Fidelity is preparing to add staking and quarterly cash payouts to its Fidelity Ethereum Fund (FETH), one of the largest spot ether ETFs in the U.S.

FETH, with $898 million in net assets, could stake as much as 100% of its ether under normal conditions, though Fidelity set no minimum, according to an amended registration statement. The fund would keep some ETH available for redemptions, expenses and other liquidity needs.

The shift follows an IRS safe harbor bulletin issued in November 2025 that lets qualifying crypto trusts stake assets without losing their grantor-trust tax status. Fidelity would join Grayscale and 21Shares in adding staking to existing ether funds. BlackRock took a different route by introducing a separate staking product.

Fidelity would retain 85% of gross staking rewards, while the remaining 15% would go to the fund sponsor, custodians and node operators. Blockdaemon, Figment and Galaxy are named as the trust’s node operators.

Net staking rewards would first cover fund expenses and would then be used for quarterly cash distributions. Funds must distribute net staking rewards at least quarterly, according to the IRS rules.

The fund may also sell some ETH to raise cash for payouts, Fidelity said.

Bitcoin treasury company Strategy has completed another Bitcoin sale, selling 1,690 BTC for $108.6 million, and using the proceeds to repurchase $109 million of its STRC preferred stock.

The company also sold $653 million in MSTR shares, using the proceeds to increase its dollar reserve by $650 million.

Strategy’s Latest Bitcoin Sale

The Michael Saylor-founded company disclosed the sale in an updated filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The sale is the latest by the Bitcoin treasury company to manage its dividend and interest obligations and leverage a portion of its holdings to fund a $5 billion reserve.

According to the filing, Strategy sold 1,690 BTC for $108.6 million, and repurchased $109 million worth of its STRC preferred stock. It also sold $653 million in MSTR common stock, using the proceeds to increase its dollar reserve.

Strategy swore by its Bitcoin purchases, spending billions to become the largest publicly traded holder of the flagship cryptocurrency, and spawning several other Bitcoin treasury companies. However, Strategy has pivoted away from its buy-and-hold approach in recent months due to macroeconomic and geopolitical headwinds. The company concluded a small sale of around 704 BTC in 2022. However, it switched to regular sales in late May and June, starting with a 32 BTC sale. It sold 3,588 BTC in late June and early July, and another 1,638 BTC at the beginning of August. The August 10 sale takes Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings down to 840,447 BTC.

Repurposing Its Bitcoin Holdings

Strategy has strategically sold BTC as its priorities pivot to meeting dividend, interest, investor, and capital obligations during a difficult phase for the broader market. The change in the company’s approach has been driven by a substantial decline in BTC’s value, forcing it to abandon its accumulation model to manage its balance sheet, including building a cash reserve and strategic sales to meet dividend obligations.

CEO Phong Le stated during a CNBC interview in May that Strategy could sell some of its Bitcoin holdings if it benefits shareholders.

“At the point where selling Bitcoin versus selling equity to pay a dividend is better for our bitcoin-per-share, we will do it.”

Saylor echoed similar thoughts, but stressed that Strategy would never be a “net-seller” of Bitcoin, a distinction made after intense criticism of the company’s selling.

“I’m very famous for saying ‘never sell your Bitcoin.’ That’s why the internet went crazy when we said we might sell it. But if I was being more precise: never be a net seller of Bitcoin. It just wouldn’t have been so viral.”

STRC Preferred Stock Declines

One of the primary drivers of Strategy’s recent selling is STRC’s declining share value. STRC, Strategy’s preferred stock, fell significantly below $100, hampering the company’s ability to issue new stock and fund Bitcoin acquisitions.

Strategy has attempted to get STRC back to $100 by introducing a new capital management framework that allows it to sell Bitcoin, build a cash reserve, and repurchase STRC.

Strategy has sold 6,948 BTC worth $432.5 million since May, using the proceeds to fund dividend and interest obligations. It introduced its Digital Assets Capital Framework in June, formalizing its strategy to sell a portion of its Bitcoin holdings. The framework allows the company to sell up to $1.25 billion in BTC to replenish its Dollar reserve, fund interest payments, dividends, and share buybacks.

Bitcoin Remains Primary Treasury Asset

Despite an uptick in selling, BTC remains Strategy’s primary reserve asset. The company currently holds 840,447 BTC, worth around $53.6 billion at current prices.

Le has insisted that Strategy will resume Bitcoin purchases over the course of the year, stating in a Fox interview,

“We’ll get back to buying more Bitcoin throughout the course of the year.”

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

A group of cryptocurrency companies has urged frontier artificial intelligence (AI) labs to give Bitcoin developers early access to their most capable models.

The letter, published by the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) on Monday, said many digital asset defenders, including Bitcoin Core developers, lack access to lab cyber programs and can be blocked by guardrails on publicly available frontier systems, leaving them to rely on less capable open-weight models.

The signatories urged frontier AI labs to “establish or expand standing trusted-access programs for qualified defenders of open-source financial infrastructure.” 

The letter said open-source software supports critical digital and financial infrastructure, while Bitcoin (BTC) alone secures more than $1 trillion in value. It added that a vulnerability in open-source infrastructure can place life savings at risk.

The open letter was co-signed by multiple crypto companies and organizations, including the African Bitcoin Institute, Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Bull Bitcoin, MARA, Kraken, Ledger and Trezor, among others.

Related: Strategy-led group pledges $15M to quantum-proof Bitcoin network

Open-source defenders need access to frontier AI

The letter said frontier AI is changing the economics of security research and cyber operations because advanced models can search large codebases, identify potential weaknesses and accelerate complex technical work for both defenders and adversaries.

It said frontier AI could become one of the “most powerful defensive technologies ever developed,” adding:

“Without dedicated access programs, defenders may lack the tools needed to keep pace with evolving threats to the infrastructure they maintain.” 

The BPI said it received multiple independent reports from open-source maintainers describing sophisticated actors, including potential foreign adversaries, using advanced AI capabilities to sustain attacks.

Total crypto hacks by monthly sum, all-time chart. Source: DefiLlama

Hacking activity across the industry surged in April 2026, as malicious actors stole over $634 million from cryptocurrency platforms, the highest monthly total since the Bybit hack, which helped drive losses to roughly $1.4 billion in February 2025, according to DefiLlama data.

Advances in AI-assisted vulnerability discovery have raised concerns across the crypto security industry. New models such as Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT 5.5 have contributed to what Mitchell Amador, CEO of bug bounty platform Immunefi, described as a “vulnerability apocalypse” for the crypto industry.

Magazine: Bitcoin’s quantum upgrade path: What BIP-360 changes and what it does not

SharpLink, one of the largest corporate treasuries focused on Ether, reported a significantly wider loss for the second quarter of 2026 as ETH’s price decline weighed on its balance sheet. The Miami, Florida-based firm posted a net loss of $394 million, compared with a $103 million net loss in the same quarter of the prior year.

In the company’s Monday announcement, SharpLink attributed the bulk of the loss to $321 million in unrealized crypto losses and $76 million in impairments related to staked Ether tokens. At the same time, the firm generated $11.5 million in revenue, including $11.1 million from ETH staking.

Key takeaways

• SharpLink’s Q2 2026 net loss widened to $394 million, driven largely by $321 million in unrealized crypto losses.
• Impairments tied to staked Ether amounted to $76 million, adding pressure beyond mark-to-market declines.
• Revenue remained positive at $11.5 million, with staking contributing $11.1 million.
• Cash and cash equivalents rose to $56 million from $28 million as of December 2025.

Unrealized losses dominate SharpLink’s quarter

SharpLink’s financial results underscore how sensitive large Ether treasuries are to ETH’s spot price and to accounting treatment for staked derivatives. The firm reported that its Q2 2026 loss included $321 million in unrealized crypto losses, reflecting changes in the valuation of its Ether exposure rather than realized selling losses.

That valuation pressure aligned with broader market conditions. Ether fell by around 23% during the second quarter of 2026, according to CoinMarketCap. While staking produced income, the scale of the unrealized mark-downs appears to have overwhelmed that support.

Staking income and staked-token impairments

SharpLink generated $11.5 million in revenue in the quarter, including $11.1 million from ETH staking, according to the company’s Monday announcement. For Ether-focused treasury strategies, staking can partially offset volatility by adding cash-flow-like yield.

However, SharpLink also recorded $76 million in impairments on staked Ether (ETH) tokens. This detail matters for investors because it suggests that performance isn’t determined solely by ETH price moves; the accounting and valuation of staked-token instruments can introduce additional losses even when staking revenue is present.

How much Ether SharpLink controls

SharpLink said it holds 632,784 Ether, worth about $1.2 billion, plus an additional 181,321 ETH—worth roughly $343 million—through various liquid staked Ether tokens. Combined, this creates a substantial balance-sheet exposure to Ethereum’s price direction, with liquid staked products carrying their own valuation and impairment dynamics.

SharpLink is currently described as the second-largest Ether treasury company. Based on StrategicEthReserve data cited in the report, Bitmine is the largest corporate Ether holder, holding 5.54 million ETH worth about $9.4 billion. SharpLink’s current holdings are estimated at 863,000 ETH, valued at about $1.46 billion.

Buying ETH after an eight-month pause

SharpLink’s latest results arrive alongside a notable change in its acquisition pattern. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the company resumed Ether purchases with a $7.8 million buy in late June after pausing for eight months. A second purchase followed days later, with SharpLink buying 10,000 Ether for about $16 million, as referenced by Cointelegraph.

That kind of buying at lower levels can be a strategic way to extend a treasury’s exposure when assets are discounted. Still, the Q2 financials show that even resumed accumulation doesn’t neutralize accounting losses in the near term when ETH declines sharply across the reporting period.

Treasury liquidity and equity-market reaction

SharpLink reported that its cash and cash equivalents totaled $56 million, up from $28 million in December 2025. Liquidity improvements can be important for corporate treasuries because they provide flexibility for operations and for potential future purchases—especially after a quarter marked by large unrealized and impairment charges.

On the equity side, SharpLink’s stock fell 3.9% on Monday, extending a 30% year-to-date decline, according to Yahoo Finance. For public Ether treasury companies, equity performance can reflect both the market’s view of treasury risk and expectations for how quickly staking yield and future purchases might offset volatility-driven drawdowns.

Going forward, investors should watch two things most closely: whether SharpLink’s staking revenue trend can stabilize amid continued ETH volatility, and how future quarters treat liquid staked token valuations and impairments—particularly if ETH’s price swings produce new mark-to-market pressure.

That amount is smaller than the ETF outflows. But in financial markets, price is set at the margin. The most recent buyers and sellers, not the cumulative volume over months, determine where the price goes. In a downtrend, when buying interest is already weak, even relatively modest and steady selling can have an outsized impact.

“Early year sales from public miners are an underdiscussed contributing factor [in] Bitcoin’s poor price performance in 2026,” the research and analysis division of Blockware Solutions said in its latest newsletter.

Many of these companies are facing squeezed margins, with the average cost to produce one bitcoin at $74,300. In response, a growing number are pivoting into AI and using their secured high-voltage electrical capacity to support that shift.

At the same time, mining difficulty, the computational work needed to add a new block, has fallen about 18% from its November peak, marking the longest stretch of declining hashrate.

In other words, the exodus and AI pivot of several large miners has eased competition, making BTC cheaper to mine and boosting rewards for those still in the game, a classic free-market reset that could lure new miners back in.

“In other words, the rest of the miners are earning ~18% more Bitcoin now than they were 10 months ago. The exodus of the largest players in the industry is improving the economics for the miners that remain,” Blockware said.

FlightAware, the aviation data company behind real-time flight tracking and status updates, has sued Kalshi in New York federal court over Kalshi’s use of FlightAware’s “data and name” to power prediction market contracts tied to flight cancellations. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday, accuses Kalshi of continuing to list event contracts using FlightAware’s registered trademark and purportedly “verified” flight-cancellation information despite repeated demands to stop.

The lawsuit adds a reputational and safety dimension to the broader legal battle already surrounding prediction markets in the US. FlightAware argues that wagering tied to flight disruptions could create incentives for manipulation and even interfere with air travel, while also positioning FlightAware as being involved in alleged “illicit” activity through unauthorized branding and data use.

Key takeaways

• FlightAware sued Kalshi in New York federal court, alleging continued use of FlightAware’s trademark and flight-cancellation data in prediction market contracts.
• The complaint frames flight events as safety-relevant, arguing wagers could incentivize participants to interfere with cancellations or pressure aviation workers to cut corners.
• Regulatory pressure on prediction markets is escalating, with states and federal regulators already contesting whether event contracts function as illegal gambling.
• FlightAware says customers may assume involvement due to the way Kalshi presents “verified by FlightAware” information and FlightAware branding.

Trademark and data-use claims put FlightAware at the center

According to the Monday filing in the Southern District of New York, FlightAware contends that Kalshi kept publishing event contracts related to flight cancellations even after FlightAware demanded Kalshi stop using its registered trademark. FlightAware also claims Kalshi continued to advertise those markets as being “verified by FlightAware’s data,” effectively tying FlightAware’s brand and information to the trading activity.

FlightAware’s lawsuit asserts multiple legal theories, including trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to its reputation, and unfair competition. The company characterizes the expansion of Kalshi’s trading into commercial flight operations—reported as starting in July—as amplifying the reputational stakes of unauthorized association.

“[T]here was widespread outrage and concern that the markets would incentivize unsafe tactics to impact cancellations, threatening public safety and creating the potential for massive disruption of air travel. Airlines condemned the markets,” said the lawsuit. “And due to Kalshi’s unauthorized use of FlightAware’s data and mark, customers immediately assumed that FlightAware was involved in the scheme.”

The complaint describes FlightAware’s requested remedy as preventing “harm to public safety” before any alleged damage grows—an argument that goes beyond branding disputes and into how flight-event markets might influence behavior.

Why flight-cancellation markets are central to the safety argument

While the lawsuit is anchored in trademark infringement and related business claims, it also makes a broader case that some prediction market structures can distort incentives—especially when participants may have information before it becomes public.

FlightAware’s filing points to concerns about manipulation in event contracts generally—particularly cases where traders might know more than the public until an event is formally disclosed. The filing references public reporting that has highlighted unusual betting activity in other contexts, including claims tied to political speech wording and allegations involving alleged nonpublic information.

On flight disruptions specifically, FlightAware argues Kalshi’s model risks creating incentives to affect outcomes that are operationally complex and safety-sensitive. In its complaint, FlightAware contends that:

“A market that allows the public to wager on whether flights will be delayed or cancelled creates an incentive for participants to interfere with air travel—including by causing or contributing to flight cancellations—to profit from their wagers.“

“Worse, wagers on flights being timely may incentivize airline, airport, or other aviation workers to cut corners to keep a flight on time.“

Advertisement

The practical implication for investors and users of prediction markets is that the debate is not only about legality; it’s also about whether these markets create behavioral pressures that regulators and consumers should treat differently from, say, entertainment-focused or purely informational forecasts.

Prediction markets face a wider legal showdown in the US

FlightAware’s suit arrives amid intensifying legal scrutiny of prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The company’s complaint is described as another step in a pattern of court challenges where gaming authorities have asked judges to halt or block event contracts for residents in their states.

Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Michigan has sought to block Kalshi’s sports betting contracts. More broadly, the continuing legal conflict is expected to develop into a standoff between federal regulators and state officials over whether certain prediction markets amount to illegal gambling under state law, with attention often focused on sports-betting-adjacent products.

Within that landscape, FlightAware’s complaint is notable for targeting the infrastructure behind a specific market type: the data feeds and branding used to connect aviation status information to tradable events. Even if a court ultimately decides the “wager” question in a different frame, the trademark and reputational claims could still materially affect how prediction markets partner with, or reference, data providers.

Market dominance and scale add pressure

The source also points to a report from Predicted’s “State of Prediction Markets – Q2 2026,” which says Kalshi and Polymarket combined controlled more than 90% of all prediction market volume, and together had more than $90 billion in second-quarter notional volume. While this figure is not part of FlightAware’s lawsuit, it helps explain why disputes involving major platforms and data sources attract immediate attention: the potential impact of any court outcome is amplified by the scale at which these venues operate.

At the same time, scale can cut both ways. For data providers and industry stakeholders, widely used prediction products increase the cost of getting the compliance picture wrong—especially when branding and “verified” claims link a company’s name to markets that may be perceived as encouraging unsafe interference or manipulation.

Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Kalshi for comment on the lawsuit but did not receive an immediate response.

Readers should watch how courts address both strands of this conflict—whether event contracts are treated as wagers under relevant laws, and whether unauthorized trademark and data-use claims can force changes to how prediction platforms source and present verified information. The next developments in the case could determine how far prediction markets can go in partnering with real-world data providers without triggering safety and compliance concerns.

A painstaking investigation into crypto-focused recruitment tactics has exposed how suspected North Korean IT workers operate when they think they’re joining a legitimate startup. In a ruse carried out over five weeks, researchers built a fictitious company called Ballena Azul and invited suspected operatives to develop software and complete tasks inside controlled virtual environments—allowing analysts to observe their day-to-day tooling, workflows, and infrastructure choices.

As described in reporting by Cointelegraph, the project was designed and executed by Mauro Eldritch, founder of cybersecurity firm BCA LTD, and Heiner García, a cyber threat intelligence analyst at Telefónica Tech and founder of NorthScane. The operation leveraged infrastructure from cybersecurity platform ANY.RUN, and Cointelegraph joined for one stage of the contact with the supposed hiring team.

Key takeaways

• Researchers used a fake crypto startup, Ballena Azul, to study suspected DPRK recruitment and working methods inside controlled virtual desktops.
• One of the most valuable findings was the use of external intermediary servers—some linked to earlier North Korean malware campaigns that were still active.
• The suspected workers often relied heavily on AI tools to compensate for technical gaps and to help with coding, writing, and document manipulation.
• The scheme showed how threat actors can pose as employees to gain access to internal systems, code, and credentials without deploying malware immediately.
• Earlier cases reported by US and industry entities indicate this approach is evolving, spanning remote access strategies and identity manipulation.

From recruitment to “startup” onboarding

The Ballena Azul operation began when García connected with a recruiter via GitHub, after the recruiter was associated with Famous Chollima, a threat group linked to DPRK IT-worker activity. According to García, the startup needed software developers, and the recruiter offered multiple names for candidates—at least two of whom presented US identification.

As the interviews and onboarding progressed, the researchers used aliases to maintain the deception. Eldritch took on the persona of co-founder “Leonardo Nelson,” while García posed as “Andy Jones,” the team lead. Developers were assigned programming tasks inside controlled virtual desktop environments, which enabled the researchers to monitor what tools they reached for, how they responded when problems appeared, and how they handled technical obstacles.

To test the candidates’ responses, the researchers deliberately introduced issues, including selective network outages and changes to user interaction cues such as disappearing mouse cursors. In García’s account, the biggest surprise wasn’t only the tooling—it was the lack of a uniform corporate process. Instead, he described a pattern of improvisation rather than a rigid playbook.

Infrastructure clues and the “reuse” problem

Beyond the day-to-day behavior of the operatives, the investigation highlighted the role of infrastructure “in-between” moments. During the ruse, analysts identified external servers that acted as intermediary points before suspected workers connected to the controlled virtual desktops used by the researchers.

García told Magazine that some of those servers were associated with malware families tied to prior North Korean campaigns, including InvisibleFerret and BeaverTail/OtterCookie. He said at least some of the intermediary servers were still active, suggesting that operational components can remain in use for extended periods—an issue that matters for defenders because long-lived infrastructure increases the window for compromise and detection evasion.

At the same time, García noted that other servers appeared entirely new from an intelligence perspective, “clean” and not previously documented in mainstream threat feeds or blocklists. That combination—some reuse of known infrastructure alongside previously unseen resources—underscores why investigations focused only on established indicators may miss portions of an operation.

“Some of the servers we found were tied back to distributing InvisibleFerret and BeaverTail/OtterCookie in prior years and were active to this day,” García said, adding that others were not previously tied to intelligence tracking.

AI-assisted impersonation and credential theft risk

The working environment also revealed how the operatives attempted to maintain productivity. The researchers found extensive use of AI tools for coding and other tasks that candidates struggled to complete on their own. According to García, they used ChatGPT for writing and coding, including help answering basic questions and finishing assignments. For image alteration and document forgery, García said the group showed a preference for Google Gemini.

The investigation also documented the wider operational toolkit suspected workers used: remote desktop software, crypto wallets, and services designed for sharing two-factor authentication codes. The implication is not simply that these actors can deploy malware, but that they may not need to—once hired, they can use legitimate access to reach sensitive internal information. Researchers described the long-term advantage as well: staying undetected allows threat actors to collect salaries for as long as they remain in place, which can support DPRK funding objectives.

Cointelegraph’s reporting situates this in a broader pattern of AI adoption across DPRK-linked activity. The same piece points to Reuters reporting that another North Korean hacking group, Kimsuky, uses AI locally to automate parts of cyberattacks and generate more convincing phishing materials. While those accounts involve different operators and likely different goals, together they suggest a trend toward integrating generative tools into cyber workflows.

How the ruse unraveled—and what stayed hidden

After weeks of tasks inside the controlled environments, researchers staged an internal disruption to force the operatives to react. They introduced a new persona—“Benito Camella,” a co-founder who supposedly had been busy in Milan while hiring accelerated. When Camella “returned,” the confrontational sequence was meant to expose inconsistencies in identity and documentation.

During the confrontation, the chat room rapidly emptied. One developer, Espree, left the video call first, while another, Anderson, stayed longer before realizing the scheme was collapsing. Even after the meeting ended, the researchers maintained the facade through company communications: the fake CEO accused “Andy Jones” of bringing in “illegal workers,” and “Jones” responded that he was pressured to build quickly and believed he was not being compensated adequately.

That staged dispute ended with “termination” of the working relationship and friendship, framing the collapse as the result of a hiring disaster. Afterward, one suspected operative contacted García privately to apologize and check whether he was okay. Researchers said they never heard from the rest of the group again, and—importantly—believe the operatives remained unaware that they had spent weeks helping analysts extract intelligence.

Why this matters for crypto and broader cybersecurity

North Korea-linked IT-worker schemes have increasingly been linked to threats against the cryptocurrency sector and beyond. Cointelegraph notes industry and government-linked reporting that shows how these operations can involve recruiting developers through intermediary channels, using remote-access pathways to appear legitimate, and targeting organizations for access to internal systems and sensitive data.

Earlier examples referenced in the same reporting include ConsenSys’ statement in July that it engaged a North Korea-linked developer through a third-party service provider before cutting off access. The piece also highlights a US Justice Department case alleging nearly $1 million in cryptocurrency theft by four North Korean nationals charged in connection with remote job fraud using false identities. Separately, the US Treasury has stated that North Korean IT-worker schemes generated nearly $800 million in 2024 to support the regime’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

For crypto investors, operators, and builders, the practical takeaway is that supply-chain and workforce risk remains as relevant as direct hacking. Even without an immediate malware payload, credential exposure and internal access can provide a pathway to funds and sensitive operational data—especially when attackers use “legitimate work” as cover for months-long persistence.

As defenders analyze what the Ballena Azul ruse exposed—especially intermediary server reuse and AI-enabled workflow patterns—the next step for organizations will be to tighten verification and monitor remote-access and identity controls continuously, not only when known indicators appear. The most uncertain element for now is how quickly threat actors will adapt their operational tooling and infrastructure in response to investigations like this one.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley has won the Democratic primary race for Wisconsin’s governorship, toppling his Democratic socialist opponent, Francesca Hong, who had surged in the polls leading up to Tuesday.

What turned out to be a razor-thin contest wasn’t called by the Associated Press until early Wednesday morning, after a delay in tabulating votes from Milwaukee. Earlier in the night, Hong had urged her supporters to unite behind the eventual winner for the November general election against Republican nominee, Rep. Tom Tiffany, who has been backed by President Donald Trump. “No matter who’s on this ballot, y’all, we are going to fight to win for one another,” Hong said.

Crypto.com has launched tokenized stock derivatives tied to 1,500 U.S. equities and ETFs, giving eligible users access to the products from $1 with trading available around the clock.

According to Crypto.com’s official announcement on Wednesday, the Tokenized Stocks offering is available through its app to eligible users in the European Economic Area and other approved jurisdictions, with products tracking companies including Nvidia, Tesla and Apple.

The initial selection also covers exchange-traded funds such as SPDR Gold Shares and iShares Silver Trust, which provide exposure to gold and silver, respectively. Crypto.com said the products support fractional positions, fast settlement, and 24/7 trading outside the normal hours of U.S. stock exchanges.

Unlike buying shares through a traditional broker, however, Crypto.com users are not purchasing the underlying stocks. The Tokenized Stocks are derivative financial instruments designed to follow the price performance of the corresponding equities or ETFs.

As a result, holders do not receive legal or beneficial ownership of the securities or the shareholder rights attached to them. Eligible users may instead receive dividend-equivalent adjustments under the terms of the products.

Crypto.com tokenized stocks provide synthetic U.S. equity exposure

The structure means a Tokenized Stock referencing Apple is designed to move with the underlying Apple share price without turning the buyer into an Apple shareholder.

Crypto.com said the underlying assets supporting its Tokenized Stocks are held in custody with Alpaca, a U.S.-regulated self-clearing broker-dealer. According to the exchange, Alpaca provides infrastructure supporting more than 90% of the tokenized U.S. stock and ETF market.

The products are issued by Foris Capital CY Limited, the entity behind Crypto.com’s regulated investment services in Europe. Crypto.com acquired the Cyprus-based firm in May 2025, securing a Markets in Financial Instruments Directive license that allowed it to expand its regulated financial product offering across the European Economic Area.

Alongside 24-hour access, the exchange is offering zero-commission Tokenized Stocks trading to eligible users for a limited introductory period. Crypto.com cautioned that other foreign-exchange charges or spreads can still apply.

Kris Marszalek, co-founder and CEO of Crypto.com, described the product as another part of the company’s multi-asset strategy, saying users would receive “instant access to U.S. equity and ETF exposure.”

“Money never sleeps. Market access shouldn’t either,” Marszalek said.

The launch takes Crypto.com further outside its core cryptocurrency trading business as crypto platforms compete for users who want stocks, commodities and digital assets through the same trading interface.

Tokenized stock platforms are using different ownership models

Crypto.com’s derivative structure is one of several models now being used to offer stock exposure through crypto platforms.

Some products provide synthetic exposure to the price of a security, while other structures tokenize securities backed by actual shares and can preserve ownership rights attached to the underlying asset. The distinction determines whether a holder owns a security or simply holds an instrument designed to follow its price.

In June, Binance launched its bStocks product with tokenized versions of Nvidia, Tesla, Circle, Micron and SanDisk. The exchange said those assets are backed 1:1 by underlying U.S. securities and can be converted into direct stock positions without conversion fees.

Robinhood followed with another structure in July when it launched the public mainnet of its Ethereum Layer 2 network alongside tokenized stock trading. As crypto.news previously reported, eligible Robinhood Wallet users across more than 120 countries were given access to tokenized equities through supported decentralized exchanges.

Backpack also entered the market in July with 24/7 trading for tokenized U.S. stocks across more than 150 countries. Its tokenized stock offering was launched with direct ownership of selected equities and instant settlement, including exposure to companies such as SpaceX, Micron, and SanDisk.

The different structures have made ownership rights an important part of the tokenized equity market. Derivative products can follow the economic performance of a stock without transferring shareholder status, while tokenized securities can be structured to carry claims and rights associated with the underlying shares.

Tokenized equities draw more crypto platforms

Demand for onchain equity products has increased as exchanges, wallets, and tokenization companies add U.S. securities for investors outside the United States.

RWA.xyz data cited in the supplied report put the tokenized stock market at about $2.49 billion, representing an increase of roughly 600% over the previous year. Citi has estimated that tokenized securities could become a $5.5 trillion market by 2030, including about $2.6 trillion in tokenized equities.

Crypto trading firms have also started expanding how tokenized stocks can be used after purchase rather than limiting them to simple price exposure.

In July, Kraken allowed eligible users to use 10 xStocks assets as collateral for futures and margin trading on Kraken Pro. The collateral expansion lets traders support leveraged cryptocurrency positions with selected tokenized stocks and ETFs without first selling those holdings.

Bitget Wallet had already integrated more than 130 xStocks products in May, adding U.S. equities and ETFs to the same self-custodial interface used for crypto storage, swaps and trading. Other platforms, including Bybit, have also introduced forms of tokenized equity exposure for users outside the United States.

The market has consequently developed beyond one standard product design, with platforms using derivatives, fully backed tokens, custodial structures and blockchain-based securities to provide different forms of stock exposure.

Traditional market operators test tokenized securities

Established U.S. securities infrastructure providers are developing their own systems as crypto platforms add tokenized stocks.

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation has been working on a regulated tokenization service covering securities held in Depository Trust Company custody. In May, crypto.news reported that more than 50 traditional finance and crypto firms had joined a DTCC industry working group, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Circle, Robinhood, Ondo Finance, Nasdaq and NYSE Group.

DTCC said potential assets for its tokenization work include Russell 1000 stocks, major index ETFs and U.S. Treasury securities. The Depository Trust Company received a no-action letter from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in December 2025 allowing it to provide a defined tokenization service to participants and their clients for three years.

The infrastructure provider subsequently selected the Stellar public blockchain as part of its multi-chain strategy for tokenized securities. Under the plan announced in May, DTC custody assets eligible for tokenization include Russell 1000 components, major index ETFs, U.S. Treasuries and certain corporate and other bonds, with deployment on Stellar targeted for the first half of 2027.

NYSE has separately filed a proposed rule change with the SEC that would allow eligible tokenized securities to trade alongside traditional shares on the same exchange order book. Under the proposal, eligible tokenized assets would retain the same ticker, CUSIP, rights and privileges as their conventional counterparts, while clearing and settlement would continue through DTC.

US Senate Majority Leader John Thune has moved the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act toward a potential September floor vote by filing for cloture just before the chamber left for a month-long recess, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting. The bill is widely seen as a key attempt to formalize crypto market rules, but advocates say the path to enactment remains narrow as senators return with limited calendar time before multiple breaks tied to the November election.

The Senate is scheduled to come back from recess on Sept. 14. Even if lawmakers manage to schedule a cloture vote in September, they would have only about two weeks in session before another pre-election recess—and then a further stretch of time ending near the end of the year. In that compressed window, lawmakers would still need to resolve several disputed provisions rather than simply advancing the bill as-is.

Key takeaways

• John Thune filed for cloture to advance the CLARITY Act after the Senate broke for a month-long recess, setting up a possible September procedural vote.
• The Senate’s return on Sept. 14 leaves a short session window—about 14 days—before additional election-related recesses.
• Major sticking points reportedly include ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships and added restrictions around stablecoin rewards offered by crypto firms.
• If CLARITY stalls, regulators such as the SEC and CFTC have signaled they may proceed with rulemaking rather than waiting for Congress.

A rushed legislative runway after a long wait

Congress took more than a year to reach this point. Cointelegraph notes that the Senate had 13 months to consider the CLARITY Act after it was passed by the House last year. During that period, lawmakers faced political and procedural disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, while industry groups pushed for clearer market rules and some Democratic lawmakers raised concerns that earlier versions could enable what they described as “crypto corruption.”

Thune’s cloture filing is intended to keep momentum going, but it doesn’t eliminate the practical challenge: even under the best-case timeline, senators would still need to settle outstanding issues quickly. According to Cointelegraph, those issues include ethics-related provisions affecting the US president’s ties to digital assets and additional restrictions on crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.

That matters because procedural progress does not guarantee final passage. Should the Senate attempt a September cloture vote, the bill would still face the reality of remaining only a matter of days to address unresolved language before the chamber breaks again for the pre-election period.

Uncertainty grows around the November election

Even if the Senate clears procedural hurdles in September, election politics could complicate negotiations afterward. Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights that after November—when 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election—members of Congress could shift priorities or face turnover, potentially pushing resolution into the next legislative cycle.

For crypto market participants, that uncertainty is not just about timelines. Regulatory certainty can affect everything from compliance planning to product rollouts and institutional participation. When legislation is left in limbo, firms often continue to operate under existing frameworks—or in some cases under enforcement risk—until Congress or regulators provide clearer boundaries.

Regulators signal they won’t wait indefinitely

As the CLARITY Act remains in limbo for at least another month, attention is turning to regulators that can act without waiting for Congress to pass the bill. Cointelegraph notes that financial agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been publicly signaling their readiness to move.

The legislation is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. But with the bill still under consideration, both agencies have suggested they can proceed with their own regulatory approaches if Congress does not act.

In a July interview reported by CNBC, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress fails to pass CLARITY. Earlier, in April, CFTC Chair Michael Selig told Cointelegraph that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for overseeing crypto markets, referencing lawmakers passing the market structure bill.

Cointelegraph also points to coordination efforts between the agencies. The SEC and CFTC have reportedly taken steps to align oversight across financial markets, a sign that regulators are attempting to reduce duplication and inconsistent enforcement even when the legislative endgame remains uncertain.

What still needs to be solved in the bill

While supporters view CLARITY as a path to clearer rules for market structure, the bill’s most contentious elements appear to remain unresolved. Cointelegraph highlights two areas of debate: ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships, and additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.

These issues are consequential in different ways. Ethics provisions can determine how lawmakers structure guardrails around public officials’ exposure to digital asset activities, while stablecoin-reward restrictions could affect product design and customer incentives for certain crypto platforms. Both types of provisions can influence whether companies believe a bill would improve predictability—or instead impose new constraints.

For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that even a “September vote” scenario may not be sufficient by itself. What will matter is whether senators can agree on the remaining language quickly enough to complete the legislative path before recesses and election-related disruptions narrow the window further.

As Sept. 14 approaches, market watchers should focus less on the idea of a vote being scheduled and more on whether negotiators can close the gaps on the ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions—because if CLARITY slips, the SEC and CFTC have already signaled that rulemaking may not wait for congressional resolution.