UC Berkeley professor and Oasis Labs founder Dawn Song has joined Meta Superintelligence Labs as vice president of AI research. 

She said she will help lead Meta’s AI safety and AI security efforts. Song announced the move in a post on X. She said several members of the Virtue AI team will also join Meta. Axios also reported that Virtue AI co-founders Bo Li and Sanmi Koyejo are among the hires.

Song said her work at Meta will focus on frontier AI models and agentic AI systems. She wrote that AI must be “secure, trustworthy, and beneficial” if it is to reach its full use.

The move gives Meta more senior talent in AI security. It also brings a well-known blockchain privacy researcher into one of the world’s largest AI labs.

Virtue AI team moves to MSL

Virtue AI was founded in 2024 to build tools for trustworthy AI. Song said the team worked on AI security, agent security, benchmarks and open platforms before the Meta move.

According to Axios, Meta is hiring several Virtue AI leaders and team members. The report said the group worked on automated red teaming, runtime guardrails and AI governance.

Meta’s interest comes as AI labs put more attention on agent safety. AI agents can take actions, use tools and handle tasks across software systems. That makes security more important because errors or misuse can spread across real products.

As previously reported, Meta has been building a superintelligence AI team after its large Scale AI deal. The company wants to improve its AI models and ship them across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and other products.

Oasis background adds crypto angle

Song is also known in crypto as the founder of Oasis Labs. The company raised $45m in 2018 to build privacy-first cloud computing on blockchain. Its backers included a16zcrypto, Accel and Binance Labs.

The Oasis project later became tied to the Oasis Network and the ROSE token. The network focuses on confidential computing, data privacy and privacy-preserving applications.

In a previous article, crypto.news discussed Oasis Protocol’s verifiable AI agents for crypto trading. The project used trusted execution environments to keep strategies private while giving users proof of how agents behave.

Previously, crypto.news explored Oasis-based AI and data services through Pontus-X, a platform built around privacy and data control. Song’s Meta role connects that same privacy and security theme to a much larger AI platform.

ROSE remains near record lows

The hiring news has not changed ROSE’s weak market setup. Oasis traded near $0.0059 on June 26, close to its intraday low. That is about 99% below its all-time high near $0.596.

ROSE has also struggled with the broader crypto market selloff. Its market value remains far below peak-cycle levels, even as AI and privacy remain active themes in the sector.

The move is still notable for the Oasis community because Song helped shape the project’s early research identity. Her work linked blockchain, privacy and security before AI safety became a major mainstream topic.

For Meta, the hire adds academic and startup experience to its AI safety push. For crypto, it shows how privacy and security talent from blockchain continues to move into frontier AI.

Long-dormant Ethereum (ETH) wallets dating back nearly eight years have begun moving funds again, according to on-chain monitoring shared by multiple crypto analytics sources. The activity has reintroduced additional ETH supply into the visible flow, coinciding with Ether trading slightly above the $1,500 mark. While some of these addresses have taken profits, other large holders appear to be continuing accumulation, resulting in a mixed ledger picture.

At the same time, analysts say long-term whale profitability has deteriorated across major ETH holder cohorts. This matters for compliance and institutional risk assessment because persistent unrealized losses can influence large-holder behavior, custody-related transfers, and the pace at which liquidity is redeployed across venues—factors that institutions often track when managing exposure and counterparty risk.

Key takeaways

• On-chain trackers reported activation of ETH addresses last used in 2017, with one group of wallets moving a combined 37,602 ETH after years of dormancy.
• Separately, large investors appear to be rotating into ETH through swaps involving BTC, while others have continued withdrawals from major exchanges.
• Analysts state that unrealized profitability for major ETH whale cohorts has turned negative for the first time since 2019, based on reported unrealized profit ratios.
• Institutional custody-related movements were also noted, including transfers involving Coinbase Prime, without confirmation of a market sale.

Eight-year-old wallets reactivate, bringing long-dated supply into motion

According to Lookonchain, four Ethereum wallets that collectively received 37,602 ETH nearly eight years ago—at an average price of about $830—became active after a prolonged period of dormancy. The same set of wallets reportedly held through multiple market cycles, including the 2021 and 2025 bull markets, when unrealized gains reached levels described as exceeding $150 million.

Lookonchain further reported that these wallets sold 33,623 ETH during Thursday’s activity at an estimated price near $1,560, with the realized profit now described as approximately $27.4 million. For compliance teams and market-structure monitoring, reactivation of long-dormant addresses can be a relevant signal: it may reflect liquidity management, tax or rebalancing actions, or simply opportunistic execution after extended inactivity—each with different implications for market integrity checks and risk controls.

Whales show mixed behavior: rotation into ETH alongside selective profit-taking

Beyond the reactivated wallet group, other large transactions were reported as continuing capital rotation into Ether. Lookonchain stated that one whale swapped 464 BTC, valued at about $27.6 million, for 17,750 ETH. Such cross-asset rotation can be meaningful in institutional workflows because it may affect spot liquidity dynamics and the timing of ETH supply relative to broader crypto market flows.

In a separate report, investor Chun Wang was described as acquiring 9,937 ETH and 147 wrapped Bitcoin. Lookonchain also cited recent behavior in which Wang withdrew nearly 87,000 ETH from Binance over the prior month, at an average purchase price reported as $1,749. Exchange withdrawals by large holders are often monitored for operational and counterparty risk reasons—particularly where trading activity, custody arrangements, or liquidity sourcing may change.

Institutional-related activity was also referenced. BlackRock was reported to have transferred 41,996 ETH and 4,577 BTC to Coinbase Prime. Movements to Prime are commonly associated with custody or operational management rather than an immediately confirmed spot sale. For regulated entities, the distinction matters: custody transfers can trigger reporting and monitoring workflows without implying directional market exposure.

Unrealized losses broaden across whale cohorts

Crypto analyst Darkfost highlighted that unrealized profit ratios for ETH whale cohorts—from 1,000 ETH up to more than 100,000 ETH—have turned negative. The analyst said this is the first time since 2019 that every major whale cohort is reported to be underwater on an unrealized basis.

While unrealized metrics are not guarantees of future behavior, they are frequently used by analysts as a proxy for risk posture and conviction. Darkfost added that when ETH prices test whale conviction historically, periods often align with long-term bottom zones. Even so, the current setup was framed as placing greater pressure on large holders in 2026, even as selective accumulation appears to persist.

For institutional compliance monitoring, this kind of broadening drawdown can be relevant when assessing the potential for forced selling, changes in collateralization behavior, or shifts in custody and transfer patterns—especially for firms with exposure to exchanges, OTC counterparties, or derivative counterparties whose operational decisions may be influenced by large-holder positioning.

ETH’s $1,500 area remains a focal point amid ongoing uncertainty

Separately from on-chain behavior, attention among market participants remains on Ether’s $1,500 level. The article sources cited that ETH fell to around $1,510 during Thursday’s sell-off, while not setting a new yearly low as Bitcoin moved to fresh 2026 lows.

Crypto trader Ardi characterized $1,500 as a key long-term support, arguing that daily closes below that region would undermine bullish assumptions formed since the 2022 bear market. Crypto investor Jelle similarly suggested that a sustained break could return ETH to a trading range last seen in early 2023, noting that the $1,500 zone has historically been defended during several major corrections since mid-2022.

Other participants pointed to the possibility of lower demand zones. Trader Cyclops identified a $1,070–$1,370 range as a potential accumulation area, describing it as a demand region established in early 2023. The same source noted that moving into that lower band would also mean ETH breaking below a multi-year ascending trendline—an outcome that could prolong uncertainty in market structure.

From a policy and risk perspective, the common theme is not price forecasting but the importance of clearly defined reference levels for institutional monitoring: support breaks can affect portfolio risk calculations, margin models, and liquidity planning. However, the unresolved question remains whether observed on-chain transfers reflect genuine distribution pressures or routine movements that do not necessarily translate into sustained sell-side flow.

Closing perspective

The reactivation of nearly eight-year-old ETH wallets, combined with reported negative unrealized profitability across major whale cohorts, underscores a market where long-dated holders are again participating in active liquidity. Watch for whether these movements translate into sustained net distribution or whether ongoing withdrawals and ETH-denominated swaps continue to offset the added supply. For compliance and institutional teams, tracking wallet reactivation, exchange withdrawal patterns, and custody-related transfers alongside regulatory monitoring frameworks remains a practical approach as crypto markets evolve.

Crypto users have reported difficulties withdrawing funds from the exchange AscendEX, renewing concerns about exchange liquidity and operational readiness during periods of customer demand. Blockchain investigator ZachXBT and multiple social-media accounts pointed to delays and apparent limitations in the exchange’s liquid reserves, framing the issue as a potential liquidity problem rather than an isolated technical glitch.

These allegations matter for institutional compliance and risk teams because withdrawal processing is a key stress indicator for trading venues. When withdrawals become stuck or support channels stop responding, regulators and auditors typically treat it as a potential sign of liquidity strain, inaccurate reserve management, or deficient contingency controls—issues that can quickly intersect with insolvency risk, consumer protection obligations, and AML/CTF expectations.

Key takeaways

• Multiple users reported delayed withdrawals from AscendEX, including at least one case where a USDT withdrawal remained in an “initiating” status for days.
• ZachXBT said AscendEX may have limited large-cap token reserves, citing purported low holdings of widely used assets such as ETH, USDT, and SOL.
• On-chain analytics referenced by Cointelegraph indicated AscendEX-tagged wallets were concentrated in smaller-cap tokens rather than major cryptocurrencies.
• The situation echoes post-FTX regulatory and industry emphasis on demonstrable liquidity and transparency, including proof-of-reserves approaches.

User complaints highlight potential withdrawal processing gaps

According to an X post by an account operating under the name Lorenzo Navarro Rodriguez, a 4,196 USDT withdrawal on AscendEX remained stuck in an “initiating” state since June 10. The same post alleged that repeated inquiries to customer support did not receive responses.

Following that initial report, at least five other users responded over subsequent days with similar claims about withdrawal delays. While social-media reporting does not, on its own, establish causality, repeated, independent user accounts can increase the likelihood that an operational or liquidity bottleneck is affecting customers—particularly when withdrawal requests do not progress and support fails to provide timely status updates.

From a compliance perspective, unresolved withdrawal delays can also complicate obligations related to customer asset safeguarding, dispute handling, and required communications to affected counterparties. If a venue cannot process withdrawals within expected service windows, risk teams generally consider whether internal controls for hot-wallet management, transaction monitoring, and escalation procedures are functioning as intended.

ZachXBT links the issue to liquidity concerns

ZachXBT said in a Telegram post on Friday that AscendEX lacked large-cap reserves for major assets, including ETH, USDT, and SOL, and suggested this may indicate “liquidity issues” on the platform. He urged the exchange to respond to reports of delayed withdrawal requests and to clarify why its hot wallets appeared to have low liquidity.

Hot wallets are central to withdrawal execution because they must hold sufficient balances to cover outgoing transactions without requiring time-consuming asset swaps or fund transfers from less liquid or less accessible accounts. If a platform’s operational liquidity is concentrated in illiquid holdings—especially small-cap tokens—withdrawals of major assets can become delayed, particularly if conversion routes are constrained by market depth, exchange limits, or internal custody flows.

However, unresolved details remain. Even when on-chain activity suggests reserve composition constraints, it does not automatically confirm whether the exchange can meet withdrawal demand through other mechanisms (for example, larger balances elsewhere under different wallet clusters, custodial arrangements, or internal transfer arrangements not visible to public labeling). As such, the legal and regulatory implications typically depend on verified asset custody, the completeness of reserve disclosure, and documented solvency and operational capacity.

On-chain data cited by Cointelegraph points to reserve concentration

Blockchain data on Arkham, reviewed by Cointelegraph on Friday, indicated that wallets tagged as AscendEX-held contained about $20.2 million in crypto. The same analysis described those Arkham-tagged wallets as being concentrated in smaller-cap assets, with comparatively limited holdings of major cryptocurrencies.

Cointelegraph reported that AscendEX-tagged wallets showed UNITE tokens as the largest holding at approximately $10 million. Other cited holdings included REUR at about $5.24 million, ASD at around $2.9 million, and roughly $600,000 in Reservoir rUSD stablecoins, among smaller positions.

Cointelegraph also reported that it had approached AscendEX for comment but did not receive a response before publication. The absence of an official explanation is consequential in both governance and compliance contexts. When liquidity concerns surface, institutional stakeholders typically expect timely disclosures covering withdrawal status, wallet and custody structure, and the operational steps being taken to clear pending requests—especially where customer communications appear inconsistent.

These issues are not occurring in a regulatory vacuum. Following the 2022 collapse of FTX, withdrawal behavior became a focal point for regulators and industry participants. In that case, customer withdrawal requests exposed a large shortfall, culminating in bankruptcy. The broader industry response included increased attention to reserve transparency and more intensive regulatory scrutiny of exchange solvency and custody practices.

Regulatory implications: liquidity, custody, and transparency expectations

Delays in customer withdrawals can trigger multiple regulatory and legal considerations across jurisdictions. While this article does not establish wrongdoing, it highlights a scenario regulators commonly scrutinize: whether an exchange holds sufficient liquid assets to meet customer redemption demands and whether custody arrangements and internal controls are capable of handling peak outflows.

In the European context, MiCA has increased the compliance and governance expectations for crypto-asset service providers, including requirements that can affect how firms manage customer assets, disclosures, and operational resilience. Even where MiCA applies differently depending on licensing status and activity type, the direction of travel is consistent: regulators are placing greater emphasis on risk controls and verifiable safeguards for customer funds.

In the United States, enforcement and regulatory focus from bodies such as the SEC and CFTC has historically centered on how crypto intermediaries structure operations, disclose risks, and manage custody and market integrity concerns. Separately, AML/KYC compliance obligations do not disappear during liquidity stress; in fact, heightened operational strain often increases the risk of compliance breakdowns, including failure to adequately screen counterparties, properly document investigations, or maintain auditable records of transactions during customer disputes.

Cross-border complexity also matters. Exchanges operating across multiple markets face different standards for reserve reporting, insolvency planning, and customer-protection requirements. Without verified and jurisdiction-appropriate disclosures, a venue may face challenges demonstrating compliance to regulators or to institutional counterparties—particularly banks and regulated financial firms evaluating counterparty risk exposure.

Finally, reserve claims and proof-of-reserves efforts, while helpful, can be incomplete if they do not reflect total customer entitlements, the accessibility of assets when withdrawals are requested, and the distinction between illiquid holdings and immediately usable liquidity. For institutional monitoring, the practical question is not only what assets are held, but how quickly and reliably they can be mobilized to honor withdrawal demands.

Closing perspective

For now, the core open issue is verification: whether AscendEX can process pending withdrawals at scale and whether its disclosed or accessible reserves align with customer redemption needs. Continued user reporting, any official exchange statements, and any regulator- or auditor-led assessments will be key to determining whether the incident reflects temporary operational constraints or a deeper liquidity and custody mismatch.

Galaxy Digital has lowered its estimated probability of the CLARITY Act becoming law in 2026 to 50%, citing a shrinking Senate calendar and the absence of visible legislative progress ahead of the August recess.

According to a research note from Galaxy Digital, Head of Research Alex Thorn reduced the firm’s previous 60% estimate after concluding that time, rather than the contents of the bill, has become the biggest obstacle to passage.

Thorn wrote that the lack of public developments has become a signal in itself, arguing that negotiations have yet to produce the milestones normally expected before a floor vote.

While the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees have been working on a combined version of the legislation, Galaxy noted that lawmakers have not released the merged text or announced a debate schedule. Thorn wrote that staff-level discussions remain constructive but cautioned that private negotiations should not be mistaken for legislative momentum without a public voting timetable.

Separately, data from Polymarket shows traders currently assign about a 41% chance that the CLARITY Act will be signed into law in 2026, indicating growing skepticism over the bill’s prospects.

Senate calendar has become the biggest hurdle

As the Senate remains adjourned until July 13, the available legislative window before the August recess has narrowed further. As previously reported by crypto.news, Representative Anna Paulina Luna said Senate Majority Leader John Thune secured unanimous consent for the adjournment, meaning no senator objected to the extended break.

Luna criticized the decision and said she would not vote to reopen the House floor until senators return to Washington. Her comments came as the CLARITY Act continues waiting for Senate floor time after advancing onto the chamber’s legislative calendar.

Galaxy argued that competition for Senate floor time has intensified following President Donald Trump’s decision to tie his support for a bipartisan housing bill to passage of the SAVE Act. According to Thorn, lawmakers must also address other priorities, including FISA legislation and the annual National Defense Authorization Act, leaving limited time for crypto market structure legislation.

Calling the legislative calendar the primary concern, Thorn wrote that the downgrade is tied to scheduling rather than disagreements over the bill itself. He added that the remaining runway before the August recess has been reduced to only a matter of weeks, making floor time the Senate’s scarcest resource.

Policy debates continue alongside procedural delays

Apart from scheduling pressures, several policy issues also remain unresolved. Galaxy noted that ethics provisions continue to divide lawmakers even after a conflict-of-interest amendment was removed during committee consideration. Thorn also pointed to ongoing requests from law enforcement organizations seeking revisions to developer protections contained in the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Justice rejected concerns raised by four national law enforcement organizations, stating that the CLARITY Act would not reduce prosecutors’ ability to investigate crimes involving digital assets. The organizations had argued in a June 23 letter that Section 604 and related exemptions could create regulatory gaps that criminals might exploit, while the Justice Department said the legislation would not weaken investigations into offenses including terrorism financing, drug trafficking, and human smuggling.

Meanwhile, Senator Cynthia Lummis has said the Senate expects to release the final CLARITY Act text around July 4 for public review before seeking floor consideration later in July. According to crypto.news, if the Senate amends the House-approved version, both chambers would still need to reconcile the legislation before sending it to the president.

Galaxy said several developments could improve the bill’s prospects, including publication of a unified Senate text, resolution of the remaining policy disputes, and, most importantly, a leadership commitment to schedule a July floor vote.

Thorn added that such an announcement within the next two weeks could lift the firm’s estimated odds back to 60% or higher, while continued silence into mid-July would likely lead to another downgrade.

A wave of crypto firms, from Ripple to Circle, have won national trust bank charters, and several are chasing a Federal Reserve master account. This guide explains what a crypto trust bank actually is, what a charter does and does not grant, and why the real prize sits at the central bank.

A crypto trust bank is a chartered financial institution, supervised like a bank, whose purpose is to custody assets and provide fiduciary services rather than to take deposits and make loans, and which a crypto firm uses to hold digital assets and manage stablecoin reserves inside the regulated banking system. That definition contains the key to understanding the whole subject: a trust bank is a real, regulated bank, but a specialized kind, built around safekeeping and trust services rather than the deposit-taking and lending that define ordinary retail banks. 

In 2025 and 2026, a remarkable wave of crypto firms obtained or pursued these charters, transforming companies once seen as outside the financial system into federally supervised institutions, a shift that marks one of the clearest signs yet of crypto converging with traditional banking. This guide explains what a trust bank is, what a national trust charter actually grants a crypto firm and what it pointedly does not, why so many crypto companies suddenly wanted one, the even larger prize of a Federal Reserve master account, and what the whole development means for stablecoins, for the industry, and for users.

The reason this matters is that the relationship between crypto and the banking system has been one of the defining tensions of the industry’s history. For years, crypto firms depended on traditional banks to hold their customers’ money and connect them to the financial system, a dependence that became a serious vulnerability during periods of regulatory pressure and bank failures, when crypto companies found their accounts closed or their banking partners collapsing. 

The move to obtain trust charters is, in large part, an effort to end that dependence by bringing crypto firms inside the regulated banking system on their own terms. This guide covers what a trust bank is, the powers and limits of a charter, the 2025-2026 wave of approvals, a worked example of how a charter changes a stablecoin issuer’s position, the central-bank master account that is the ultimate goal, what it all means for stablecoins, and the genuine limits and risks that the headlines often gloss over.

What a trust bank is

Start with the institution itself, because the word “bank” carries assumptions that a trust bank does not always meet. In traditional finance, a trust bank is a bank that specializes in custody and fiduciary services rather than in the deposit-taking and lending that most people associate with banking. Its core business is holding assets on behalf of clients, safeguarding them, and managing them in a fiduciary capacity, meaning with a legal duty to act in the client’s interest. 

Trust banks have long existed to custody securities, manage estates and trusts, and provide safekeeping for institutions, and they are regulated as banks, but their activities are narrower and, in important ways, less risky than those of a full-service commercial bank, because they are not lending out customer money or running the maturity mismatches that make ordinary banking risky.

This specialization is exactly what makes the trust bank model attractive to crypto firms. A crypto company’s central regulated need is custody: safely holding digital assets and, for stablecoin issuers, holding and managing the reserve assets that back their tokens. A trust bank charter is purpose-built for precisely this kind of safekeeping and fiduciary activity, which is why crypto firms gravitated to it instead of to a full commercial banking charter that would saddle them with powers and obligations they neither need nor want. 

By becoming a trust bank, a crypto firm gains the regulated standing and supervisory oversight of a banking institution while staying within the narrower scope of custody and trust services that match its actual business.

Understanding that a trust bank is a custody-and-fiduciary institution, not a deposit-and-lending one, is the foundation for understanding everything a crypto trust charter does and does not provide.

What a national trust charter grants, and what it does not

A national trust charter, granted in the United States by the federal regulator that oversees national banks, gives a crypto firm a specific and valuable set of capabilities, and it is important to be precise about both what it includes and what it excludes. On the positive side, the charter allows the firm to operate as a federally supervised trust bank, custodying digital assets and, under expanded rules, managing stablecoin reserves and providing certain payment-related services. 

Crucially, it lets the firm custody its own assets and reserves directly, instead of depending on a third-party bank, and it can obviate the need for the patchwork of separate state money-transmitter licenses that crypto firms have historically had to collect state by state, replacing a fragmented compliance burden with a single federal charter. It also confers the legitimacy and oversight of a banking institution, which matters enormously to the institutional clients a crypto firm wants to serve.

The exclusions are just as important, and they are where headlines often mislead. A national trust charter does not make a crypto firm a full bank in the everyday sense. It does not permit the firm to take ordinary deposits, the way a retail bank accepts checking and savings accounts. It does not come with federal deposit insurance, the government protection that backs ordinary bank deposits up to a limit, because trust banks generally do not hold the kind of deposits that insurance covers. 

And it does not authorize the firm to lend, to run the credit business at the heart of commercial banking. So when a crypto firm “becomes a bank” via a trust charter, it gains custody, reserve management, and regulated standing, but it does not gain the ability to take insured deposits or make loans. This distinction is not a quibble; it is central to understanding what these charters actually mean, because a customer who assumes a chartered crypto trust bank offers the same protections as an insured retail bank would be mistaken, and that misunderstanding could matter a great deal in a crisis.

Why crypto firms suddenly want them

The sudden rush of crypto firms toward trust charters in 2025 and 2026 was not coincidental, and understanding the motivations explains the strategic logic. The first and most fundamental driver is independence from third-party banks. For most of crypto’s history, firms relied on partner banks to hold customer funds, custody reserves, and connect to the financial system, and that dependence proved dangerous: during periods of regulatory pressure and amid a series of bank failures, crypto companies found their banking relationships severed or their partner banks collapsing, threatening their operations through no fault of their own. A trust charter lets a firm custody its own assets and reserves directly, removing that single point of failure and the strategic vulnerability it created.

The second driver is regulatory tailwind. A shift in the political and regulatory environment toward a more accommodating posture on crypto opened a path for these charters that had been effectively closed before, and the federal regulator approved a cluster of crypto firms in a coordinated wave, signaling a broader acceptance of crypto-native institutions in the banking system. 

The third driver is the rise of stablecoin regulation: as comprehensive rules for stablecoins took shape, holding a trust charter aligned a firm with the likely requirements, particularly around the custody and management of reserves, positioning compliant issuers ahead of the curve. The fourth is simple competitive and reputational advantage: a federally chartered trust bank carries a legitimacy that a lightly regulated startup cannot match, and for firms courting banks, asset managers, and corporations as clients, that regulated standing is a powerful selling point. 

Together, these drivers, independence, regulatory opening, stablecoin alignment, and legitimacy, explain why a long list of major crypto firms pursued charters at once, turning what had been a fringe idea into an industry-wide movement.

A worked example: a stablecoin issuer with and without a charter

To see why a charter matters in practice, compare a stablecoin issuer’s position before and after obtaining one, because the contrast makes the abstract benefits concrete.

Without a charter, a stablecoin issuer must rely on third-party banks to hold the reserve assets that back its tokens, the cash and short-term government securities that give the stablecoin its value. This dependence creates several vulnerabilities. The issuer is exposed to the health of its partner banks, so if one of them fails or freezes the account, the reserves and the stablecoin itself are jeopardized, a danger that became vividly real when a stablecoin temporarily lost its peg after a bank holding part of its reserves collapsed. The issuer must also navigate a patchwork of state-by-state money-transmitter licenses, a costly and fragmented compliance burden, and it lacks the regulated standing that would reassure cautious institutional users.

With a national trust charter, the same issuer’s position is transformed. It can custody its own reserve assets directly through its chartered trust bank, under federal supervision, removing the dependence on potentially fragile third-party banks. In some cases the firm gains oversight at both the federal and state level, a dual-supervision structure that few stablecoin issuers can match and that serves as a strong signal of credibility to institutions evaluating whether to trust the stablecoin. 

The single federal charter can replace much of the state-by-state licensing burden, simplifying compliance. And the regulated standing of a trust bank reassures the banks, asset managers, and corporations the issuer wants as customers, lowering the barrier to adoption. The worked comparison shows the charter’s real value clearly: it converts a stablecoin issuer from a firm dependent on outside banks and a fragmented license patchwork into a federally supervised institution that controls its own reserves and carries banking-grade legitimacy. That transformation is precisely why stablecoin issuers were among the most eager pursuers of these charters.

The real prize: a Federal Reserve master account

As valuable as a trust charter is, it is a stepping stone to something larger, and the ultimate goal for the most ambitious crypto firms is a Federal Reserve master account. A master account is the account a financial institution holds directly with the central bank, and it represents the deepest possible integration into the financial system. It grants direct access to the central bank’s payment rails, the core networks through which money moves between institutions, and access to base money held at the central bank itself, instead of balances held at a commercial bank. For most of the financial system, this kind of direct central-bank access is reserved for traditional banks, and obtaining it is the difference between operating at the edge of the system and operating at its core.

For a crypto firm, particularly a stablecoin issuer, the appeal of a master account is profound. It would allow the firm to hold the reserves backing its stablecoin directly at the central bank, the safest possible place to keep them, eliminating the counterparty risk of relying on commercial banks and giving institutions unparalleled confidence in the stablecoin’s solvency and the safety of its redemptions. It would also allow direct settlement through the central bank’s payment systems, a powerful capability for a payments-focused firm. 

The obstacle is that the bar is extraordinarily high, and no crypto-native firm has yet been granted a master account. The central bank has historically been cautious about extending this access to non-traditional institutions, uninsured trust banks face the most stringent review, and previous attempts by crypto-adjacent firms to win access have been denied. Several chartered crypto firms have applied and are waiting, with no guaranteed outcome and no clear timeline. The master account is the real prize precisely because it is so hard to win and so transformative if won, marking the moment a crypto-native firm would plug directly into the heart of the financial system.

What it means for stablecoins and the industry

Stepping back, the trust-charter wave is, more than anything, a stablecoin story, and seeing why clarifies the whole development. The firms most eager for charters were heavily those with stablecoin businesses, because the charter speaks directly to a stablecoin issuer’s central regulated needs: custodying and managing the reserve assets that back the token, doing so under credible supervision, and removing the dependence on third-party banks that has repeatedly threatened stablecoins in the past. 

As comprehensive stablecoin regulation took shape, a trust charter became close to a prerequisite for operating a serious, institutionally trusted stablecoin in the United States, and the firms that obtained charters positioned their stablecoins as the most credible and best-supervised in the market. The dual oversight some of them gained, federal and state, became a competitive selling point, a way to signal to institutions that the stablecoin’s reserves are held to banking-grade standards.

The broader significance is the convergence of crypto and traditional banking. The trust-charter wave marks the moment when crypto firms stopped operating outside the regulated banking system and began entering it as supervised institutions, accepting the obligations of banking regulation in exchange for its legitimacy and stability. This is a profound shift from crypto’s early ethos of operating apart from, and often in opposition to, the traditional financial system. It signals a maturing industry in which the leading firms seek the same regulated standing as banks, and in which the line between a crypto company and a financial institution blurs. For the industry, this convergence brings legitimacy, stability, and access, the ability to custody assets safely, serve institutional clients, and integrate with the financial system. 

It also brings the constraints of regulation, the compliance burdens, capital requirements, and supervision that come with a banking charter. The trust-charter wave is, in essence, crypto’s leading firms choosing to join the financial system instead of replacing it, which is one of the most consequential shifts in the industry’s trajectory.

Risks and limits to understand

For all the significance of the trust-charter movement, several risks and limits deserve clear attention, because the headlines tend to overstate what these charters mean. The most important point for any user is the one already emphasized: a crypto trust bank is not a full, insured retail bank. It does not carry federal deposit insurance, so assets held with a chartered crypto trust bank do not enjoy the government protection that backs ordinary bank deposits up to a limit. 

A customer who assumes a “crypto bank” offers the same safety net as an insured retail bank is mistaken, and in a failure scenario, that misunderstanding could be costly. The charter brings supervision and legitimacy, which are real, but it does not transform custody into an insured deposit, and that distinction must not be lost.

Other limits and risks are substantial. The Federal Reserve master account that many firms seek remains unattained by any crypto-native firm and is far from assured, so the deepest integration into the financial system, and the reserve-safety benefits that come with it, are still aspirational instead of achieved. The charters themselves are often conditional, meaning the firms must still satisfy capital, governance, and risk-management standards before operating fully, and conditional approval is not the same as a fully operational bank. 

Traditional banking groups have opposed extending charters and central-bank access to crypto firms, citing systemic-risk concerns, and that opposition could shape how far the privileges extend. There is also regulatory and political risk: the accommodating posture that opened the path to these charters could shift, and supervisory expectations could tighten. And the convergence itself carries a subtler risk, that bringing crypto firms inside the banking system concentrates new kinds of risk within the regulated perimeter in ways regulators are still learning to assess. 

None of this negates the genuine progress the charters represent, but anyone evaluating a chartered crypto trust bank, whether as a user, an investor, or an observer, should hold a clear view of what the charter does and does not provide, treat the master account as a hope instead of a fact, and never mistake banking-grade supervision for deposit insurance.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is educational information, not legal, financial, or investment advice. Charter approvals, master account decisions, and regulations are evolving, and details reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, which can change quickly. Crucially, a chartered crypto trust bank is generally not covered by federal deposit insurance. Verify current information from primary sources before relying on anything described here.

Framework Ventures, a venture capital firm that has long focused on crypto infrastructure, has closed its fourth fund after raising $400 million. The San Francisco-based firm said the new capital will be directed toward “frontier technology,” a mandate that includes both crypto and adjacent innovation areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics and energy, Fortune reported on Friday.

According to the report, co-founders Vance Spencer and Michael Anderson said roughly half of the fund has already been deployed. They did not name the fund’s limited partners. Cointelegraph previously reached out to Framework for additional details about the latest vehicle but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

Key takeaways

• Framework Ventures closed a $400 million fourth fund with a “frontier technology” scope that extends beyond blockchain.
• Co-founders Vance Spencer and Michael Anderson said about half of the capital has already been deployed.
• The firm frames the strategy as following its existing founder network into new tech categories rather than abandoning crypto.
• Framework’s track record includes major crypto investments across infrastructure and decentralized finance.

A broader mandate, framed as an extension of its founder network

While many crypto-focused VCs have increasingly talked about diversifying into artificial intelligence and other emerging sectors, Framework is positioning its latest fund as a continuation of where its ecosystem is already headed. Anderson said the firm is not merely chasing AI headlines; instead, it is investing alongside founders it already backs who are building products that touch multiple frontiers.

In the context of the fund’s launch, Anderson emphasized that investors should stay alert to the direction these founders are taking, adding that “We should pay attention.”

This approach is consistent with Framework’s earlier behavior: the firm has previously invested in companies outside purely on-chain categories, while still maintaining a strong presence in digital asset infrastructure.

Concrete examples of Framework’s cross-sector investing

Fortune’s coverage and Framework’s disclosed activity point to a pattern of investments spanning crypto-linked financial infrastructure and robotics data.

For example, Framework backed robotics data startup Mecka AI with a reported $60 million round in early June. Earlier in the year, it also partnered with mortgage lender Better to support up to $500 million in financing through the Sky stablecoin ecosystem. Separately, Fortune reported that Framework took a $45 million stake in Better—representing roughly 10% of the company’s stock—citing its earlier reporting on tokenized mortgages.

Together, these examples illustrate the strategy implied by the fund’s “frontier technology” language: Framework is looking for investment opportunities where digital asset infrastructure, capital markets, and new technology stacks intersect, rather than treating non-crypto areas as entirely separate bets.

Crypto still at the core: a portfolio built around major infrastructure names

Framework’s diversification does not replace its crypto focus so much as broaden the set of bets it can place. The firm, founded in 2019, launched its first crypto fund with an emphasis on early decentralized finance (DeFi) projects.

Framework’s portfolio includes well-known crypto platforms and infrastructure businesses such as Aave, Chainlink, Hyperliquid, Jito Labs and Plasma, according to the company’s portfolio page. The firm says it invests across multiple market cycles, prioritizing founders that build “infrastructure and products” in emerging digital asset markets.

That framing matters for investors because it suggests Framework is attempting to keep its selection criteria—supporting early builders in infrastructure—while expanding the technical domains those builders operate in. For traders and users, it also implies a continued likelihood of investment in the underlying systems that power on-chain finance and related applications, even as the investment lens widens.

How the new fund fits within Framework’s capital expansion

Framework’s fourth fund comes after several rounds of increasing fund sizes and a consistent focus on crypto during earlier vehicles. Fortune’s reporting ties the firm’s scaling to earlier fundraising, noting that Framework raised a $100 million second fund in 2021 and a $400 million third fund in 2022—both described as primarily crypto-focused.

In other words, the latest $400 million raise is not just another step up in ticket size; it represents a change in headline scope. The amount remains in line with the third fund, while the stated target audience for investments expands from primarily blockchain to additional frontier technology categories.

Framework has also drawn institutional attention previously. For instance, The Wall Street Journal reported that the firm raised a round backed by institutional support, underscoring that its fundraising momentum is tied to broader demand for credible crypto VC exposure. Coverage from Bloomberg similarly described how crypto VC firms were challenging the “traditional” look of legacy venture crowds by raising capital at meaningful scales during prior fundraising waves.

As Framework shifts the narrative from “crypto only” to “frontier technology,” investors will likely look for signals on how broadly that scope will be applied. The key question is whether future deployments will concentrate more heavily in AI, robotics and energy—or whether these sectors will primarily appear when they intersect with crypto-native infrastructure and capital formation.

Readers should watch how much of the fourth fund’s remaining capital continues to flow into crypto infrastructure versus non-blockchain frontier bets, and whether the firm’s portfolio announcements clarify what “frontier technology” means in practice beyond its early Mecka AI and Better examples.

AI-driven tools are increasingly shaping financial markets as investors turn to automated analytics for stocks, futures, and crypto decision support.

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology continues to penetrate the financial sector, the stock, futures, and cryptocurrency markets are ushering in new development opportunities. More and more investors are focusing on AI-driven data analytics, hoping to leverage intelligent tools to more effectively understand market dynamics and discover potential investment opportunities.

Against this backdrop, DefiHash has attracted considerable attention from users thanks to its AI-driven quantitative technology. The platform provides users with more convenient market information services through real-time data processing, intelligent analysis models, and automated market monitoring systems.

Christopher, from New York, first learned about DefiHash at a friend’s gathering. At the time, everyone was discussing the application of artificial intelligence in the stock, futures, and cryptocurrency markets, and DefiHash AI quantitative technology piqued his interest.

As an ordinary investor with no programming background and unfamiliar with complex quantitative trading strategies, Christopher had always believed that AI trading technology was only for professionals.

After learning more about the DefiHash platform, Christopher registered an account and tried out the platform’s AI quantitative services. After using it for a while, he found the platform simple and intuitive to use, and easy to get started even without a financial or technical background.

Christopher stated, “DefiHash is even easier to use than I imagined. Users don’t need to learn programming or study complex quantitative models; they simply register through the official website to access the platform, choose an AI smart contract suitable for their budget, and the system runs automatically, greatly lowering the barrier to entry for ordinary users to use AI technology.”

He stated that the platform was much simpler than he had imagined.

Users do not need to learn programming or possess complex quantitative knowledge; they can simply register through the platform’s official website to access the system and begin using its services.

To help more users experience AI quantification technology, DefiHash has launched a $20 welcome bonus program for new users.

Step 1: Register a DefiHash account

Users can complete registration in just a few minutes and receive a welcome reward from the platform.

Step 2: Choose a suitable AI smart contract solution

Based on individual needs and risk preferences, understand and select the different AI-driven quantitative solutions offered by the platform.

Step 3: Revenue settlement and flexible management

This system tracks market dynamics in real time and automatically executes corresponding strategies based on quantitative models, thereby improving trading efficiency, simplifying cumbersome operations, and helping users consistently achieve stable returns.

During the operation of the quantitative contract, the platform settles daily and synchronizes the relevant profits to the user’s account.

Users can choose to withdraw their profits or continue participating in more plans according to their own needs, thus obtaining a more flexible asset management experience.

Here are some examples of AI-powered smart contract solutions on this platform:

Looking to the future: DefiHash explores new opportunities in the field of AI-powered finance.

Compared to traditional investment methods, DefiHash aims to lower the barrier to entry for AI-powered quantitative technology, making intelligent financial tools easily accessible to more ordinary users.

The platform requires no programming knowledge, no learning of complex quantitative strategies, and no lengthy market monitoring. Through AI algorithms, real-time data processing, and an automated operating system, users can more easily participate in the digital asset market and experience the efficiency improvements brought by AI.

Meanwhile, DefiHash integrates data resources from multiple markets, including stocks, futures, and cryptocurrencies. Its AI system monitors market changes around the clock, continuously analyzes massive amounts of data, and executes corresponding strategies based on quantitative models, providing users with a more intelligent service experience.

For many users who wish to participate in the digital asset market but lack the expertise and time, DefiHash offers a simpler and more efficient solution. Users can view account information, profit records, and contract status in real time through a visual backend. All data is open and transparent, facilitating personal asset management.

As AI technology continues to develop, more and more investors are paying attention to its practical applications in the financial field. DefiHash continues to innovate and upgrade its technology, committed to creating a smarter, more convenient, and more efficient AI-driven quantitative service platform for global users. Currently, DefiHash has launched services in multiple countries and regions worldwide, continuously attracting the attention of users in the stock, futures, and cryptocurrency markets. Industry insiders believe that with the deep integration of artificial intelligence technology and financial markets, intelligent quantitative services are expected to become one of the important directions for the future development of digital finance.

For those who are looking for the most promising low-asset startups or technology investment opportunities in 2026, visiting the DefiHash official website to learn about its latest AI quantification and computing power solutions could be the best starting point to seize this opportunity.

Bitcoin was unable to regain the $60,000 level on Friday, extending a period of subdued trading as broader risk assets remained under pressure. The move coincided with renewed weakness in Asian equity markets and continued sensitivity to macroeconomic data, reinforcing the close correlation between crypto prices and traditional market conditions.

For institutional participants, the episode is notable less for any single price point than for what it signals about market plumbing: liquidity and risk appetite appear to be responding to equity drawdowns and shifting expectations around inflation. While technical levels remain widely watched, the underlying drivers are predominantly external—particularly equity volatility and monetary policy expectations.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin fell back below $60,000 on daily time frames for the first time since September 2024, according to charting data referenced by Cointelegraph.
• Equity weakness resurfaced in Asia, including a fresh activation of South Korea’s circuit-breaker mechanism.
• Traders and analysts pointed to the 200-week simple moving average (SMA) as a key technical threshold around the low-$60,000s.
• Commentary tied crypto’s near-term direction to inflation expectations, including a recent spike in the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index year-over-year.

Macro volatility and equity spillovers into crypto

TradingView data cited by Cointelegraph indicated that Bitcoin’s failure to hold above $60,000 marked the first daily close under that level since September 2024. In practical terms, the threshold matters because it often becomes a reference point for systematic and discretionary strategies that adjust exposure based on daily confirmation levels.

At the same time, Asia’s equity markets posted further losses. South Korea’s circuit-breakers were triggered following an approximately 8% decline, underscoring the severity of intraday risk reduction in one of the region’s major trading venues.

In the U.S., major indices were reported as mixed to slightly positive at the time of writing, with the S&P 500 and Dow Jones trading in the green while broader concerns about technology stocks persisted. Although the report described the U.S. session as avoiding immediate contagion, institutional risk teams typically treat such episodes as evidence of correlations increasing during stress—an important consideration for portfolio construction, margin management, and liquidity planning across crypto and legacy asset exposures.

Tech-stock drawdowns, inflation expectations, and risk-asset correlations

The market narrative also centered on technology-sector performance. While some earnings releases provided localized support—such as Micron Technologies posting stronger-than-expected results—the broader theme remained that tech exposure was still vulnerable to repricing.

Coin-related equity moves were also highlighted. The Kobeissi Letter, as discussed by Cointelegraph, referenced that many large technology companies are already trading more than 50% below their all-time highs, while Coinbase’s stock performance was cited as an example within that comparative framework. For compliance and governance teams, this kind of cross-asset observation is relevant because crypto firms and listed crypto-adjacent entities often face amplified operational impacts when equity markets reprice sector risk.

Separately, QCP Capital emphasized the importance of U.S. inflation trends for risk assets. Cointelegraph reported that the May Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index—described as the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge—recorded its largest year-over-year increase since mid-2023. QCP’s note, as quoted in the report, included a view that core and headline PCE measures were still above target, and that the Fed’s 2026 inflation forecast had moved higher. The message for markets is straightforward: if inflation expectations remain sticky, the constraint on risk assets may be more about pricing future rates than near-term growth conditions.

“The Fed’s 2026 inflation forecast has also moved up to 3.6%, from 2.7%, reinforcing the view that inflation, rather than growth, remains the binding constraint.”

From an institutional perspective, this matters because it affects discount rates, hedging costs, and the behavior of liquidity providers across derivatives venues—factors that can translate into more conservative margin conditions and reduced depth in correlated instruments, including major crypto derivatives.

200-week SMA in focus as market structure debate continues

Looking at the crypto-specific picture, commentary from analyst Michaël van de Poppe raised the question of whether Bitcoin’s downward movement was continuing or whether it might be transitioning into a rebound phase. In the discussion, van de Poppe pointed to the timing of an upcoming quarterly options expiry event, which can influence volatility through positioning changes and hedging flows.

Van de Poppe also referenced the role of Strategy and its Bitcoin treasury-related funding vehicle, Stretch (STRC), noting that STRC experienced a relatively large drop while Bitcoin appeared to stall around $60,000. He characterized this as not being a weak signal in isolation, while also stating that bullish divergence on the daily timeframe remained unconfirmed.

The technical anchor repeated across the report was the 200-week simple moving average (SMA). At the time of writing, it was cited as approximately $62,243. The underlying institutional implication is that long-horizon moving averages frequently serve as regime indicators for trend-following and risk-managed mandates. When price action remains below such benchmarks, even if volatility compresses, some strategies may continue to reduce exposure—particularly where mandates require daily or weekly confirmations.

“It can signal that we’re bouncing back upwards, and, yes, the markets need to bounce back upwards in order to close above the 200-Week MA.”

Importantly, the discussion leaves open what would constitute confirmation. Unresolved uncertainty around whether $60,000 becomes support or continues to act as resistance typically determines how futures funding and derivatives positioning evolve in subsequent sessions. For compliance and operational planning, that distinction affects estimates of volatility, potential liquidation risk, and the need for tighter controls on collateral valuation and margin call thresholds.

Regulatory and institutional relevance: correlation risk under stress

While the report’s immediate catalysts are market-based, the broader institutional lesson relates to operational resilience during periods of heightened correlation between crypto and traditional markets. In stress environments, crypto exchanges and market makers often experience faster changes in order-book depth, funding dynamics, and intraday spreads—conditions that can amplify the downstream effects for custodians, payment processors, and regulated firms with exposure to crypto-related assets.

For firms subject to AML/KYC controls and licensing oversight, volatility also raises secondary concerns: heightened transaction activity can stress compliance operations; elevated off-platform transfers can increase the burden of monitoring; and cross-border flows can become more complex when liquidity fragments. Although this particular episode does not present new regulatory actions, it reinforces why governance frameworks built around market integrity, risk assessment, and customer protection remain essential in periods of instability. In Europe, for instance, MiCA implementation and ongoing compliance expectations continue to heighten the need for robust risk management practices across regulated custody, asset servicing, and stablecoin-related interfaces.

Cross-border differences in market supervision also matter: enforcement intensity and interpretive approaches to market conduct and custody standards can affect how quickly counterparties adjust onboarding, risk limits, and reporting workflows when market conditions deteriorate.

Closing perspective

Whether Bitcoin can reclaim and hold above key technical levels such as the $60,000 area and the 200-week SMA will likely remain intertwined with equity behavior and inflation-driven expectations. The next signal to watch is confirmation—through daily and longer-horizon price action—alongside whether macro conditions stabilize enough to reduce correlation-driven risk tightening across financial markets.