Sam Bankman-Fried has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his seven-count fraud conviction and approximately $11 billion forfeiture order after losing his appeal in June 2026.

CNN, which reviewed the petition filed on Sept. 10, reported that the former FTX chief wants a new trial over limits placed on evidence concerning FTX’s assets and the potential repayment of customers. He is serving a 25-year federal prison sentence imposed in March 2024.

An attacker exploited a flaw in email platform Brevo’s login system to access 138 client accounts, enabling a phishing email to reach roughly 347,000 Trezor newsletter subscribers and similar fraudulent messages to be distributed through accounts belonging to hardware wallet maker BitBox and crypto portfolio tracking and tax-reporting platform CoinTracking.

In a Thursday postmortem, Brevo said six accounts were used to send phishing emails, contacts were exported from 43 and 93 accounts showed no meaningful activity. The platform did not specify whether the categories overlapped. 

The attacker created a Brevo account, enabled single sign-on and invited legitimate Brevo users into the configuration. Brevo said access should have been confined to that organization, but an authorization boundary failed and granted access to every organization the invited users could reach.

The disclosure expands on warnings issued by Trezor and BitBox on Wednesday, identifying their shared provider and explaining why the emails passed normal authentication checks and appeared genuine. 

Cointelegraph reached out to Brevo for more information but did not receive a response before publication. 

Crypto firms assess potential subscriber exposure 

In a blog post, Trezor said the phishing message, titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability,” contained a link to an app that requested users’ wallet backups. The company disabled the domain at the DNS level within 20 minutes, but about 2,500 people accessed the link before the takedown.

A Trezor spokesperson told Cointelegraph that “the initial email was sent to 347,000 customers,” all of whom were subsequently contacted about the risk. The company’s Brevo account stored only opt-in newsletter email addresses and no other customer data.

“Until we hear more from Brevo, we are treating all roughly 347,000 newsletter addresses as known to the attacker and possibly reusable for phishing,” the spokesperson said.

Related: Liquid Network resumes block production after $320M exploit

A BitBox spokesperson told Cointelegraph that its unauthorized email was sent through Brevo and appeared to have reached its full newsletter and tutorial list. 

BitBox said Brevo held only email addresses and language preferences. It found no evidence of compromised company credentials, downloaded contacts, lost funds or disclosed recovery phrases, but is treating the list as potentially accessed while awaiting Brevo’s logs.

Meanwhile, CoinTracking said its Brevo account distributed an email titled “Data Breach Notice: Please refresh API Keys as soon as possible.” It warned recipients not to follow the email’s links.

Magazine: 10 of the greatest unsolved crypto mysteries

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw another day of redemptions on Wednesday, with total net outflows of $120.2 million, according to Farside Investors data. This follows Tuesday’s $46.6 million outflow, bringing withdrawals across the first two sessions of the holiday-shortened week to $166.8 million.

The pullback largely came from ARK 21Shares’ Bitcoin ETF (ARKB), which led Wednesday’s withdrawals with $78 million. Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust ETF (GBTC) followed with $27.2 million in net outflows and BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) recorded $19.5 million in withdrawals. The only Bitcoin ETF to post inflows on the day was Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), which added $4.5 million.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded $120.2 million in net outflows on Wednesday, extending the week’s two-session total withdrawals to $166.8 million.
• ARKB was the dominant source of outflows, pulling $78 million on Wednesday, while GBTC and IBIT together accounted for an additional $46.7 million.
• Ether spot ETFs bounced back with $34.7 million in net inflows on Wednesday after Tuesday’s outflows.
• Solana spot ETFs reversed Tuesday’s outflow, attracting $11.2 million on Wednesday, with inflows concentrated in Bitwise’s BSOL.

Bitcoin ETFs unwind after a strong run

Wednesday’s outflows capped a brief shift in investor positioning after the funds’ recent momentum. Tuesday’s $46.6 million outflow marked the category’s first back-to-back net redemptions since a three-day outflow streak ended on Aug. 14, according to the figures cited.

Looking at the two-day window, GBTC accounted for the largest share of losses, with $92.7 million in net outflows over Tuesday and Wednesday. ARKB and IBIT recorded net redemptions of $69.9 million and $8.8 million, respectively, during the same period.

Despite the pullback, the wider context still matters for assessing whether the outflows are a reversal or a pause. The two-session decline erased roughly 4.4% of the $3.8 billion attracted during what Farside Investors data described as the funds’ strongest three-week stretch of 2026.

Since launch, Bitcoin ETFs have accumulated about $55 billion in cumulative net inflows, while combined net flows for 2026 stand at about $1.07 billion in outflows, based on Farside Investors’ reporting. The contrast highlights why even large day-to-day movements are best interpreted against long-running accumulation and the year-to-date flow profile.

Where Wednesday’s outflows came from

ETF-by-ETF flows show a clear pattern: the majority of Wednesday’s withdrawals were concentrated in a small group of funds. ARKB’s $78 million outflow was more than half of the day’s total, and the remaining majority gap was covered by GBTC and IBIT.

MSBT was the exception, adding $4.5 million to offset only a fraction of the net redemptions across the category. For traders and portfolio managers, that kind of split can signal short-term reallocations within the ETF complex rather than uniformly negative sentiment across all access points.

Wednesday’s data also followed Tuesday’s broader category outflow. Together, Tuesday and Wednesday produced $166.8 million in net withdrawals across the week’s first two sessions—an important checkpoint when evaluating whether the prior inflow streak has fully run out or whether investors are simply pacing their allocations during the holiday-shortened calendar.

Ether ETFs regain inflows; Solana flips to net buying

While Bitcoin ETFs pulled back, US spot Ether ETFs returned to net inflows on Wednesday. Ether ETFs attracted $34.7 million on the day after recording $24.3 million in withdrawals on Tuesday, leaving the group with $10.4 million in net inflows for the week.

BlackRock’s ETHB led inflows with $22.9 million, followed by ETHA with $9.7 million. The 21Shares TETH fund added $2.1 million, and the remaining Ether ETFs recorded no net flows.

Solana ETFs also reversed Tuesday’s outflow dynamic. After Tuesday’s withdrawals of about $700,000, the funds attracted $11.2 million on Wednesday. That brought their combined two-session total to $10.5 million in net inflows, with all Wednesday inflows going to Bitwise’s BSOL.

Not every Solana-related product participated in the broader rebound, however. Hyperliquid ETFs recorded net outflows for a second consecutive session, losing $5.3 million on Wednesday after $13 million in Tuesday outflows. Those redemptions pushed the week’s total outflow for Hyperliquid ETFs to $18.3 million.

Price backdrop: crypto trades modestly lower as ETF flows diverge

The mixed ETF results arrived while spot crypto prices were slightly down versus the earlier timeframe referenced in the report. Bitcoin traded near $78,000 on Thursday, down from roughly $79,700 when the earlier three-week inflow figures were reported. Ether was around $2,470 and Solana hovered near $101, according to CoinGecko.

This combination—ETF outflows for Bitcoin paired with renewed inflows for Ether and Solana—reinforces that investor behavior is not moving in a single direction across the market. For readers monitoring fund flows as a sentiment barometer, the key is to track whether Wednesday’s withdrawals represent a one-off repositioning or the start of a more sustained trend.

As trading continues through the remainder of the week, the next sign to watch is whether Bitcoin ETFs can stabilize after two consecutive outflow days, and whether Ether’s Wednesday inflow follow-through persists into subsequent sessions alongside Solana’s rebound.

The UK’s House of Lords has backed a push for a clearer government roadmap on digital assets, approving an amendment to require the Treasury to produce and consult on a formal strategy. The measure passed on Wednesday in a 194–138 vote, despite opposition from the Labour government.

The amendment was inserted during the Report Stage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill as it continues through Parliament. If the change survives further scrutiny in the House of Commons, it would set a timeline for policy work that currently relies largely on the government’s existing approach to digital assets.

Key takeaways

• The House of Lords approved an amendment (88) requiring the Treasury to publish and consult on a digital asset strategy within 12 months of the bill becoming law.
• The proposed strategy would cover cryptoassets, stablecoins, and tokenized securities, and is meant to address both innovation and consumer protection.
• The vote highlights ongoing UK political disagreement over whether current policy is sufficient or whether a statutory, cohesive framework is needed.
• The bill still returns to the House of Commons, where MPs can accept, modify, or reject the Lords’ changes.

What the Lords voted for

The amendment in question is Amendment 88, introduced by Conservative peer Baroness Neville-Rolfe. It would oblige the Treasury to prepare a digital asset strategy, publish it, and run a consultation process within 12 months after the Financial Services and Markets Bill becomes law.

According to the amendment’s scope as described in the Parliamentary material, the strategy would extend across multiple parts of the token economy: cryptoassets broadly, stablecoins, and tokenized securities. It is also intended to address practical questions firms face in the real economy—such as access to banking, payment, and settlement services—alongside broader regulatory themes like consumer protection.

That combination matters for market participants because policy clarity can shape everything from product design to compliance planning. A strategy framed not only around token issuance and trading, but also around payment rails and settlement access, points to regulators grappling with how digital assets fit into existing financial infrastructure.

Why the amendment became a flashpoint

The Lords’ vote follows months of discussion in the UK Parliament about how to handle digital assets and whether the government should move beyond its existing framework. In an earlier July debate on the bill, the Treasury’s Minister for Investment, Lord Stockwood, pushed back against calls for a statutory scheme. He said the government believed it already had a digital asset strategy and was executing it.

Labour opposed the amendment, according to the bill debate record and reporting of the vote, arguing it did not sufficiently reflect the pace of development in digital assets and the need for a more unified regulatory structure.

The tension here is essentially about framing and certainty. Supporters of the amendment want a strategy with a defined legal requirement and a clear consultation process. Critics argue the government already has a plan in motion, and that codifying additional requirements could lag behind fast-moving market changes. The result is not just a procedural amendment—it’s a debate about how the UK should balance responsiveness with rule-making clarity.

Industry reaction and the “strategy vs. ecosystem” question

One of the clearer signals from the crypto industry came from the UK Cryptoasset Business Council (UKCBC), which said it worked with lawmakers on the amendment. The group welcomed the Lords’ vote on Thursday, emphasizing a question raised by Lord Chris Holmes: whether the UK is “simply regulating digital assets” or “building a digital assets economy.”

That distinction is more than rhetorical. If policy is perceived as purely compliance-driven, firms may focus on defensive legal positioning. If it is seen as ecosystem-building—covering access to banking and payments, along with consumer protections—participants may be more willing to invest in longer-term product development and institutional partnerships.

The Lords’ amendment explicitly references those operational concerns, which may explain why industry groups viewed the vote as a step toward a broader policy posture rather than a narrow rule update.

Next steps: Commons vote will determine whether it becomes law

The bill has not reached final approval. The Financial Services and Markets Bill must still return to the House of Commons, where MPs may accept the Lords’ changes, amend them further, or reject them altogether.

For investors, traders, and builders, the near-term watch item is whether the Commons chooses to keep the 12-month requirement and the consultation mandate intact. Even if the amendment survives, the content of the eventual strategy—especially how it addresses stablecoins, tokenized securities, and firms’ access to banking and settlement—will likely be the real determinant of how quickly the UK’s regulatory approach becomes operational.

As Parliament moves forward, the key uncertainty remains whether lawmakers align on the level of statutory certainty they want versus the flexibility the government says it already has. The outcome of the Commons vote will reveal how much momentum the Lords’ digital asset strategy push gains—and how soon market participants can expect a more concrete policy roadmap.

A coalition of European market infrastructure and tokenization groups is urging EU lawmakers to rethink a proposed cap on tokenized financial instruments, arguing that the current ceiling is too low for Europe to scale blockchain-based trading and settlement.

In a draft letter dated Sept. 7 and addressed to EU Council members and the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, the signatories ask that a proposed limit of 100 billion euros be either removed or lifted to at least 500 billion euros if lawmakers decide to keep any cap at all.

Key takeaways

• A Sept. 7 industry letter calls the EU’s proposed 100 billion euro cap on tokenized financial instruments “insufficient” for scaling.
• The coalition proposes 500 billion euros as a baseline threshold if a cap remains.
• Signatories argue the EU limit is tied to market value of instruments admitted to DLT infrastructure, which they say makes it small versus global equity markets.
• The letter points to differences with the US approach, where it claims tokenization can proceed without comparable volume caps.
• The push follows earlier EU industry campaigns in February and April aimed at expanding the DLT Pilot Regime’s scope and thresholds.

Why the coalition is targeting the 100 billion euro threshold

The letter—available via industry site ADAN—states that some existing European tokenized-finance initiatives already reach a scale of roughly 350 billion euros and are planning further growth. Against that backdrop, the coalition says the European Commission’s proposed 100 billion euro ceiling would constrain development during a period when tokenized markets are still trying to find liquidity, operational scale, and investor reach.

Rather than focusing on trading activity, the letter highlights that the regime’s thresholds are applied to the market value of financial instruments admitted to DLT infrastructure. The groups argue that, in practice, this design makes the proposed 100 billion euro figure look relatively small when compared with the size of global equity markets.

Among the signatories are Nasdaq, Boerse Stuttgart Group, Securitize, the European Ethereum Institute, and Axiology. The groups frame the request as a practical issue for regulated tokenization, not a theoretical policy debate about whether digital securities should exist.

Reference points: Europe’s DLT Pilot Regime vs. US tokenization capacity

One of the letter’s central comparisons is with the United States. The signatories claim that in the US, “a dominant settlement platform is enabled to tokenise US equities and other assets without volume caps,” adding that such a structure could support tokenization exposure on the order of 150 trillion euros in assets.

While the EU coalition’s statement is written as an argument for policy adjustment, it is also a signal about where scaling pressure is heading. If European rules impose tighter quantitative limits than US arrangements, tokenized issuance, settlement, or liquidity development may be more attractive elsewhere—especially for institutions that want to operate across jurisdictions using consistent infrastructures.

The coalition also notes that the EU Commission’s broader revision effort is part of its Market Integration and Supervision Package. That package includes changes to the Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) Pilot Regime—an EU framework designed to let regulated firms test blockchain-based trading and settlement under exemptions from certain financial rules.

What the EU regime currently allows—and what’s proposed

The DLT Pilot Regime, according to ESMA, took effect in 2023. It enables financial firms to trial blockchain settlement for assets including stocks and bonds under specific conditions, with regulatory exemptions meant to reduce friction while authorities observe how onchain systems perform.

Under the Commission proposal referenced in the industry letter, the regime’s current 6 billion euro limit could rise to as much as 100 billion euros. The coalition argues that any meaningful scaling step should correspond better to market reality—especially if the limit is assessed based on admitted instrument market value rather than transaction volume.

In its Sept. 7 draft letter, the industry group suggests that lawmakers should adopt 500 billion euros as an interim “baseline” threshold if they retain a cap at all. The request effectively pushes for a step-change in the headroom available for tokenized financial instruments rather than a modest increase.

The pressure campaign: from February warnings to April and now September

This Sept. 7 intervention follows earlier public pushes from the same broad ecosystem of tokenization and market infrastructure firms.

In February, tokenization and market infrastructure companies—including Securitize, 21X, and Boerse Stuttgart—warned that existing asset limits, volume caps, and time-limited licenses were preventing regulated onchain markets from scaling within Europe. That earlier warning also argued that, without policy changes, liquidity could migrate to US markets as regulators there move toward larger-scale tokenization and onchain settlement.

In April, the effort broadened to include 39 financial firms and industry groups. That campaign, which included Nasdaq and Boerse Stuttgart, urged EU policymakers to fast-track changes to the DLT Pilot Regime and raise its overall limit to between 100 billion euros and 150 billion euros. The April letter also asked for broader asset eligibility and for removing time limits on licenses issued under the regime.

By Sept. 7, the coalition’s requested threshold has moved higher—shifting from an upper band of 100–150 billion euros previously to a minimum baseline of 500 billion euros, or no cap at all.

The underlying context for these arguments is that distributed real-world assets (RWA) are growing but remain concentrated in a limited set of categories. A frequently cited industry metric, RWA.xyz, places the total value of distributed RWA at about $39.15 billion (excluding stablecoins), with US Treasury debt described as the largest category at roughly $15.8 billion.

What to watch next

Lawmakers now have competing inputs: the Commission’s proposed 100 billion euro ceiling inside the Market Integration and Supervision Package, and the industry coalition’s demand for either removal of the cap or a substantial increase to at least 500 billion euros. The next key question for market participants is whether EU regulators will treat capacity limits as a temporary pilot constraint—or as a scaling throttle—and how that choice affects where liquidity and tokenized issuance concentrate as the DLT Pilot Regime evolves.