Singapore-based Bitcoin mining pool operator Poolin and two US affiliates have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in a New Jersey court, according to a court filing accessible via PACER Monitor. The move marks a further sign of stress inside parts of the mining sector as margins are squeezed by electricity costs and infrastructure expenses.

In the filing, Poolin Technology PTE Ltd estimates liabilities in a range of $100 million to $500 million, assets of $1 million to $10 million, and 10,001 to 25,000 creditors. The company also asked the court for permission to sell two West Texas mining sites to Thor CALAP LLC through a proposed stalking-horse bid.

Key takeaways

• Poolin and US affiliates have entered Chapter 11 in New Jersey, citing a wide gap between estimated liabilities and assets.
• Poolin is seeking approval to sell its Tarbush and Pyote West Texas mining facilities for a combined $52 million under a stalking-horse process.
• A court-supervised auction is planned, with a bid deadline of Sept. 8 under the proposed procedures.
• The case reflects broader industry pressure, with other miners restructuring or pivoting toward AI and high-performance computing.

Bankruptcy filing and proposed West Texas asset sale

Poolin’s bankruptcy petition is tied to court-supervised efforts to reorganize and monetize remaining assets. The company’s filing includes estimates of $100 million to $500 million in liabilities against assets estimated between $1 million and $10 million, alongside a creditor count in the 10,001 to 25,000 range.

In addition to seeking Chapter 11 protection, Poolin requested permission to sell two mining sites in West Texas to Thor CALAP LLC. The proposed stalking-horse bid values the deal at $52 million, split into:

• $37 million for the Tarbush assets, including assumed liabilities.
• $15 million for the Pyote site, including power rights, equipment, and other assets related to the mining facilities.

The filing further states that the sale would be subject to a court-supervised auction, with a Sept. 8 bid deadline under the proposed bidding procedures.

Poolin’s market position has shifted

Poolin’s bankruptcy comes at a time when its relative standing in the mining industry has declined. According to Hashrate Index, Poolin is currently the 17th largest Bitcoin mining pool operator by hashrate, with about 0.2% market share.

The filing’s outcome is therefore not just a case-specific story: it underscores how the competitive landscape has evolved since Poolin’s peak. The company was once reported as the world’s largest Bitcoin mining pool in 2019, but its hashrate share has since fallen as other operators scaled and diversified.

Industry pressure: restructuring and an AI pivot

Poolin’s bankruptcy fits a broader pattern in which Bitcoin miners increasingly look for restructuring pathways—or new lines of business—to manage operating constraints. The source reporting notes that financial pressure has been driven in part by rising electricity costs, with some mining operations shutting down while others seek additional revenue.

Earlier examples highlighted in the broader reporting include a Chapter 11 filing by NFN8 Group and two affiliates in February, in which those entities sought bankruptcy protection in the Western District of Texas. Other miners have pursued different strategies, including a shift toward AI and high-performance computing infrastructure.

For instance, the reporting notes that in November 2025, Bitfarms initiated a complete wind-down of its Bitcoin mining operations to pivot toward AI and high-performance computing data centers. More recently, it cites major AI-related infrastructure announcements from publicly traded miners:

• Hut 8 announced a 15-year lease worth $9.8 billion for an AI data center campus.
• IREN disclosed $2.8 billion in cloud services contracts with AI developers.

The same reporting also references MARA Holdings plans to acquire a Texas site with up to 2 gigawatts of capacity to expand AI and digital infrastructure ambitions.

In its coverage, the source further points to comments attributed to Bernstein, stating that AI companies may need deals with third-party providers—such as Bitcoin miners—to overcome computing power limits of AI data centers.

Why this Chapter 11 case matters to the market

For investors and industry participants, Poolin’s filing is notable not only because of what happens inside a bankruptcy court, but because it may influence how mining supply and hosting capacity evolve during a period when many operators are recalibrating their strategies.

The proposed sale of specific West Texas mining sites—along with included power rights and equipment—also highlights where value is being concentrated. In practical terms, power access and deployable infrastructure are often the decisive factors in mining economics, particularly when energy prices and equipment costs challenge profitability.

Meanwhile, the broader shift toward AI infrastructure suggests a deeper restructuring of demand for compute. While Bitcoin mining is tied to network incentives, AI data center expansion depends on long-term capacity planning. That difference helps explain why some miners are attempting to convert physical assets and energy contracts into a different revenue model—yet Poolin’s bankruptcy indicates that not every operator can make that transition fast enough or on terms favorable to creditors.

One watchpoint is the timing and outcome of the court-supervised auction. The filing proposes a Sept. 8 bid deadline, which could determine whether competing bids emerge beyond the stalking-horse valuation or whether the Thor CALAP LLC offer becomes the baseline for a broader asset disposition.

Readers should monitor the bankruptcy docket for updates on the auction process, any competing bids, and the ultimate disposition of the Tarbush and Pyote sites. Just as importantly, the case may provide another data point on how quickly—if at all—mining operators can reposition energy- and infrastructure-heavy businesses toward AI-related compute demand.

Crypto exchange BitMEX is winding down with roughly $270 million sitting in a house insurance fund that customers now suspect its owners will simply keep. 

The fund holds about $239 million worth of BTC and $31 million in USDT. A lot of that came from customers’ trading losses.

The exchange hasn’t disclosed where the money will go after its doors close on September 23 and BitMEX declined to comment on its plans for the fund.

To be clear, the fund is owned by BitMEX, not customers, and the exchange never told customers what it would do with the fund if it ultimately closed for business.

Moreover, the fund has paid out to customers during certain loss events, honoring the exchange‘s original promise.

Still, plenty of people are upset given the substantial size of the fund and a November 2025 rebalancing that drained it of the overwhelming majority of its assets at the time.

The exchange’s proprietary token also seems to have little promise of retaining much value after September. It’s already lost 96% of its value year-to-date after a steep crash on the closure news.

BitMEX’s insurance fund goes viral

Speculation about BitMEX owners overtaking the insurance fund is rampant on social media, as allegations earned hundreds of thousands of impressions on the trending topic.

For context, BitMEX’s use of the word insurance is repurposed, a common practice by the crypto industry. Its borrowed name doesn’t actually mean insurance by conventional understanding.

Rather than funding it with policyholders’ insurance premiums or stockholders’ paid-in capital, by and large, BitMEX funded its so-called insurance fund with liquidated assets from customers who lost money trading using BitMEX-provided leverage.

Immediately incensed, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action the same day as BitMEX’s closure announcement.

Plaintiffs alleged that BitMEX’s fund grew quickly during downside volatility and times of stress when customers would have appreciated insurance payouts.

Instead of shrinking during adverse events to offset losses as other insurance funds might have, the fund grew as BitMEX force-closed leveraged bets by its customers.

Although no court has reviewed the allegations, plaintiffs BKX Services and David Namdar say the exchange liquidated their positions. The two say they lost over 622 BTC between them and want to add claims representing similarly situated US customers who traded on BitMEX since July 2018.

Like other lawsuits before, they are seeking the return of their assets plus fees. Prior lawsuits have ended in dismissal, such as a 2020 class action led by Brett Messieh.

Abu Dhabi, UAE — VAP Group today announced the Global Trading Show from 15-16 December 2026 at Emirates Palace, Abu Dhabi. Powered by Times Of Trading, the event brings together the full spectrum of the trading world, including the most influential 5,000+ market movers together such as ultra-HNW investors, brokers, regulators, exchanges, institutional desks, high-volume traders, influencers and leading financial key opinion leaders, all under one roof at one of the region’s most prestigious venues.

Until now, the region’s trading events have focused on individual markets, while the Global Trading Show unites every asset class, trading technologies, and trader communities, making it a truly cross-asset event for every type of trader.

The Global Trading Show is built on three pillars designed to give attendees direct access to the entire investment universe and the people driving it.

Multi-Asset Trading Floor
Brokers, exchanges, and trading platforms will showcase their products side by side, giving traders and institutions a single vantage point across every major asset class and removing the need for fragmented, single-market events.

Live Trading Tournament
A live trading tournament executed on regulated infrastructure, with a fully transparent prize pool. The competition puts skill on public display in real time, offering sponsors and platforms a high-visibility stage to demonstrate execution quality and reliability under pressure.

KOLs & Creators
Global Trading Show recognizes that today’s markets move as much through influence as through infrastructure. The event convenes leading financial KOLs and creators alongside institutional players, bridging the gap between the trading floor and the platforms where retail and professional audiences increasingly get their market intelligence.

The two-day event will spotlight the next evolution of trading through dedicated AI & Quant, Web3 & DeFi, Retail Education, and Institutional Liquidity zones, complemented by live trading challenges, expert-led masterclasses, and exclusive institutional forums with closed-door sessions and open panels for hedge funds, prime brokers, liquidity providers, sovereign wealth funds and family offices.

“Capital today moves across forex, crypto, gold, AI-driven strategies and more, all at once, yet the industry still meets in silos. We are proud to announce that the Global Trading Show is the region’s only event to bring seven asset classes under one umbrella, where the entire ecosystem converges. Abu Dhabi is where institutional money and emerging assets now meet, so this conversation belongs here, in one of the most significant sovereign-grade venues in the region” – Vishal Parmar, Founder and CEO, VAP Group.

The Global Trading Show highlights how rapidly evolving technology is reshaping market structures by bridging institutional finance with high-velocity retail trading. It serves as a collaborative and intersectional hub for legacy banking compliance, decentralized blockchain networks, and cross-market portfolios.

For sponsorship opportunities, speaker applications, and delegate registration details, visit globaltradingshow.com.

For media queries reach out at media@globaltradingshow.com.

About VAP Group

With 13+ years of expertise, VAP Group is a premier global consulting and media powerhouse driving the next wave of technology-led growth.

Through its media ecosystem and flagship events, including the Global AI Show, Global Games Show, and Global Blockchain Show, VAP Group connects policymakers, enterprises, and innovators worldwide, enabling strategic communications, ecosystem-building, and talent solutions.

Media Contact:

Email: media@globaltradingshow.com

For more information: https://www.globaltradingshow.com/

London, 6–7 October 2026: Digital Assets Week will return to London, the only forum where capital markets transformation through tokenisation is examined in depth, from issuance and market structure to settlement, custody, liquidity and regulatory alignment.

The underlying foundation of Digital Assets Week is Global Asset Digitisation Projects, making it the only venue where the commercialisation of tokenising assets is discussed comprehensively and at scale.

Digital Assets Week is institution-led and designed to support substantive dialogue between market participants, regulators and infrastructure providers on implementation, risk management and market structure as digital assets increasingly intersect with traditional capital markets.

The 2026 edition will focus on how digital assets and tokenisation are moving from experimentation towards practical implementation across traditional financial markets.

Discussions will examine the evolution of tokenised private and public markets, 24/7 trading, atomic settlement, fund administration, digital asset custody, stablecoins, payments infrastructure, regulation, liquidity and institutional blockchain adoption.

Key speakers confirmed to join the 2026 agenda include:

● Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury

● Sasha Mills, Executive Director, Financial Market Infrastructure, Bank of England

● Sumeera Younis, Chief of Operations – Crypto Task Force, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

● Anthony Clark-Jones, Head of Digital Assets (Products & Services), UBS Investment Bank

● Sean Mullins, Head of Digital Assets Product, Securities Services, HSBC

● Emma Lovett, Executive Director, Markets Digital Assets, J.P. Morgan

● Anna Matson, Senior Vice President, Head of Digital Assets & Innovation EMEA, Northern Trust

● Waqar Chaudry, Executive Director; Head, Digital Assets. Financing and Securities Services; Corporate & Investment Banking, Standard Chartered Bank

● Sabih Behzad, Head of Digital Assets & Currencies Transformation, Managing Director, Deutsche Bank

● Emilio Anting, VP of Digital Asset Partnerships, Franklin Templeton

● Previn Singh, Digital Assets – Head of Tokenisation Strategy, Fidelity International

● Doug Bambrick, Head of Custody Product – UK and Middle East, BNP Paribas

● David Reed, Director – Digital Assets Product, Invesco

● Deepa Raja Carbon, Managing Director and Vice Chairperson, VARA

● Christoph Hock, Head of Tokenisation and Digital Assets, Union Investment

● Kelly Moffatt, Head of Digital Assets Compliance, Citi

● Rosemary Hanna, Head of Division, Markets and Funds Policy, Central Bank of Ireland

● Ryan Hayward, Head of Digital Assets and Strategic Investments, Barclays

● Christian Lawrence, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist, Head of Americas & Energy Markets Research, Managing Director, Rabobank

● Antoine Scalia, Founder and CEO, Cryptio

● Cameron Drinkwater, Chief Product & Operations Officer, S&P Dow Jones Indices

● Myles Wright, CEO, Fnality Services

and many more.

This year’s event is already seeing the strongest level of financial institution and regulator registrations at this stage of any previous edition.

Financial institutions and regulators confirmed to participate include representatives from Aberdeen, ABN AMRO Bank, AllianceBernstein, ANZ Banking Group, Aviva Investors,  Baillie Gifford, Bank of America, Bank of England, Barclays, BlackRock, BNP Paribas,  Citi, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity International, Franklin Templeton, Goldman Sachs, HM  Treasury, HSBC, Intesa Sanpaolo, J.P. Morgan, Lloyds Bank, M&G Investments, MUFG  Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, Northern Trust, Rabobank, Société Générale, Standard  Chartered, State Street, T Rowe Price, TSB Bank, U.S. Securities and Exchange  Commission, UBS, Union Investment, VARA, WisdomTree and many more.

Registration for Digital Assets Week London is now open.

Tickets can be accessed here:

https://www.universe.com/events/digital-assets-week-london-2026-tickets-LGVXZ7

15% off discount code, valid from 1st August: CRYPBREAK15

For sponsorship or speaking enquiries please contact: christina@julietmedia.com

Three major U.S. crypto advocacy groups have urged Senate leaders to move the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act forward on the chamber floor, arguing that the legislation remains a rare chance to establish a clearer federal framework for digital assets. In a joint letter sent Friday to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the Digital Chamber, and the Blockchain Association asked lawmakers to prioritize “floor consideration” before the Senate pauses for state work periods in August.

The push comes as the bill has already advanced through the Senate banking and agriculture committees, but uncertainty remains over whether it can secure the 60 votes needed for passage. Republicans hold a 52–47 edge over Democrats, yet several Democrats have signaled they may withhold support until the bill’s ethics-related provisions are adjusted—particularly rules intended to address conflicts of interest involving public officials and cryptocurrencies.

Key takeaways

• Crypto industry groups are pressing Senate leadership to schedule a floor vote on the CLARITY Act before the August recess.
• The bill cleared the Senate banking and agriculture committees, but lawmakers have indicated votes could be delayed pending unresolved ethics concerns.
• Democrats argue the ethics provisions in the GOP’s market structure text are insufficient to prevent corruption, according to reporting from Politico.
• Industry leaders including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and 1inch’s legal chief Orest Gavryliak have argued the bill is necessary to provide a workable framework—especially for non-custodial systems.
• Market-based polling via Kalshi as of Friday implied a roughly 40.3% chance of passage before the Senate’s August break.

Advocacy groups push for early floor action

In the Friday letter, the three organizations framed floor consideration as an immediate next step following committee progress. They acknowledged bipartisan discussions are ongoing and encouraged negotiations to continue, indicating they are not asking for a “take it or leave it” decision—just that the bill be brought to the Senate floor without further delay.

The groups’ request aligns with a broader push from Republicans who have been working to secure a vote before the Senate breaks for state work periods in August. However, even with committee advancement, floor timelines in the Senate often depend on whether parties can close gaps on contentious provisions—especially those involving ethics and enforcement boundaries.

Ethics provisions remain the sticking point

CLARITY is widely described as one of the most consequential U.S. bills for crypto regulation, and its path in the Senate reflects the difficulty of reaching consensus across the aisle. The bill requires 60 votes to pass, and while Republicans currently hold a 52–47 majority over Democrats, Democratic support is not guaranteed.

Earlier this week, Republicans released the text of the market structure bill, including ethics provisions that would bar public officials from issuing or sponsoring cryptocurrencies. Democrats who oppose or question these measures have argued they do not go far enough to address corruption risks, according to reporting from Cointelegraph and Politico.

Senator Ruben Gallego, who criticized the ethics counterproposal, said in comments reported by Politico that the latest GOP response did not reflect a serious effort. He argued that after months of work with Republican colleagues, the bill’s updated approach did not match what Democrats believe is needed to meaningfully tighten safeguards.

“[…] After all the work that we’ve done with our Republican colleagues, that they would take the months and months of work and somehow interpret that and turn around and think what they offered was even remotely close.”

For investors and crypto companies, this disagreement matters because ethics provisions and conflict-of-interest rules can influence how politicians, regulators, and politically connected actors engage with crypto-related activity. If those provisions remain contested, the practical outcome could be delayed scheduling—or amended text that changes how compliance obligations are framed.

Industry leaders argue CLARITY is a needed framework

Beyond the Senate arithmetic and ethics provisions, industry participants have focused on what the bill could mean for how crypto products are treated in the U.S. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said in a Wednesday post on X that the U.S. lacks a federal framework and that the absence of clarity allows harmful behavior to reach customers while much of the industry operates offshore.

Armstrong’s argument, as presented in his post, is that CLARITY would create consumer protections, provide law enforcement with tools, and establish a path for U.S. leadership in the sector. That perspective echoes what many businesses have sought in recent regulatory cycles: rules that are designed for digital assets rather than forced into legacy financial categories.

DeFi-focused legal leadership also weighed in. Orest Gavryliak, chief legal officer of 1inch, discussed the bill on Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast on Friday. He said CLARITY could help create a structure that recognizes non-custodial protocols rather than “regulating with enforcement,” and he criticized approaches that might try to fit non-custodial systems into custodial frameworks.

In his remarks, Gavryliak suggested that if regulators insist on treating non-custodial projects as if they must adopt custodial models, the resulting obligations could misalign with how decentralized protocols actually operate. For protocol developers, trading venues, and tooling providers, that distinction can affect everything from risk disclosures to compliance strategies.

Timing risks: August recess and the midterm calendar

Legislative timing may be as important as legislative content. The source notes that if lawmakers fail to hold a vote before the Senate breaks in August, consideration could shift into the weeks leading up to the 2026 U.S. midterms. That prospect could complicate negotiations, since election-year incentives often reshape how quickly contentious measures move.

As of Friday, Kalshi listed event contracts related to whether the Senate would vote on CLARITY before the August recess. The market-implied probability stood at 40.3%, suggesting that traders viewed a pre-recess floor vote as uncertain.

While event markets are not official forecasts, they can still reflect how participants interpret political momentum—especially when the bill’s core milestones (committee approval) have occurred but the votes to reach the 60 threshold appear harder to secure.

For readers tracking CLARITY, the next question is straightforward: whether Senate leadership can translate committee progress into floor scheduling while resolving the ethics provisions Democrats say are inadequate. If those disputes intensify or timelines slip past August, the bill’s eventual shape—and the compliance burden for non-custodial and consumer-facing parts of the ecosystem—may become clearer only later than many industry participants were hoping for.

DEXE has lost 96.8% in 11 days after falling from a record high near $49.43 to $1.56, while large Ceffu transfers to Binance have prompted questions about a possible DWF Labs connection.

On-chain analyst Ai Yi reported that DEXE (DEXE) reached an all-time high of $49.432 on July 12 before its decline began the following day. The steepest move came on July 21, when the token dropped as much as 88% from $46.93 to $5.648 within one trading day, according to the analyst’s timeline.

During an examination of large on-chain flows, Ai Yi found that most transfers came from centralized exchange hot wallets. Ceffu was the only entity outside exchanges that moved more than $1 million worth of DEXE, making its activity stand out from the other transactions reviewed by the analyst.

Since July 13, the crypto custody platform has transferred 797,917.24 DEXE to Binance across six transactions, Ai Yi reported. Those tokens were worth a combined $6.15 million when the on-chain transfers took place, although their value would have been much higher before the collapse.

Ceffu’s mirrored positions may explain the delayed transfers

Ai Yi’s analysis focused on Ceffu’s MirrorX service, which allows institutional clients to trade on exchanges while keeping their assets in custody. Under the system described by the analyst, DEXE deposited with Ceffu can create a matching position on an exchange, while the corresponding on-chain transfer is settled later.

Because trading can occur before the tokens visibly move on-chain, Ai Yi argued that the six transfers may not show when the associated positions were first used. If the 797,917 DEXE had been positioned for trading before the price started falling on July 13, the analyst estimated that they would have carried an effective value of about $39.44 million.

Ai Yi presented this sequence as a possible explanation rather than proof that the tokens were sold before their on-chain settlement. The analyst’s post did not identify the owner of the assets, establish that all 797,917 DEXE had been sold, or provide direct evidence connecting the transfers to the initial price decline.

Questions over the source of the custodial balance also remain unresolved. After reviewing public project information, Ai Yi found no evidence that the DEXE team had placed tokens with Ceffu. According to the analyst, much of the project-linked supply appeared to remain in the decentralized autonomous organization’s treasury and contracts covering team-related lockups.

Falcon connections put DWF Labs under scrutiny

Searching DEXE’s official partner list for another possible route to Ceffu, Ai Yi pointed to Falcon Finance. The analyst noted that Falcon had supported DEXE as collateral on its platform and that Ceffu was among the institutions used for Falcon’s asset custody.

Ai Yi also identified links between Falcon Finance and DWF Labs, while DWF Labs appeared separately on DEXE’s partner list. Based on those public connections, the analyst suggested that the Ceffu-held tokens could have involved DWF Labs, Falcon, the project team, or another market maker.

No evidence provided in Ai Yi’s post proves that DWF Labs, Falcon Finance, Ceffu, or the DEXE team caused the crash. The analyst described the conclusion as an early assessment based on on-chain movements and a process of tracing public links, leaving open other explanations for the transfers.

Neither the transfer data nor the cited partnerships establish who controlled the DEXE positions represented through MirrorX. Ai Yi also did not rule out possible involvement by the project or other market makers, but the post offered no conclusive finding about the party responsible for selling.

DEXE’s collapse follows two other steep token sell-offs reported by crypto.news in recent weeks. On July 3, LAB fell more than 60% from a June 27 high near $20 to an intraday low of $7.50 as concerns about insider holdings, token transparency and derivatives liquidations drove panic selling.

Crypto.news reported that the LAB decline followed community scrutiny of allegations from on-chain investigator ZachXBT, who had claimed insiders controlled more than 95% of its supply. ZachXBT also raised concerns about private over-the-counter agreements, changing vesting schedules and insider-wallet movements, although those public allegations have not been established in court and the LAB team has disputed or not accepted many of them publicly.

Humanity Protocol’s H token suffered another sharp collapse on June 9, losing more than 80% after attackers drained wallets linked to the project. Unlike the unanswered questions surrounding DEXE’s transfers, the Humanity Protocol team confirmed that attackers had compromised a private key belonging to a Humanity Foundation member.

Humanity Protocol operates an identity network built on a zero-knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machine and uses palm biometrics with zero-knowledge proofs to verify unique users. The project says its design allows identity checks without placing users’ complete personal information inside large centralized databases.

The European Central Bank’s proposed digital euro is drawing intense debate across Europe, with supporters framing it as a tool to preserve the euro’s monetary sovereignty in an increasingly online payments economy, while critics warn it could expand surveillance and give authorities new powers over consumer spending.

In remarks reported by the ECB, executive board member Piero Cipollone said the project aims to reduce dependence on non-European payment providers and ensure Europeans can transact with sovereign central bank money in digital form. The controversy, however, persists as privacy advocates, consumer groups, and even parts of the traditional banking sector weigh the implications for personal autonomy and financial stability.

Key takeaways

• The ECB positions the digital euro as a sovereign, central-bank-issued payment option intended to complement cash, not replace it.
• Privacy and civil-liberties concerns remain central, with regulators and watchdogs emphasizing the need for strong safeguards before public trust can be secured.
• Policymakers are motivated partly by concerns that Europe lacks control over parts of its critical retail payments infrastructure.
• Banking-industry critics worry that limited digital-euro wallet holdings could still shift deposit flows and affect how banks fund lending.
• Legislation negotiations are underway in the EU, with officials aiming to finalize the text by the end of the year and decisions on issuance potentially following later.

What the digital euro would be

The digital euro is a proposed European Central Bank project for a digital form of euro issued by the ECB—meaning it would function as central bank money in an online-ready format. The ECB describes it as a way for people in the euro area to use sovereign money for everyday payments as commerce and payments continue to move toward digital channels.

Supporters argue that the digital euro would preserve core advantages people associate with cash while enabling “cash-like” payments over electronic networks. Critics, by contrast, see the same architecture as a potential pathway to “programmable” money—an arrangement they fear could enable authorities to control or restrict how individuals spend.

The dispute is not abstract: the digital euro debate mirrors broader questions raised by central bank digital currencies globally, particularly around privacy, data handling, and the degree of oversight that could accompany a state-issued payment rail.

Why Europe wants central bank money online

Beyond sovereignty, the ECB’s argument centers on reducing Europe’s reliance on non-European payment infrastructure. The ECB has warned that declining cash use could leave the euro area increasingly dependent on private or overseas-operated systems such as card networks, creating a strategic vulnerability.

In 2025, ECB President Christine Lagarde said the payment-credit-debit infrastructure is “not a European solution,” and argued that Europe needs a European alternative “just in case.” The underlying concern is that without a native digital euro option, European consumers and merchants could face higher systemic risk if foreign-controlled payment services become unavailable or less favorable.

Consumer advocates have also entered the discussion. According to comments shared with Cointelegraph by Andrew Canning, deputy head of communications at the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), the digital euro could provide a “secure and inclusive” option that complements existing payment solutions—particularly for users who encounter barriers to accessing digital payments.

Safeguards, privacy, and what the ECB says it will do

Regulatory oversight is a key point in the digital euro debate. The EU’s privacy watchdogs have stressed that the project must include robust protections to earn public confidence. In a joint stance, the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor said privacy and data protection at a high level are essential for the digital euro’s legitimacy, citing a need to ensure that fundamental rights are respected.

The ECB’s own materials argue that privacy protections are built into the design, including the existence of offline payments to enable “cash-like” privacy. The ECB also states it will not see personal transaction data—an assurance that the ECB uses to address concerns that a digital central-bank payment system could become a surveillance channel.

Still, critics contend that even a system designed to protect privacy could make payments more trackable in practice, depending on implementation choices and operational controls. The core issue for skeptics is whether “privacy” statements can meaningfully constrain the downstream ability to monitor activity once money is transferred through programmable rails.

How it would work—and why banks are worried

Unlike dollar-denominated stablecoins such as Tether or USDC, the digital euro would be denominated in euros and issued by the central bank. Users would not hold it directly in the same way they hold physical banknotes; instead, they would access it through electronic wallets and use it for payments in stores, online, or via wallet-to-wallet transfers.

Supporters say the underlying money would remain an ECB liability rather than a claim on a commercial bank’s deposits, which they argue would align digital euro holdings more closely with the public backing associated with cash.

Banking industry concerns focus on funding and financial stability. Several critics argue that a shift toward central bank digital euros could reduce bank deposits, potentially forcing banks to adjust how they finance lending. Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, an Italian economist and banker who served on the ECB executive board from 2005 to 2011, warned of “a high risk of financial instability” and “strong repercussions for the real economy,” according to the report’s inclusion of his remarks.

The ECB counters that its design choices aim to minimize risks to the banking sector. The ECB has said users would be limited to holding only a small amount of digital euros in their wallets at any time to prevent “excessive outflows of bank deposits.” It also indicates that, similarly to cash in a wallet, digital euro holdings would not earn interest—another measure intended to reduce incentives for users to move large sums into central bank money.

Costs, timelines, and lessons from other CBDC efforts

Cost and implementation burden have become an additional flashpoint. The ECB estimates that developing and implementing the digital euro would require approximately €1.3 billion in investment, alongside ongoing operating expenses of around €320 million annually. Reuters reported that the ECB expects banking sector implementation costs between $4.6 billion and $6.9 billion over four years, underscoring how integration work may fall partly on commercial institutions and payment providers.

On timing, negotiations across EU institutions have progressed to the stage where policymakers are working on final legislation. According to the article’s referenced reporting, lawmakers are aiming to reach agreement within the next six months. Cipollone also said, in an ECB interview on July 13, that officials hope the text will be finalized by the end of the year, after which the ECB would be positioned to decide whether to move forward with issuing the digital euro.

If legislation is approved, the decision would then be taken by the ECB’s Governing Council, with issuance considered sometime in 2027. The cited reporting also suggests everyday use would likely not arrive until 2029 at the earliest, assuming the project proceeds.

Europe is not operating in a vacuum. The broader international experience with retail CBDCs has been mixed, with many countries shifting away from direct retail models or abandoning proposals. According to Reuters, China began piloting its digital yuan in 2019 and expanded rollout nationally, yet most consumers still rely heavily on familiar apps such as Alipay and WeChat Pay. The Bahamas launched the Sand Dollar in 2020 as one of the first nationwide retail CBDCs, but adoption was slower than hoped, leading authorities to push for broader distribution through commercial banks.

Elsewhere, Nigeria’s eNaira reportedly struggled to gain traction after its 2021 launch despite government support, while Brazil’s central bank shut down its Drex CBDC platform in 2025, citing cost and privacy concerns. The Bank for International Settlements concluded in 2023 that a retail CBDC is a complex undertaking, not only for central banks but also for the broader ecosystem involved in implementation and governance.

As EU legislators negotiate the final framework, the decisive questions for investors, builders, and users will likely center on the practical strength of privacy safeguards, the wallet-holding and deposit-stability design choices, and the real timeline risk between legislation approval and any eventual issuance—areas where past CBDC efforts suggest implementation details can matter as much as the concept.