For a decade the pitch was that blockchains would route around the plumbing of American finance. On July 15 the plumbing processed its first live tokenized trades, with forty firms participating and the crypto-native issuers sitting inside its working group instead of competing with it. The incumbent did not lose. It joined, and then it became the largest venue in the category.

Tokenization has been sold for roughly a decade on a specific promise: that putting securities on a blockchain would make the existing settlement apparatus unnecessary. Trades would clear instantly, intermediaries would be disintermediated, and the institutions that sit between a buyer and a share certificate would find themselves routed around by software. It was a coherent thesis, it attracted enormous capital, and on July 15 it was answered in a way almost nobody has processed. The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, the entity whose depository arm custodies more than $114 trillion in securities and which processed something in the region of $4.7 quadrillion in transactions last year, ran its first live production trades of tokenized stocks, exchange-traded funds, and US Treasuries. More than forty firms took part, including the largest asset managers, the largest banks, and both major American exchanges. Full service launch is scheduled for October. And the crypto-native firms that spent the decade building the alternative are inside the working group helping design it. The incumbent did not get disintermediated. It ran a pilot, and the pilot is now the biggest tokenization venue in the country.

What actually happened on July 15

The mechanics matter, because the announcement has been reported as a milestone and not examined as a market structure event.

DTCC processed live production trades of tokenized assets held at its depository arm, covering equities, exchange-traded funds, and US Treasuries. Not a simulation, not a sandbox with test assets, but real trades in real instruments settled through tokenized representations of securities the depository already holds. The platform runs with Chainlink providing the blockchain infrastructure layer.

The legal foundation is an SEC no-action letter issued on December 11, authorising a three-year pilot covering constituents of the Russell 1000, major index exchange-traded funds, and US Treasuries. A no-action letter is not a permanent regulatory framework, a limitation this piece returns to, but it is sufficient authority for the institutions involved to participate without the classification uncertainty that has constrained every previous attempt.

The participant list is the part that should have generated more coverage than it did. BlackRock, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Vanguard, State Street, NYSE, Nasdaq, CME Group, and Microsoft among more than forty firms. That is not an experiment being run at the edge of the industry by its most adventurous members. It is the core of American capital markets participating simultaneously.

And one design decision resolves a question that has hung over every tokenized equity product to date: the tokenized versions preserve identical legal ownership rights to the underlying securities. The token is the security, held through the same depository chain, and not a claim on someone’s promise to hold the security for you.

The scale nobody has put side by side

Set the two markets against each other and the framing of the past decade inverts.

The crypto-native tokenized equity market, the collection of products that were supposed to replace this infrastructure, currently amounts to something in the region of a billion dollars in total. Ondo Finance, the largest issuer, holds under a billion. The xStocks product suite sits in the hundreds of millions. Robinhood’s tokenized stock offering leads the category on holder count, with several hundred thousand holders, and carries roughly forty-four million dollars in value, which our coverage of that market noted works out to an average position near a hundred and thirty dollars.

Against that, DTC custodies more than $114 trillion in securities.

The ratio is not a hundred to one or a thousand to one. It is approximately a hundred thousand to one, and it explains why the participant list looks the way it does. Institutions that were never going to move meaningful volume onto an offshore mirror-token venue will move it onto a tokenized rail operated by the depository they already use, because doing so requires changing the settlement technology without changing the legal, custodial, or counterparty arrangements at all.

The entire competitive insight. The crypto-native products asked institutions to accept a new legal structure in exchange for better technology. DTCC is offering the same technology with the existing legal structure attached. Almost nobody chooses the first option when the second exists.

Ask an Expert

Q. The Clarity Act, yea or nay?

Yea, with one important caveat. The objective cannot simply be to make life easier for crypto companies. It should make legitimate projects easier to identify, while making fraud and regulatory arbitrage harder. The biggest problem in the U.S. has been that companies often cannot determine whether they are dealing with the SEC, the CFTC or both until an enforcement action happens.

​

That is not a serious regulatory system. It pushes responsible teams offshore while doing surprisingly little to stop bad actors. The Clarity Act is directionally right because it recognizes that a capital-raising transaction can involve securities laws without automatically making the underlying token a security. ​

That distinction is much closer to how decentralized networks actually develop. My main concern is implementation. If the definitions remain subjective, or the SEC and CFTC apply conflicting standards, the uncertainty simply moves from the courts into the rulemaking process. The bill should pass, but success will depend on clear rules, coordinated regulators and real enforcement against fraud.

​

Q. What aspect will benefit investors the most?

The greatest benefit is the combination of clearer asset classification and mandatory disclosure. Investors need to know what they are buying, which regulator has jurisdiction, what information the project must disclose and what legal protections exist if something goes wrong. The current system often gives investors the worst of both worlds. Many projects do not provide disclosures comparable to public companies, yet they also lack a practical regulatory framework tailored to decentralized networks.

Cryptocurrency trading volumes spiked in South Korea as its stock market fell by nearly 18% this week. 

Key points:

• South Korean exchanges see a 600% uptick in crypto trading volume around the snap declines in the KOSPI.
• Investors may be seeking to capitalize on volatility by buying stock-linked products overseas, per analysis.
• Bitwise highlights Bitcoin’s surprising resilience to macro headwinds throughout July.

KRW/USDT volumes spike in response to stock sell-off

Data from largest South Korean exchange Upbit shows trading volume accelerating between the Korean won and Tether (USDT). It neared 200 billion won (140 million USDT) on July 29, up from just 20 million USDT on July 25 — an increase of 600%.

Korean won crypto trading-volume data. Source: Upbit

On the back of several straight days of downside on South Korea’s KOSPI, which came as a result of a sell-off in chip-maker stocks, investors variously sought protection and to take advantage of the decline. Capital could have flowed out of stocks to crypto, analysis referenced by local media outlet Seoul Economic Daily suggested, while investors could also have targeted derivatives of Korean equities via overseas crypto exchanges.

“There is a possibility that demand increased for moving funds to overseas exchanges or personal wallets to trade perpetual stock futures,” Cho Yoon-sung, a senior researcher at independent digital asset research and data provider Tiger Research, told the publication.

As Cointelegraph reported, an influx into semiconductors and away from crypto earlier this year is now under scrutiny as the tide turns on the AI trade’s rapid rise.

Crypto trading remains a hive of activity in South Korea, as younger traders in particular display a fondness for risk. Traders’ fondness for leveraged bets is an overarching feature of both crypto markets and this year’s AI retail boom.

Analyst underscores BTC price strength

The impact of  KOSPI volatility on crypto trading volumes was in evidence before this week’s rout. On July 14, Upbit saw a conspicuous volume surge after the index plunged 10% in a single day.

Related: Bitcoin price wedged into ‘most divided’ FOMC as Iran war spikes oil prices 8%

Commenting on the latest events, Andre Dragosch, European head of research at crypto asset manager Bitwise, underscored the lack of contagion resulting from the semiconductor “meltdown.”

“Bitcoin is essentially flat since semis peaked in late June,” he summarized, suggesting that Bitcoin’s resilience was unexpected.

In an analysis released earlier this week, Bitwise attributed “remarkable outperformance” to Bitcoin in comparison to a range of US mega-cap stocks.

“Bitcoin continues to demonstrate remarkable outperformance and resilience vis-à-vis US mega cap stocks such as the Magnificent 7 and SpaceX (SPCX) – a relative strength that is all the more notable in the context of tightening financial conditions and consistent with our view of Bitcoin as the ‘canary in the macro coal mine,’” it stated.

Bitwise argued that Bitcoin may already be giving early indications of future monetary-policy easing by central banks despite rising inflation and the short-term potential for interest-rate hikes as a result.

BTC/USD vs. SpaceX and Magnificent 7 stocks. Source: Bitwise

U.S. approval of perpetual futures contracts could expose traders to unexpected tax and regulatory uncertainty if the products are ultimately determined to be swaps rather than futures, an issue that has received little public attention, according to CME Group Chairman and CEO Terry Duffy.

“There’s a consequence that nobody’s talking about,” Duffy said in an interview with CoinDesk. “There’s ambiguity right there, from a tax perspective, for all U.S. participants now.”

The comments come as CME continues its legal challenge against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) over the regulator’s approval of perpetual futures contracts in the U.S. Both sides await a federal court decision, and the outcome could significantly influence how the U.S. approaches the rapidly growing arena of perpetual futures. One consequence, according to Duffy, is how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ultimately taxes these contracts.

The dispute stems from whether perpetual futures should legally be treated as futures or swaps.

Duffy said that perps should fall under the legal definition of swaps, instead of how the CFTC categorizes them as futures, because of the periodic funding payments exchanged between long and short positions.

Unlike traditional futures, perpetual contracts never expire. Instead, traders periodically exchange funding payments intended to keep the derivative’s price close to that of the underlying asset. Duffy argued that those recurring payment exchanges satisfy the statutory definition of a swap under U.S. law.

“When two parties exchange payments to each other, that is deemed a swap,” he said, referring to the funding-rate mechanism used by perpetual contracts.

What Duffy sees as the main problem with this mismatched designation is that if perpetual contracts qualify as futures, many institutional traders could receive the blended tax treatment available under Section 1256 of the U.S. tax code. Under this, gains and losses are generally treated as 60% long-term and 40% short-term capital gains. If those contracts fall under swaps, they will be taxed under “ordinary” taxation. Given that the perps are newer innovations, the IRS has not issued guidance specifically addressing the tax treatment of perpetual futures.

So if the regulators or courts ultimately conclude that perpetual contracts are swaps rather than futures, market participants who have been treating them as futures for tax purposes could face uncertainty about how to report those positions to the IRS.

“So if you file your tax return and this ruling comes back, where these products that you’ve been trading and filing government tax returns as 1256 contracts [futures], when it should be ordinary, I will be curious what the IRS has to say to you about how much they think you owe them because you didn’t file your tax returns properly,” Duffy said.

‘Substance over form’

Legal experts, however, said that the issue is much more complex than that.

“The challenge here is that textually, by the structure, perpetual futures look a lot like a swap, but economically they perform a lot like futures,” said Rustin Diehl, a tax attorney and counselor at Allegis Law and an Emeritus Fellow at Georgetown Law’s Institute for International Economic Law and professor of business law at Weber State University. “It’s really a substance-over-form question … function versus text.”

Adding to the uncertainty, legal experts say that the definition of swaps is extremely broad.

“Basically, the statutory definition of swaps is so broad as to encompass … anything,” Jason Gottlieb, partner and chair of Morrison Cohen’s digital assets practice, told CoinDesk. He added that the breadth of the statutory language leaves considerable room for interpretation regarding its application to new financial products such as perpetual futures.

What it will come down to is how the court interprets it.

That’s because the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision eliminated the longstanding Chevron doctrine; federal courts now give less deference to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes, meaning judges could play a larger role in deciding how existing derivatives laws apply to novel crypto products.

Tax evasion?

And it’s likely to be a long, drawn-out process.

“My view is that there’s going to be a lot of litigation about it, and the Supreme Court has told courts that if there is ambiguity in the statute, they can ignore the CFTC and read the statute for themselves,” Gottlieb said.

Also, rather than immediately deciding whether the products should be classified as swaps or futures, a federal judge is likely to first examine whether the regulator reasonably considered public comments and sufficiently explained its decision before approving these contracts, Diehl said.

“I think the judge is going to focus on the Administrative Procedure Act, and kind of look at the question of did the CFTC really exercise independent judgment? Were they thorough? Were they reasoned? Did they express their reasoning?” he said.

Even if the litigation ultimately clarifies whether perpetual contracts are swaps or futures, tax treatment may still require separate guidance from the IRS, which is not obligated to adopt the CFTC’s interpretation of financial instruments, Diehl said.

“I think people are going to want to maybe check with the IRS and see how they should report these,” said Diehl. “They [IRS] generally do agree with the CFTC’s definitions of commodities historically, but there’s been many times when the IRS doesn’t just agree with a taxpayer submitting their tax position based on CFTC rules.”

Until regulators, tax authorities, or the courts provide greater clarity, Duffy said, large institutions could face uncertainty over how to report trades involving perpetual futures.

“How would you like to be running a very large public company that trades a lot and hedges a lot, and all of a sudden you’re in the news for not paying proper taxes,” said Duffy.

Read more: Inside the CME and CFTC’s battle over onchain perpetual futures

The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has sanctioned two Iranian maritime firms in an effort to stop Iran from monetizing the Strait of Hormuz with its BTC insurance scheme. 

OFAC claims the Persian Gulf Marine Insurance Company and HormuzSafe Marine Services Authority are “integral” to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its “extortion scheme.” 

The scheme, called “Hormuz Safe,” has been in the works for some months now. Shipowners could pay for Iran’s insurance with BTC and other cryptocurrencies and guarantee safe passage through the strait. 

It would reportedly generate over $10 billion of revenue for the country and help it maintain control over the stretch of water once the war is concluded. 

It’s clear Russia is the single most important ally to Iran in their shared conspiracy against global peace and prosperity. According to many intelligence reports, in addition to passing on sensitive intelligence to Iran about U.S. military installations in the region, Russia is systematically upgrading Iran’s aging, pre-1979 military infrastructure as its single largest external source of weaponry. As of mid-2026, Moscow has completed production of advanced Su-35 fighter jets and helicopters for Tehran, augmented by deliveries of Yak-130 combat trainers, Mi-28 attack helicopters, and hundreds of long-range air-to-air and anti-radar missiles. Furthermore, in 2022, Moscow helped launch Iran’s high-resolution Khayyam satellite, and Russian forces routinely transfer captured Western weaponry from the Ukrainian frontline—including Javelin and Stinger systems—directly to Iranian defense firms to be reverse-engineered and cloned for Tehran’s proxy networks. Simultaneously, Russian telecommunications firms are supplying Iranian operators with advanced digital surveillance and cyber warfare technologies.

Samsung SDS, the IT services arm of Samsung Group, says it is exploring cooperation with Dunamu—operator of South Korea’s Upbit exchange—across stablecoin infrastructure, digital asset systems and AI-enabled payment models. The discussions were outlined during Samsung SDS’ second-quarter earnings call on Thursday, according to remarks from CEO Lee Jun-hee.

The effort also arrives as Samsung Electronics continues to expand its digital asset footprint, including recent plans to add stablecoin support to Samsung Wallet. Together, the moves point to a broader push by Samsung-related entities toward regulated digital finance rails rather than purely retail-facing crypto features.

Key takeaways

• Samsung SDS is in talks with Dunamu on stablecoin infrastructure and broader digital asset system development.
• CEO Lee Jun-hee framed the Dunamu relationship as expansion in infrastructure capabilities, not a standalone financial investment.
• Samsung affiliates already have ties to Dunamu: Samsung Securities, Samsung SDS and Samsung Card agreed to buy a combined 4% stake in May 2026.
• Samsung SDS’ Q2 results show growth across cloud and AI-related services, providing business momentum for its digital finance ambitions.
• South Korea’s regulatory direction for stablecoins remains a key variable for how such infrastructure partnerships develop.

Samsung SDS and Dunamu explore stablecoin and digital finance infrastructure

During its Q2 earnings call, Samsung SDS CEO Lee Jun-hee said the company is discussing potential cooperation with Dunamu on stablecoin infrastructure, digital asset systems, and AI-based payment business models. Lee also referenced Samsung SDS’ own work in tokenized securities and stablecoin workflow validation as proof points for why it expects the partnership to strengthen its position in digital asset infrastructure.

Lee noted that Samsung SDS has already secured “differentiated business capabilities” through the Korea Securities Depository’s tokenized securities platform project and through end-to-end validation of a full stablecoin process—from issuance through settlement. The company’s stated aim is to combine its IT services, cloud and security capabilities with Dunamu’s blockchain expertise.

In the Q2 transcript, Samsung SDS said the partnership goal is to “lead this market” by pairing the two firms’ respective strengths. However, Samsung SDS did not provide additional detail on timelines, specific technical approaches, or the scope of any prospective commercial offering.

Cointelegraph previously reported Samsung Electronics’ plan to add stablecoin support to Samsung Wallet, and this new development suggests the Samsung ecosystem is aligning infrastructure capability with consumer-facing wallets. While Samsung Wallet would be a distribution layer, stablecoin infrastructure and enterprise digital asset systems typically sit behind the scenes—supporting issuance, settlement, custody integrations, and compliance-oriented workflows.

Earlier stake tie deepens: strategic rather than financial intent

The talks with Dunamu follow a prior move that increased Samsung affiliates’ exposure to South Korea’s digital asset sector. In May 2026, Samsung Securities, Samsung SDS and Samsung Card agreed to buy a combined 4% stake in Dunamu. That transaction strengthened existing commercial ties and underscored that Samsung-related companies are looking beyond pilots.

In the latest Q2 call, Lee reportedly characterized Samsung SDS’ investment in Dunamu as strategic rather than purely financial. He said both companies plan to refine potential business models for digital financial infrastructure, suggesting that any future cooperation could extend beyond infrastructure experiments into more defined productization.

Samsung SDS did not immediately respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment, and Dunamu declined to comment. That limits what can be said publicly about how negotiations are progressing or whether agreements are already in place for specific use cases.

How Samsung SDS’ cloud and AI expansion could reinforce digital finance plans

Samsung SDS’ stablecoin and digital asset ambitions are being presented alongside broader growth in cloud and AI services. In its Q2 earnings presentation and related figures, Samsung SDS reported Q2 revenue of 3.72 trillion Korean won (about $2.6 billion), up 5.9% year on year. The company cited cloud momentum as a major contributor, including a 17% increase in cloud revenue from the prior year and a jump in external cloud business revenue of 75%.

Samsung SDS attributed part of the external cloud growth to demand for its cloud platform and graphics processing unit-as-a-service offerings. That emphasis matters because stablecoin infrastructure and tokenized financial systems often depend on the same enterprise capabilities—secure hosting, scalable compute, identity and access controls, and reliability under transaction load.

The company also reportedly outlined plans to expand its AI infrastructure capacity—from about 110 megawatts today to 230 MW by 2029, and more than 800 MW by 2031. If executed, such expansion would further position Samsung SDS to deliver data-intensive services for AI-driven finance workflows, including risk analytics, fraud detection, and automated settlement-related monitoring.

Still, investors and builders should distinguish between infrastructure readiness and regulatory authorization. Stablecoin use in retail payments, treasury operations, or tokenized assets typically depends on compliance frameworks and the specific licensing/oversight model in the relevant jurisdiction.

What this means for South Korea’s digital finance ecosystem

South Korea has been moving toward clearer stablecoin and crypto regulation, and industry participants are watching how the rules will translate into real, compliant payment and settlement deployments. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that a South Korea report proposed stablecoin rules ahead of a broader crypto law framework.

Against that backdrop, Samsung SDS’ focus on end-to-end stablecoin process validation—from issuance to settlement—reads like an attempt to be ready for both technical and compliance requirements. Rather than targeting speculative applications, the company appears to be building capabilities that can support regulated flows once the legal environment permits or clarifies specific models.

At the same time, the partnership’s practical impact will hinge on what “AI-based payment business models” ultimately involve. AI can be used in customer authentication, compliance monitoring, market surveillance, and payment risk assessment, but the boundaries of acceptable use will depend on data policies and the final regulatory approach.

For traders and users, these initiatives may not immediately change day-to-day trading volumes or retail access. For developers and institutional stakeholders, however, infrastructure partnerships can matter because they affect integration timelines, operational reliability, and the availability of custody/settlement tooling that exchanges and financial platforms can adopt.

Next, the key question is whether Samsung SDS and Dunamu will move from exploratory cooperation into concrete deployments—particularly in stablecoin issuance/settlement workflows and any wallet or payment integrations tied to Samsung’s consumer products. Observers should also watch for updates as South Korea’s stablecoin regulatory trajectory progresses, since the permitted use cases will likely determine what infrastructure work can scale commercially.