in 2026.

Advertisement

What to watch

  • Oct. 2 membership. Check whether Peirce leaves as announced and whether the SEC names another commissioner.
  • Task force leadership. A new SEC designation would identify who coordinates the work Peirce led.
  • Oct. 20 comments. File S7-2026-27 will show objections to the proposed offering caps, disclosures and safe harbor.
  • A revised proposal or final vote. Either filing would reveal whether Atkins and Uyeda agree on the rule’s terms.
  • Commission votes. The SEC publishes votes on rules and orders, allowing readers to distinguish a unanimous decision from an unresolved proposal.

FAQ

When is Hester Peirce leaving the SEC?

Peirce has set Oct. 2, 2026, as her departure date, according to reporting on her resignation letter. As of Sept. 27, the SEC’s public membership page still lists her as a commissioner.

Who would be left on the SEC commission?

If no replacement takes office, Chair Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda would be the two members in office after Peirce leaves. The agency is designed to have up to five commissioners.

Can the SEC operate with two commissioners?

Yes. SEC rule 200.41 says that when fewer than three commissioners are in office, the members in office form a quorum. A federal appeals court upheld an SEC decision made by two commissioners in 1996.

Can two commissioners approve a crypto rule?

The reduced quorum can conduct commission business, and two commissioners voting in favor could approve a measure requiring commission action. If the two split on its final terms, neither has a third vote to settle the disagreement.

Is Regulation Crypto Assets already in force?

No. The SEC issued it as a proposal on Aug. 18, 2026, under file S7-2026-27. The proposed $5 million and $75 million exemptions would require further agency action to become operative.

Advertisement

When do comments on the crypto proposal close?

The SEC docket lists Oct. 20, 2026, as the deadline. That is 18 calendar days after Peirce’s announced Oct. 2 exit, and it is not a promised date for a final rule.

Does Peirce’s exit cancel the tokenized stock exemption?

No. The SEC issued temporary, conditional relief on Sept. 17 for a particular tokenized stock trading model. Its published terms say it expires five years after publication, subject to future agency action.

Who will lead the SEC Crypto Task Force next?

The SEC’s public task force page still names Peirce as leader as of Sept. 27, and it has not identified a successor there. A later agency announcement may answer that question. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 27, 2026.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto

XRP Price Slides 2.9% as $1.50 Reclaim Becomes Critical

Published

on

xrp logo

XRP lost its $1.50 price pivot today, sliding to $1.47 after a daily decline of about 3%. The break forces a binary question onto the chart: does the selling pressure showing up in spot-market volume resolve into a quick reclaim, or does it open the door to a deeper slide toward $1.40-$1.42?

The 200-day EMA is near $1.37, the level that would flip the medium-term structure from bullish to neutral. The token has been printing lower highs since a local peak near $1.63 on September 23, and a second attempt to clear $1.60 on September 25 failed as well. Since then, the decline has been slow and orderly: $1.55, then $1.52, then $1.50, and now $1.47.

Xrp (XRP)
24h7d30d1yAll time

There was no single dramatic session driving the move. Instead, the pattern reads as buyers simply not showing up, with every small bounce getting sold rather than extended. After the sharp rally in early September, that kind of cooling was overdue, but the open question is whether $1.50 was ever real support or just a round number the market is now testing.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

Advertisement

ETF Accumulation Narrative or Technical Pullback?

The chart itself frames this as a cooling-off period following the rally that carried the XRP price up nearly 50% from its August low near $1.00. RSI sits at a neutral 54, with no overbought or oversold readings to lean on. Price levels, not oscillators, are setting the tone for this week.

XRP price slips 2.9% to $1.47 as bulls face a key test: reclaim $1.50 or risk a deeper pullback toward $1.37 and $1.30 if support fails.

Separately, market data has pointed to sustained spot XRP ETF inflows running into the hundreds of millions of dollars over recent weeks, a trend some trackers frame as ongoing institutional accumulation beneath the price action. That flow data is useful context, but it is not confirmed as the driver of Monday’s drop, as the pullback below $1.50 traces cleanly to failed resistance tests and fading bid support.

The medium-term structure remains intact for now. XRP sits above its 200-day EMA at $1.37, which is curling upward for the first time since spring. This is a sign the longer trend has not broken, even as the shorter-term chart bleeds lower. A descending trendline from the late-August spike to $1.70 was cleared in mid-September, and that breakout is what fueled the run to $1.67 in the first place.

A second descending trendline, drawn from the September 23 high, is now the line bulls need to clear in October; left alone, it points toward $1.20 by mid-November. The levels on both sides of the current price are well defined.

Advertisement

Trade XRP on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

Reclaim $1.50 or Risk $1.37: XRP Price Next Move

The first job for bulls is straightforward: close a daily candle back above $1.50. Do that, and Monday’s drop reads as a fakeout rather than a breakdown, with $1.55 as the next confirmation level and $1.60-$1.63 as the target that would put the September 23 high back in play.

Fail to reclaim $1.50 in the next day or two, and $1.40-$1.42 becomes the level to watch, with the 200-day EMA at $1.37 as the line that actually matters for the medium-term outlook. A close below it would shift Ripple’s native asset from a bullish structure to a neutral one, opening room toward $1.30 and, in a broader crypto market sell-off scenario, $1.20.

Advertisement

For this week, the range is $1.37 to $1.60, with $1.50 sitting as the pivot in between. On technical analysis grounds, the base case is a dip toward $1.40-$1.42 that gets bought, followed by another attempt at reclaiming $1.50. A pattern consistent with pullbacks inside an uptrend rather than the start of a new downtrend.

The $1.80-$2.00 zone remains the valid medium-term target as long as $1.37 holds; lose it, and that target moves out of reach for the immediate term.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

The post XRP Price Slides 2.9% as $1.50 Reclaim Becomes Critical appeared first on Cryptonews.

Advertisement




Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto

Crypto’s New Frontier: Casinos, Perpetuals and Tokenized Stocks Blur the Line Between Trading and Betting

Published

on

The crypto industry has always had a talent for reinvention, but the latest wave of headlines suggests the technology is stretching in directions that would have seemed unlikely even a few years ago. From live-dealer blackjack tables in crypto casinos to decentralized lending platforms letting users borrow against tokenized tech stocks, the sector is increasingly less about buying and holding Bitcoin and more about building financial infrastructure that mimics, and sometimes outpaces, traditional markets.

A cluster of recent industry reports paints a picture of an ecosystem expanding on several fronts at once: gambling products tailored to crypto-native audiences, new token listings on exchanges, prediction markets built around Federal Reserve policy, sprawling perpetual futures platforms, and DeFi protocols that now let users tap into equity-like assets on-chain.

Casinos Go Crypto-Native

One notable trend is the popularity of live blackjack tables over roulette wheels in crypto casino lobbies. While roulette has long been a staple of online gambling, live blackjack’s format — fast-paced, skill-adjacent, and well suited to the instant settlement crypto payments allow — appears to resonate more with the demographic drawn to digital-asset betting platforms. It’s a small but telling signal of how crypto rails are reshaping consumer gambling habits, favoring games that reward quick decision-making and frequent turnover, much like trading itself.

New Listings Keep Coming

Token listings remain a steady drumbeat in the industry. Dexsport’s DESU token landing on the MEXC exchange is the latest example of a gambling-adjacent crypto project seeking wider liquidity and exposure through a major listing. For platform users, listings like this typically matter less for speculative price action and more for what they signal about a project’s staying power and its ability to attract mainstream trading volume.

Advertisement

Betting on the Fed

Beyond gambling and token launches, prediction markets have emerged as a genuine barometer of macroeconomic sentiment. Traders are increasingly using these platforms to stake positions on Federal Reserve rate decisions expected in late 2026, treating monetary policy itself as a tradable event. This reflects a broader maturation of prediction markets, which have moved well beyond sports and elections to become tools for hedging and speculating on interest rates, inflation prints, and other traditionally opaque policy outcomes — all settled transparently on-chain.

Leverage Everywhere

Perhaps the most striking development is the sheer breadth of assets now available for leveraged trading. Platforms like ApeX Omni are offering more than 120 perpetual futures markets, spanning everything from Bitcoin and major altcoins to pre-IPO robotics companies. That such a wide net can be cast — letting traders take leveraged positions on private companies that haven’t even gone public — underscores how far crypto derivatives have moved from their origins in simple Bitcoin futures. It also raises familiar questions about risk: leverage across dozens of niche and illiquid markets can amplify losses just as easily as gains, and traders navigating these venues need to understand how margin requirements and funding rates shift across such a diverse product suite.

DeFi Meets Wall Street

Meanwhile, decentralized finance continues its slow merger with traditional capital markets. Aave’s fourth version reportedly allows users to borrow USDC against tokenized versions of Coinbase-listed tech stocks on the Base network. This kind of integration — collateralizing real-world equities within a DeFi lending protocol — is a concrete step toward the long-promised convergence of crypto and traditional finance, letting holders of tokenized shares access liquidity without selling their underlying positions.

The Bigger Picture

Taken together, these developments illustrate an industry that is simultaneously chasing entertainment dollars, macro traders, derivatives enthusiasts, and DeFi users seeking exposure to equities — all under the same broad crypto umbrella. The common thread is infrastructure: exchanges, casinos, lending protocols, and prediction markets are all racing to make more asset classes tradable, borrowable, or bettable through blockchain rails.

Advertisement

Whether this diversification represents durable innovation or simply more surface area for speculation remains an open question. What’s clear is that crypto in late 2026 looks less like a single asset class and more like a parallel financial system, one where a Fed rate decision, a pre-IPO robotics firm, and a hand of blackjack can all be found in the same app.

Continue Reading

Crypto

Crypto’s New Playground: Casinos, Fed Bets, and Tokenized Stocks Blur the Line Between Trading and Gambling

Published

on

The crypto industry has always had a talent for reinventing itself, but the latest wave of product launches suggests the industry is heading somewhere new: a place where trading, betting, and borrowing are becoming almost indistinguishable from one another. A cluster of recent developments — spanning live-dealer casino games, a new token listing tied to decentralized betting platforms, prediction markets built around Federal Reserve policy, sprawling perpetual futures exchanges, and DeFi protocols that let users borrow against tokenized shares of tech companies — paints a picture of an ecosystem racing to fuse speculation of every stripe into a single, crypto-native experience.

Take the world of crypto casinos, where live blackjack tables have reportedly begun to crowd out roulette wheels in lobby rankings. The dynamics driving that shift echo something familiar from traditional gambling: player preference for games that reward skill and pacing over pure chance. Blackjack lets players make decisions — when to hit, stand, split, or double down — giving a sense of agency that a spinning roulette wheel simply can’t replicate. In an industry built around instant, low-friction transactions using digital assets, that appeal seems to translate directly into engagement, with live-streamed dealers adding a layer of social, real-time theater that slot-style games lack.

That same appetite for interactive, decision-driven products is showing up elsewhere. Dexsport, a decentralized betting and casino platform, recently saw its native token, DESU, listed on the exchange MEXC — a milestone that matters less for the listing itself than for what it signals about the sector’s maturation. Token listings on major exchanges typically bring liquidity, visibility, and a degree of legitimacy that smaller platforms struggle to achieve on their own. For everyday users, a listing like this often translates into easier on-ramps, more trading pairs, and a stronger case that the underlying platform is being taken seriously by the broader market rather than treated as a niche experiment.

Meanwhile, speculation is moving well beyond games of chance and into the realm of macroeconomic policy. Prediction markets tracking the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions have become one of the more closely watched corners of crypto-adjacent finance heading into the back half of 2026. Traders on these platforms are effectively placing wagers on central bank behavior, turning monetary policy announcements into tradeable events. The appeal is straightforward: instead of relying solely on bond markets or futures tied to traditional finance, participants can now stake positions directly on whether the Fed will hold, cut, or raise rates, often with faster settlement and more granular contract structures than legacy markets offer. It’s a sign that prediction markets, once dismissed as a curiosity, are increasingly viewed as a legitimate barometer of trader sentiment on issues far removed from crypto prices themselves.

Advertisement

The appetite for exotic exposure is also evident in the perpetual futures space, where platforms like ApeX Omni have expanded their offerings well past the usual roster of Bitcoin and Ethereum contracts. With well over 120 perpetual markets now available, traders can reportedly take leveraged positions not just on major cryptocurrencies but on themes as far-flung as pre-IPO robotics companies. This kind of expansion reflects a broader trend of crypto exchanges positioning themselves as all-purpose speculation venues, offering leverage on virtually any asset class that generates enough trader interest — blurring the boundary between crypto trading and speculative bets on private, pre-public companies that would otherwise be inaccessible to retail investors.

Perhaps the clearest example of crypto finance colliding with traditional markets comes from Aave’s newest iteration. The protocol’s fourth version reportedly allows users to borrow USDC stablecoins against tokenized versions of Coinbase-linked tech stocks on the Base network. In practice, that means holders of tokenized equity exposure can unlock liquidity without selling their underlying positions — a mechanic long familiar to DeFi users who collateralize crypto assets, now extended to tokenized real-world securities. It’s a small but telling step toward a future where the wall between “crypto” and “traditional markets” continues to erode, with stocks, bonds, and other conventional assets increasingly represented on-chain and woven into the same lending and borrowing infrastructure that powers decentralized finance.

Taken together, these developments underscore a consistent theme: crypto platforms are no longer content to simply trade digital coins. They are building out entire ecosystems of speculation — casino games, prediction markets, leveraged derivatives, and collateralized lending — all designed to keep users engaged, liquid, and constantly exposed to new forms of risk and reward. Whether this convergence produces a more mature, diversified financial ecosystem or simply amplifies the volatility and risk-taking crypto is already known for remains an open question. What’s clear is that the industry’s appetite for expansion shows no signs of slowing down.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto

When AI Met Crypto: A Season of Super-PACs, Prompt-Injection Heists and Vape-Pen Blockchains

Published

on

If there was a single theme running through the crypto world’s headlines this spring and summer, it was this: the industry that once promised to reinvent money has increasingly fused itself to the industry promising to reinvent everything else — artificial intelligence.

The result, according to a string of reports and commentary tracked by researcher-journalist Molly White and blogger David Gerard, is a landscape where political money, security failures and marketing absurdity are all converging in ways that ought to worry anyone paying attention.

Start with the money in politics. In a recent interview, White — who has spent years cataloguing where crypto industry cash flows in Washington — turned her attention to a new wrinkle: artificial intelligence companies adopting the same political playbook that crypto firms pioneered.

According to the discussion, OpenAI and Anthropic are now effectively running competing pro-AI super-PACs, pouring money into races much the way crypto-aligned PACs like Fairshake have done in recent election cycles. White reportedly highlighted a botched intervention in New York’s 12th congressional district as an example of the sums involved and the risk of these efforts backfiring.

Advertisement

The parallel is not incidental. Crypto’s political spending playbook — deploy industry money to shape friendly regulation and punish critics — was built over several election cycles and proved remarkably effective at getting crypto-friendly candidates elected and skeptics sidelined.

Watchers like White argue that AI companies, facing their own looming questions about regulation, safety and liability, are now borrowing that same toolkit almost wholesale. Whether AI’s political spending proves as consequential as crypto’s remains to be seen, but the early signs suggest deep-pocketed AI labs are not content to leave the lobbying playing field to blockchain interests alone.

Money and politics aside, the more immediate crypto news has been considerably more chaotic on the technical side. A case in point: an unofficial crypto wallet built on top of Elon Musk’s Grok AI was reportedly compromised through a combination of an NFT and a prompt injection attack — a technique in which malicious instructions are hidden inside content an AI model processes, tricking it into taking unauthorized actions.

The episode is being cited by critics as a vivid illustration of what happens when experimental AI agents are given direct access to cryptocurrency funds without adequate safeguards. As one commentator put it, the incident underscores a blunt truth: the push toward “agentic commerce,” in which AI systems autonomously manage transactions and wallets on a user’s behalf, currently looks a lot like an open invitation to fraud.

Advertisement

That warning fits a broader pattern. Crypto’s history is littered with hacks and exploits that followed hard on the heels of new technical hype cycles — DeFi protocols, bridges, NFT marketplaces — and the addition of AI agents with wallet access appears to be simply the latest frontier for attackers to probe.

Security researchers have long cautioned that combining large language models, which can be manipulated through carefully crafted inputs, with systems that move real money is a combination that demands far more rigorous testing than the industry has so far shown appetite for.

Then there is the sheer commercial strangeness of the AI-crypto convergence. Among the products making the rounds is “Gudtrip,” described in coverage as an AI agent vape pen built with blockchain technology — a mash-up that manages to combine three separate hype cycles (AI, crypto, and vaping) into a single device.

It’s the kind of product that invites eye-rolls even from people steeped in the industry, and it has become something of a symbol for critics who argue that “blockchain” and “AI agent” are increasingly being slapped onto unrelated consumer goods simply because the buzzwords still move product.

Advertisement

Labor practices are also getting the AI-crypto treatment. Reports have surfaced of AI companies experimenting with paying staff in AI-linked tokens rather than conventional money — an arrangement that echoes crypto’s long history of compensating workers and contractors in volatile, illiquid tokens instead of cash. Critics have been quick to note the obvious problem: a token’s value depends entirely on continued enthusiasm for the company issuing it, leaving employees exposed to exactly the kind of speculative risk that traditional salaries are designed to avoid. The practice, if it spreads, would import one of crypto’s more employee-unfriendly habits directly into the AI industry’s compensation structures.

Not everyone covering this convergence is doing so with a straight face. A satirical piece making the rounds — structured as a twist on the old “two cows” economics joke — skewered the fintech, AI, blockchain and crypto sectors in one go, imagining a “crypto” cow story where two digital cows produce “milk tokens” tradeable for millions but drinkable only by avatars in the metaverse, and a “hedge fund” version featuring robotic cows that befriend real cows just to steal their milk.

Silly as the format is, the satire lands because it captures something real: a sense among observers that these overlapping industries have become adept at generating elaborate financial and technical narratives that produce headlines and valuations long before they produce anything resembling durable value.

Taken together, these threads — political spending mirroring crypto’s playbook, an AI wallet hacked via prompt injection, blockchain-branded vape pens, token-based salaries, and no shortage of pointed satire — paint a picture of an industry moment defined less by a single breakthrough than by rapid, sometimes reckless, cross-pollination.

Advertisement

Crypto spent the better part of a decade building the infrastructure, the political machinery and the marketing instincts for turning speculative technology into cultural and financial weight. Now AI companies appear to be absorbing many of the same instincts, for better or worse, at a pace that leaves regulators, security researchers and workers alike scrambling to keep up.

Editor’s note: Much of the reporting referenced above originates from commentary and short-form blog coverage rather than in-depth investigative reporting, and some details — such as the specific financial scale of AI super-PAC spending or the full technical mechanics of the Grok wallet exploit — were not independently verifiable from the available material. Readers should treat figures and claims here as preliminary pending fuller reporting.


 


 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto

Nearly half the stocks in the S&P 500 are at cross purposes with the rest of the market

Published

on

Nearly half the stocks in the S&P 500 are at cross purposes with the rest of the market

U.S. oil drilling site.

David McNew | Getty Images

Nearly half of the stocks in the S&P 500 are moving against the index with a negative beta, an unusual divergence that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

About 45% of S&P 500 stocks have a negative three-month beta, according to a recent note from Goldman Sachs. The data closely aligns with CNBC’s finding that nearly 40% of S&P 500 stocks had a negative three-month beta versus the index, while 17% have a negative one-year beta, based on weekly returns.

Advertisement

Beta measures how a stock moves relative to the rest of the market. A negative beta means an individual stock’s returns moved in the opposite direction of the S&P 500 over the measured period.

The surge in stocks with a negative beta dovetails with other unusual market signals. The S&P rallied 1.5% last Monday. The same day 30 stocks touched a 52-week low while just 7 scored a new high. The last time the S&P 500 gained at least 1% while sitting within 1% of a new 52-week high and new lows outnumbered new highs was in December 1999, right before the very top of the dot-com boom, according to Jason Goepfert, founder of SentimenTrader.

The two indicators show that market indexes can remain at or close to records despite wide divergences among individual stocks.

Widening divide

The yawning gap largely reflects how concentrated the S&P 500 has become, according to Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist at LPL Financial.

Advertisement

Mega-cap technology companies carry an outsized weight in the benchmark, meaning a strong performance from a small number of stocks can drive the index even when many others are moving the other way.

“It only takes a few of those mega caps names to work, and a lot of the smaller weighted stocks don’t need to work,” Turnquist told CNBC, pointing to unusually low correlations among S&P 500 stocks.

The same dynamic explains why the broader index can look relatively calm even when individual stocks are making large moves, said Bradley Krom, director of investing strategy at WisdomTree.

“Beta is a function of correlation and volatility,” Krom said. When stocks experience large moves at different times and for different reasons, those moves can largely offset one another at the index level.

Advertisement

In July this year, Alliance Bernstein, using one-year trailing returns, found an unprecedented share of U.S. stocks displaying negative beta as AI winners powered market gains.

Semiconductor makers, hardware companies and other AI infrastructure beneficiaries have benefited from enormous capital spending, while companies outside the AI trade have struggled to keep up.

“But a narrow market can also distort the signal investors receive from index returns. When a handful of companies dominate performance, many financially sound businesses may lag or even decline, simply because they aren’t tied directly to the most powerful market narrative,” wrote Kurt Feuerman, chief investment officer of Select U.S. Equity Portfolios at AllianceBernstein.

Negative energy

Energy stocks with negative beta are being driven by different forces.

Advertisement

“Another part of the other story is energy. That’s been pronounced this year: higher oil prices, higher energy stocks and then the rest of the market trades lower,” said Turnquist, seeing energy as an important part of the negative-beta story, alongside more defensive sectors.

Earlier this month, Evercore ISI used a six-month measure to call out 115 S&P 500 stocks with negative beta, a list skewed toward energy, utilities and consumer staples. The investment bank called the energy sector a “synthetic S&P 500 put option” because of the way it has reacted to geopolitical pressure.

If market leadership broadens out, Turnquist believes the number of negative-beta stocks could decline. But he expects dispersion to remain elevated as investors become remain selective toward beneficiaries of AI spending and seek returns there.

Krom at WisdomTree expects the recent extreme readings to eventually revert to the mean. Similar spikes appeared around the 1999-2000 dot-com bubble, he said, when market concentration and large moves in a narrow group of stocks also triggered unusual divergences.

Advertisement

Turnquist pushed back on comparing today with the dot-com era, leading tech companies now are more mature businesses with established revenue and products. Krom is on the same page. He said the individual pieces driving returns don’t have the same historical relationship they’ve had in the past.

“It is not the same market environment now versus 2000,” Krom said. The negative betas seen today boil “down to the amount of market concentration.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto

Crypto’s Quiet Mainstreaming: From Wall Street Trading Desks to Weeknight Spending Habits

Published

on

Cryptocurrency no longer lives only in trading app screenshots and speculative headlines. A cluster of recent coverage suggests digital assets have settled into three very different corners of everyday life at once: the boardrooms of family offices moving nine-figure sums, the phones of ordinary Britons paying for a night out, and a growing ecosystem of explainer sites trying to make sense of it all for newcomers. Taken together, they paint a picture of an asset class that has stopped trying to prove itself and started simply getting used.

At the top end of the market, the mechanics of moving serious money in crypto increasingly mirror what has long happened on Wall Street. Selling a large position on the open market is a blunt instrument — dump a $20 million order into a standard exchange and the price can slide five to ten percent against you before the trade even completes, as algorithms and bots react to the visible order book.

High-net-worth investors and family offices have borrowed a page from traditional equities to avoid that problem, leaning on block trades negotiated privately between two parties and reported only after execution, dark pools where institutional orders are matched away from public view, and OTC desks that lock in a price before a trade ever touches the open market.

None of these tools are new in spirit — block trading dates back to the 1960s, and banks such as Credit Suisse pioneered dark-pool venues in the mid-2000s — but their extension into crypto shows how thoroughly digital assets have been absorbed into the plumbing of institutional finance, complete with all its discretion and negotiated pricing.

Further down the market, the story is less about avoiding slippage and more about convenience. A growing share of everyday spenders now treat crypto the way they treat a contactless card — something to tap and forget.

Much of that shift traces back to apps like Revolut, which began as a travel card and has since folded budgeting tools, instant transfers and built-in crypto purchases into a single interface. For users already comfortable buying fractions of Bitcoin or Ethereum on their phone, spending a small slice of a holding online no longer feels like a leap. Recent Pew Research figures cited in industry coverage suggest roughly one in five adults have used cryptocurrency in some form, evidence of just how far the technology has travelled from niche forums into ordinary financial habits. Faster networks and pound- or dollar-pegged stablecoins have also softened the volatility fears that once made spending crypto feel reckless.

That spending habit has, in turn, fed into digital entertainment, where a wave of offshore-licensed sites — often based in Malta, Curaçao or Gibraltar — have built their appeal specifically around crypto and app-based payments such as Revolut, alongside larger game libraries and bigger sign-up bonuses.

These platforms sit outside the UK’s domestic licensing system, which is precisely the draw for some users, including those who have self-excluded through Gamstop. The logic mirrors a broader pattern researchers have tracked in crypto adoption more generally: users start on a single centralised platform for convenience, then gradually spread activity across multiple services and self-custodied wallets as they grow more comfortable, seeking flexibility rather than a single gatekeeper. It’s worth being clear-eyed about what this means in practice — these offshore sites operate under lighter regulatory oversight than UK-licensed operators, and readers weighing them should treat player-protection tools and responsible-gambling warnings as essential reading, not fine print to skip.

Feeding all of this is a parallel boom in explainer content trying to translate crypto’s jargon — DeFi, staking, tokenomics, smart contracts — into plain English. Sites such as RobTheCoins.com have positioned themselves as educational hubs rather than exchanges or wallets, publishing guides on blockchain business models, crypto tax tools and the overlap between gaming and crypto economies.

That distinction matters, because the line between “content that explains crypto” and “a product that handles your money” is not always obvious to a casual reader, and confusing the two is exactly the kind of mistake that has burned newcomers before.

None of this amounts to a single dramatic headline. There is no exchange collapse or regulatory crackdown driving this particular news cycle. Instead, what emerges is a quieter, arguably more consequential trend: crypto is being absorbed into the ordinary architecture of modern finance and leisure, from the trading desks of the ultra-wealthy down to a tap-to-pay night out.

Whether that mainstreaming is entirely healthy is a separate question. Institutional tools like dark pools and OTC desks still lack the transparency of public markets, offshore gambling platforms carry real consumer-protection gaps, and no amount of friendly explainer content changes the fact that crypto remains a volatile, largely unregulated asset in most jurisdictions.

Readers tempted by any part of this ecosystem — whether it’s a block-trading conversation or a crypto-funded casino account — would do well to verify claims independently, check who is actually regulated, and remember that accessibility is not the same thing as same thing as safety.

Continue Reading

Crypto

Convicted cybercriminal arrested in connection with ShinyHunters group

Published

on

Convicted cybercriminal arrested in connection with ShinyHunters group

A 24-year-old convicted cybercriminal was arrested in the Netherlands on September 16 on suspicion of aiding crypto hacking collective ShinyHunters.

Krebsonsecurity reports that Pepijn van der Stap was detained by Dutch authorities for questioning in relation to ShinyHunters. 

Police claim he’ll appear in the Rotterdam District Court on September 29, while local news reports the United States is also involved in his case.

Over three years ago, van der Stap carried out multiple acts of data theft and extortion under the moniker “Umbreon.”

Advertisement

Read more: Crypto hacking group ShinyHunters says it stole data of 5,000 FBI agents

Van der Stap was eventually arrested, convicted, and handed a four-year suspended sentence. He was released in December 2025.  

While carrying out his criminal activities, he worked at cybersecurity startup Hadrian and volunteered at the nonprofit Dutch Institute for Vulnerability Disclosure.

Advertisement

He’s currently the offensive security lead at Neo Security, and described himself to Krebsonsecurity as a reformed convict. 

ShinyHunters attacked FBI days after van der Stap’s arrest

Just six days after van der Stap’s arrest, ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for hacking and stealing the data of 5,000 FBI agents. 

This attack also manipulated the FBI’s job page to display a picture of the Pokémon Umbreon.

Krebsonsecurity reports that the attack represented a shift in ShinyHunters’ usual attacks while the group is under the leadership of a teenager based in Amman, Jordan, who goes by the nickname “Rey.”

Advertisement

Rey reportedly merged the group with fellow hacking groups Scattered Spider and LAPSUS$ to become ScatteredLapsussHunters.

Read more: Crypto hackers target Hinge and Match Group in data leak

Sources close to the ShinyHunters investigation told the publication that Rey had “ongoing beef” with van der Stap, and that Umbreon’s inclusion was possibly an attempt by Rey to shift blame towards van der Stap.

ShinyHunters has also been linked to the hacking of the Netherlands telecommunications provider Odido last February. 

Advertisement

Personal data, including bank account and passport numbers, of six million Odido customers were leaked.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.




Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto

Strategy buys 1,665 BTC and repurchases $152M STRC

Published

on

what it means for BTC

Strategy has acquired another 1,665 BTC for approximately $142.7 million while spending $151.7 million to repurchase STRC preferred shares during the week ended Sept. 27.

Summary

  • Strategy bought 1,665 BTC for $142.7 million, lifting total Bitcoin holdings to 847,666 coins overall.
  • Strategy repurchased 1,534,530 STRC shares for $151.7 million during the September 21 to 27 period.
  • MSTR sales generated $246.2 million net proceeds, with no preferred shares issued during the week.
  • Strategy held $5.02 billion in USD Reserve and $1.00 billion in deployable USD Cash overall.
  • Bitcoin holdings cost $63.95 billion in aggregate, averaging $75,437 per coin including fees and expenses.

Strategy disclosed the transactions in a Sept. 28 Form 8-K, showing that the company paid an average of $85,681 per BTC, including fees and expenses, between Sept. 21 and Sept. 27. The purchase lifted its Bitcoin holdings to 847,666 BTC.

During the same period, Strategy sold 1,469,165 MSTR shares through its at-the-market program, generating $246.2 million in net proceeds. Of that amount, $142.7 million funded the Bitcoin purchases and $103.5 million went toward STRC repurchases.

The company issued no STRF, STRC, STRK or STRD preferred shares through its ATM programs during the week.

Advertisement

Strategy Bitcoin holdings reach 847,666 BTC

Following the latest purchase, Strategy held 847,666 BTC acquired for an aggregate $63.95 billion. Its average acquisition cost stood at $75,437 per BTC, including fees and expenses.

The latest addition follows Strategy’s 950 BTC purchase after a two-week buying pause reported for the previous week. The company spent $75.7 million on that acquisition at an average price of $79,670 per BTC, increasing holdings at the time to 846,000 BTC.

Strategy’s new $85,681 average purchase price for the Sept. 21-27 period was above Bitcoin’s latest market price. CoinGecko shows BTC trading near $83,401 at the latest reading, around 2.7% below Strategy’s average price for the latest purchase.

At that market price, Strategy’s 847,666 BTC position would be worth roughly $70.7 billion. The calculation uses a live market price and therefore differs from the company’s recorded acquisition cost.

Advertisement

STRC repurchases reach another $151.7 million

Alongside the Bitcoin acquisition, Strategy repurchased 1,534,530 shares of its Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock, or STRC, for approximately $151.7 million.

The latest transaction continues a repurchase program that Strategy began earlier in 2026. After the latest week, $723.5 million of authorization remained under its digital credit securities repurchase program, according to the filing.

Strategy’s previous $174 million STRC repurchase came during the Sept. 14-20 period, when the company spent more on preferred-stock repurchases than on its $75.7 million Bitcoin purchase.

Earlier in September, Strategy doubled its digital credit securities repurchase authorization to $2 billion after spending $176.3 million on STRC during a week when it bought no Bitcoin.

Advertisement

Strategy said in July that it intends to repurchase STRC while the preferred stock trades below its $100 stated amount, subject to market conditions, liquidity and other capital priorities.

MSTR sales funded both transactions

Strategy financed the latest Bitcoin purchase and part of the STRC repurchase through MSTR common-stock sales.

The company raised $246.2 million in net proceeds by selling 1,469,165 MSTR shares between Sept. 21 and Sept. 27. The filing assigns $142.7 million of those proceeds to Bitcoin purchases and $103.5 million to STRC buybacks.

A further $48.1 million of the STRC repurchase came from Strategy’s USD Cash balance. Over the same period, the company used $22.1 million from its separate USD Reserve to pay preferred-stock dividends.

Advertisement

Strategy reported $18.84 billion of additional MSTR issuance capacity under its ATM program as of Sept. 27. No preferred shares were sold during the latest reporting period.

The latest funding structure differs from the previous week, when Strategy made no ATM stock sales and used existing cash to fund its Bitcoin purchase and STRC repurchases.

Strategy keeps $6.02 billion in dollar assets

Strategy ended Sept. 27 with a $5.02 billion USD Reserve and $1.00 billion in USD Cash, giving the company a combined $6.02 billion across the two balances.

The company defines the USD Reserve as capital designated to support preferred-stock dividends and interest payments on outstanding debt. USD Cash is maintained separately for Bitcoin purchases, reserve additions, capital management and other treasury uses.

Advertisement

The cash framework has changed materially since July, when Strategy built a $3.75 billion reserve while Bitcoin buying remained paused.

Strategy’s board expanded its STRC repurchase program during September while continuing to manage Bitcoin purchases, common-stock issuance and preferred-stock obligations through separate pools of capital.

As of Sept. 27, the company still had $723.5 million available under its digital credit securities repurchase authorization and $1 billion available under its separate MSTR common-stock repurchase program.



Source link

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Crypto

Tether says it helped freeze $550M in Iran-linked USDT

Published

on

Tether's American twin grew 540%. It is still 0.08%

Tether has said it helped freeze nearly $550 million in Iran-linked USDT this year as U.S. authorities targeted wallets tied to the Central Bank of Iran and other sanctioned networks.

Summary

  • Tether said more than $344 million was frozen across two addresses in April.
  • A July action froze more than $130 million across four additional TRON wallets.
  • The U.S. Treasury has named digital assets among five sectors covered by expanded Iran sanctions.
  • Tether said its law enforcement work has helped freeze more than $4.9 billion globally.

Tether said on Sep. 28 that it acted on information from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and U.S. law enforcement when more than $344 million in USDT was frozen across two addresses in April. OFAC added the same addresses to the Central Bank of Iran’s sanctions entry the following day. The entry also identifies links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force and Hezbollah.

In July, more than $130 million was frozen across four other wallets as Treasury added four TRON addresses to the central bank’s designation. Tether put its total for Iran-linked USDT freezes in 2026 at approximately $550 million. Its announcement gave the amounts for the April and July actions but did not itemize every freeze included in that total.

The July action was previously covered by crypto.news, which reported that the four TRON wallets held about $131 million in USDT. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said at the time that OFAC had sanctioned multiple wallets tied to Iran’s central bank.

Advertisement

Tether froze two wallets before OFAC listed them

The order of the April steps is central to Tether’s account. According to the company, it supported the freeze after U.S. authorities supplied information about the two addresses; OFAC then formally listed those addresses as digital currency identifiers for the Central Bank of Iran.

Earlier reporting on the April $344 million freeze identified roughly $213 million in one TRON wallet and $131 million in another. The restrictions applied to the USDT held at the addresses. They did not require the TRON network itself to stop processing transactions.

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said public blockchains let authorities follow fund movements and that the company can act when law enforcement provides credible information. He described USDT as “not a haven for sanctioned actors, terrorist organizations or criminal networks.” His statement sets out the company’s position; the wallet designations and freeze amounts are separate actions reported by OFAC and Tether.

The issuer said it has aligned its freezing policy with OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals list, including listed wallets that hold USDT after its initial issuance. A freeze prevents tokens at a blocked address from moving. It is distinct from a government seizure or a court order transferring ownership of the assets.

Advertisement

Treasury has expanded Iran sanctions to digital assets

Treasury launched Operation Economic Outcast on Aug. 24 and named digital assets alongside technology, gold, aviation and shipping in five new sectoral sanctions determinations. The department said the measures expanded its authority to target foreign people and companies operating in or supporting those sectors of Iran’s economy.

For U.S. businesses and individuals, OFAC designations carry direct transaction restrictions when a listed party or its blocked property is involved, unless an exemption or license applies. Treasury has also warned foreign firms about possible sanctions exposure for facilitating Iranian sanctions evasion. Those are Treasury’s stated rules and warnings, rather than a new restriction created by Tether’s announcement.

On Sep. 17, OFAC designated Iranian digital asset venture BitBank, its software developer, and three associates of financier Babak Zanjani under the campaign. Treasury alleged that Zanjani’s network used digital asset businesses to move funds for the IRGC, including hundreds of millions of dollars in Bitcoin. The BitBank sanctions action also placed the developer, Pishtaz Simorgh Electronic Trade Company, on OFAC’s list.

A separate U.S. civil case shows how a wallet freeze can precede an effort to take custody of tokens. In September, prosecutors sought forfeiture of $61.2 million in USDT held across ten TRON addresses that court filings said Tether had frozen in 2025. A Sep. 14 warrant authorized the FBI to take custody of the targeted assets; the forfeiture complaint asks a court to award ownership to the government. That case concerns alleged Iranian oil proceeds and is separate from Tether’s stated 2026 freeze total.

Advertisement

Earlier Iran-linked wallets and U.S. cases add context

Tether also cited work with Israel’s National Bureau for Counter Terror Financing. It said the bureau has referred more than 40 cases involving over 640 addresses, resulting in freezes of more than 22 million USDT. In 2023, the company disclosed a freeze of 32 addresses holding $873,118.34 in a case involving illicit activity affecting Israel and Ukraine.

After the Israeli bureau published a list of 187 addresses it associated with the IRGC in September 2025, blockchain analytics firm Elliptic reported that Tether had blacklisted 39 of them. Approximately $1.5 million in USDT remained in those wallets when they were frozen, according to Tether’s account of Elliptic’s findings.

Across its law enforcement work, Tether said it cooperates with more than 340 agencies in 67 countries and that the efforts have helped freeze over $4.9 billion in assets, including more than $2.4 billion connected to U.S. authorities. The body of its announcement states more than 2,800 investigations globally and more than 1,500 involving U.S. law enforcement, while its page subtitle gives higher figures of more than 2,900 and more than 1,600, respectively.

Among the U.S. cases the company cited was a September Justice Department operation against a marketplace serving scam centers. Tether said authorities restrained more than $52 million in one day and that the department acknowledged its assistance. It also cited a February seizure of more than $61 million in USDT tied to an alleged investment fraud operation, in which the Justice Department and Homeland Security Investigations acknowledged its help transferring the assets.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto

Bitget Reveals New Details of $388M Crypto Hack

Published

on

Cointelegraph

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen said the crypto exchange’s recent $388 million exploit stemmed from a vulnerability in a third-party security product that allowed the attacker to obtain “high-level internal credentials.”

In comments to Cointelegraph, Chen said the attacker used those credentials to issue fraudulent withdrawal commands. Bitget’s private keys were not compromised, and its cold wallets were not affected, she said.

Bitget said it has since addressed the security flaw and tightened its withdrawal controls, including restricting internal access, adding independent verification for withdrawals and increasing monitoring for unusual activity.

The attack occurred on Sept. 24, when Bitget detected unauthorized transfers from several of its hot wallets and temporarily suspended withdrawals. The exchange initially estimated that about $352 million in assets had been affected.

Advertisement

Related: Bitget resumes Bitcoin withdrawals as hacker swaps ETH via THORChain

Bitget has yet to disclose recovery figures

The exchange has not disclosed how much of the stolen crypto has been recovered or frozen. Chen said some assets have been frozen with help from other industry participants, but Bitget would release a total only after verifying the amounts.

Bitget had previously called on THORChain, a protocol for swapping assets between blockchains, to refuse services to addresses linked to the attack.

The exchange said it is not asking THORChain to halt its network as it attempts to prevent the stolen assets from being moved. THORChain has said it cannot selectively blacklist individual addresses.

Advertisement

“We understand that THORChain operates as a decentralized protocol and has said that it cannot selectively blacklist individual addresses. We respect the technical constraints of different networks and are not asking any protocol to take actions that are not technically possible,” Chen said.

Chen also addressed Bitget’s earlier suspicion that North Korea may have been behind the attack.

“What was shared previously was based on preliminary indicators identified during the investigation,” Chen said.

“Those indicators are still being assessed. Mandiant and SlowMist are supporting the independent forensic investigation, and that work is ongoing. We will share further findings as they are verified,” she added.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Helen Partz.

Magazine: THORChain under fire over Bitget, ETH evolves beyond blockchain: Hodler’s Digest



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025