HKDAP could move the Hong Kong dollar beyond payments and into cross-border settlement, corporate treasury management and tokenized finance as regulated stablecoins gain a role in Hong Kong’s on-chain financial system, according to a HashKey researcher.

HashKey senior researcher Tim Sun told crypto.news that the future role of Hong Kong dollar stablecoins, including HKDAP, could extend well beyond payments as financial assets increasingly move onto blockchain networks.

“From our perspective, the role of HKD stablecoins (including HKDAP) in the future will be more than just a new payment tool; more importantly, they will serve as a digital vehicle for the Hong Kong Dollar to enter the on-chain financial system.”

According to Sun, Asia’s large cross-border capital flows, established financial system and growing use of asset tokenization create several possible applications for regulated HKD-denominated stablecoins. He identified cross-border settlement, corporate treasury management, and digital asset trading as areas where tokenized HKD could be used.

Tokenized financial assets could create another use case because their subscription, redemption, and settlement require a compatible form of money, Sun said.

“Looking further ahead, as more financial assets move on-chain, the market needs not only on-chain assets but also a matching on-chain settlement currency,” he added.

HKDAP insurance tests provide an early use case

Insurance has already provided one of the first institutional environments for testing the token.

On Aug. 14, HashKey Exchange said it had completed a live HKDAP transaction with YF Life Insurance International using real funds. The exercise covered the stablecoin’s subscription and redemption process, while YF Life said it planned to support HKDAP premium payments in the future, subject to regulatory requirements.

Sun said the regulated nature of insurance makes it compatible with a stablecoin issued under formal regulatory oversight. Premium payments also offer a standardized and recurring transaction that institutions can use to test settlement infrastructure.

“The two announced cooperation cases indeed both have a background in insurance institutions,” Sun said.

“On one hand, insurance is a highly regulated industry, which aligns well with the positioning of a regulated stablecoin. On the other hand, from a business perspective, premium payment itself is a relatively clear, standardized, and high-frequency real-world scenario.”

HashKey has also partnered with insurer OneDegree to explore local and cross-border applications for HKDAP, adding another insurance-related test to the token’s early institutional rollout.

The activity follows Anchorpoint Financial’s controlled launch of HKDAP earlier in August. As previously reported, Anchorpoint appointed HashKey Exchange as an authorized distributor, allowing eligible institutions and professional investors to access minting, redemption, and fiat conversion during the beta phase.

HashKey had completed an initial minting and redemption transaction with eligible clients when the distribution arrangement was announced.

HKDAP use cases are extending into trade and treasury

Insurance is not the only financial activity being tested.

On Aug. 13, Unloq said its SC+ trade-finance infrastructure completed a Hong Kong transaction using HKDAP as the settlement instrument for a receivables-financing transaction. SC+ created a blockchain representation of the approved receivable, while HKDAP handled settlement within the workflow.

Sun said trade, corporate cross-border fund management, and tokenized assets are among the areas where stablecoins could provide additional utility.

“These fields inherently have strong demands for multi-currency, cross-timezone, and capital allocation capabilities, which better reflect the incremental value of stablecoins in on-chain settlement and cross-border fund management,” he said.

Institutional distribution has also continued to expand since HKDAP entered beta access.

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) became HKDAP’s first bank distributor on Aug. 24 and said it was working with eligible institutional clients on potential applications involving fund settlement, treasury management and cross-border trade payments.

Anchorpoint’s records show further additions to the distribution network during the final week of August. Finloop became an authorized distributor on Aug. 25, followed by Yunfeng Financial on Aug. 26, while Bank of East Asia signed an agreement with Anchorpoint on Aug. 28 to explore applications for the HKD-backed token.

HKDAP remains under Hong Kong’s regulated rollout

Despite the expanding list of institutional participants, HKDAP remains in a controlled rollout rather than unrestricted public distribution.

Anchorpoint began beta access on Aug. 12 for institutional distributors and professional investors, initially identifying cross-border payments, fiat conversion, and tokenized-asset settlement among its intended applications. The institutional rollout followed months of regulatory and technical preparation.

Before distribution began, Anchorpoint, OSL Group and Futu-backed PantherTrade tested HKDAP transfers on Ethereum mainnet in May. The Ethereum test covered the token’s transaction process after Anchorpoint received regulatory approval.

HKDAP has a par value of HK$1 per token, according to Anchorpoint’s whitepaper. Tokens in circulation must be supported by a reserve pool with a market value at least equal to the outstanding HKDAP, with the assets held in trust for token holders.

The regulatory foundation was established in April, when the Hong Kong Monetary Authority granted its first stablecoin issuer licenses to Anchorpoint and HSBC. The first licenses came under the Stablecoins Ordinance, which took effect in August 2025 and subjects covered issuers to requirements involving reserves, redemption, governance and risk controls.

Anchorpoint itself was formed by Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), HKT and Animoca Brands after the companies participated in the HKMA’s stablecoin issuer sandbox.

HKD stablecoins could offer an alternative settlement currency

For Sun, one of the longer-term questions is whether tokenized financial activity should remain overwhelmingly dependent on dollar-denominated stablecoins.

“The significance of the HKD stablecoin lies in enabling the HKD to participate in this new financial infrastructure system, preventing on-chain finance from relying solely on USD stablecoins in the long run.”

The argument comes as the United States builds its own federal framework around payment stablecoins. President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law in July 2025, creating a federal regulatory structure for permitted payment stablecoin issuers.

U.S. regulators, however, missed the law’s July 18, 2026 deadline for completing key implementing rules, leaving several proposals unfinished ahead of the framework’s Jan. 18, 2027 effective date. U.S. rulemaking deadline

Treasury and other U.S. regulators have also proposed customer-identification requirements for certain permitted payment stablecoin issuers. Under the proposal, covered issuers would be treated as financial institutions for Bank Secrecy Act purposes and would need to verify customers in direct relationships, while secondary-market transactions generally would not trigger the same requirement.

Hong Kong’s framework, meanwhile, has placed HKDAP under HKMA supervision from issuance. Anchorpoint’s whitepaper states that the token is authorized for issuance in Hong Kong and may be distributed in other jurisdictions only in accordance with applicable local laws.

The crypto market has posted sharp gains across Bitcoin and several major altcoins, but Cryptex Finance data covering 36 assets and roughly 92% of the digital asset market shows that capital remains heavily concentrated in Bitcoin and Ethereum despite prices rising across the market.

Cryptex Finance co-founder Joe Sticco told crypto.news that participation in the recent rally had spread across the market, but the allocation of capital had not followed at the same pace, leaving cryptocurrencies trading more like a single group than a market in which investors are selecting individual winners.

Cryptex’s market index stood at 1,199.69, almost 20% above the base level of 1,000 set on Feb. 20. The index tracks 36 assets across five sectors using Coinbase pricing, giving Sticco a larger sample than Bitcoin or a handful of major altcoins alone.

Over the trailing seven days, however, the index had risen only 1.92%. Sticco said the figure matters because much of the rally that produced large percentage gains from recent lows took place within roughly 72 hours between Aug. 19 and Aug. 21, followed by several days of relatively flat trading.

“Measure from the low, and you get a rally. Measure the trailing week, which is what most readers think they’re being told, and you get almost nothing,” Sticco said.

Bitcoin’s acceleration during that period followed a major derivatives flush alongside renewed spot demand. Earlier market coverage showed BTC jumping from below $65,000 to around $69,500 on Aug. 19 as more than $1 billion in crypto short positions were liquidated within an hour.

Crypto market gains show little separation between assets

Price dispersion within Cryptex’s index provides another reason Sticco is reluctant to describe the rally as a full capital rotation.

On the day measured by Cryptex, the strongest constituent gained 6.71%, while the weakest declined 1.49%. Despite covering 36 cryptocurrencies from five sectors, the entire range between the best and worst performers amounted to roughly eight percentage points.

“That is not a market sorting winners from losers. That’s a market moving as one block,” Sticco said.

According to Sticco, such low dispersion indicates that a common market factor is lifting cryptocurrencies together instead of investors moving money between assets based on individual fundamentals.

Major tokens nevertheless produced very different headline returns when measured across the rally. Sticco put Bitcoin’s seven-day increase at roughly 14%, XRP’s at 28%, and Solana’s at about 19%.

Capital allocation did not match the apparent spread in price performance. Bitcoin dominance remained around 57% to 60%, depending on the market universe used, while Sticco cited an Altcoin Season Index reading below 40, far under the 75 level generally used by the index to signal an altcoin season.

Solana also remained more than 50% below its October 2025 level despite gaining about 19% during the week, according to Sticco.

“Participation broadened. Allocation didn’t,” he said.

Institutional flows remain concentrated in Bitcoin and Ethereum

Regulated investment products give Sticco another way to separate rising cryptocurrency prices from the destination of new capital.

During one recent Wednesday session, Sticco said U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs received about $232 million, while Ether ETFs attracted roughly $192 million. XRP products brought in around $28 million, compared with approximately $15 million for HYPE products and $9 million for Solana.

By his calculation, close to nine dollars out of every ten went into Bitcoin and Ethereum. Weekly figures showed a similar concentration, with Bitcoin receiving about 71% of flows and Ethereum another 26%.

The concentration comes even as U.S. spot products have helped support Bitcoin’s recovery. A previous report on ETF demand found that U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs had taken in approximately $1.9 billion across five consecutive inflow sessions by Aug. 24, while analysts said continued spot buying would be needed after forced short covering helped accelerate the initial breakout.

Sticco said the subsequent streak had reached eight consecutive sessions of net Bitcoin ETF inflows totaling about $2.8 billion, while Ether ETFs had also recorded eight positive sessions and more than $1 billion in inflows.

August Bitcoin ETF inflows had exceeded $3 billion by the time of his comments, making it the strongest month of 2026, according to Sticco. He said BlackRock had absorbed a large portion of the demand, including around $1.3 billion during the previous week.

“Eight straight sessions of regulated spot creations is not what a short squeeze produces,” he said.

The ETF numbers, however, require another distinction when assessing how much new institutional money has entered Bitcoin.

Sticco said net assets held by the funds had climbed from roughly $77 billion in mid-August to just above $99 billion by Tuesday, an increase of about $22 billion. Actual net inflows during the eight-session streak totaled only around $2.8 billion.

Much of the difference came from Bitcoin’s rising price increasing the value of assets already held by the funds, he said, rather than investors supplying another $22 billion in fresh capital.

Earlier in August, five consecutive inflow sessions had brought approximately $853.5 million into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs between Aug. 3 and Aug. 7, reversing withdrawals recorded during the preceding week.

Sticco also cautioned against viewing August in isolation. He said spot Bitcoin ETFs lost roughly $5.4 billion during the first half of 2026 and remained about $2.5 billion in negative territory for the year despite the latest inflows.

ETF demand is clearer than derivatives positioning

Separating institutional buying from leverage requires looking at different parts of the market, according to Sticco.

ETF flows and market depth measure demand, while funding rates, futures basis, and open interest give more information about trader positioning. Sticco said falling open interest alongside rising prices can indicate shorts are closing rather than new buyers entering.

He declined to characterize current open interest as either bullish or bearish because publicly available readings differed. Some datasets quote open interest in Bitcoin while others measure its dollar value, which can produce different trends when BTC itself moves sharply.

Market depth presents a similar problem. Sticco described depth as one of the most useful measures for institutional participation because it shows how much capital can enter or exit without materially moving the market.

“Price tells you what the last trade cleared at. Depth tells you what the next big one will cost.”

Available public depth figures were not current enough for Sticco to say confidently how much liquidity had recovered. He pointed instead to the damage following the October 2025 deleveraging event, when he said an estimated $10 billion to $20 billion in leveraged positions were erased and Bitcoin’s top-of-book depth on major venues fell more than 90% intraday.

Market makers subsequently reduced resting liquidity after getting caught with inventory while hedges were force-closed, according to Sticco, leaving order books at their thinnest since 2022.

For Sticco, the institutional side of crypto has therefore developed faster than the liquidity supporting the underlying market.

U.S. policy and Treasury conditions remain part of the rally

Macroeconomic conditions have also played an important role in the latest advance, according to Sticco, who pointed to the U.S. Treasury’s Aug. 19 decision to increase long-dated debt buybacks as an important catalyst.

The Treasury doubled the maximum size of certain long-end liquidity support buybacks from $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation. The Treasury announcement was followed by falling long-term yields and an 8.2% Bitcoin advance from an intraday low around $64,100 to approximately $69,500 in less than 12 hours.

Sticco said Bitcoin’s close relationship with software stocks during the move shows how crypto has become more connected to U.S. macro conditions. As interest-rate expectations later changed and short-term yields rose, Bitcoin surrendered some of the gains even though the legislative situation in Washington had not materially changed.

Congress presents another variable for U.S. investors. Sticco pointed to the CLARITY Act, which would establish a statutory division of responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC for parts of the digital asset market and create a federal framework affecting exchanges, brokers, dealers, and custody.

The Senate Banking Committee advanced the legislation 15-9 in May, with Democratic Sens. Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks joining Republicans. Sticco, who attended the markup as part of Cryptex’s policy work, said both Democrats made clear at the time that their committee votes did not guarantee support on the Senate floor without progress on unresolved provisions.

A Sept. 15 cloture vote requires 60 votes to move the legislation forward. Previous coverage of the negotiations identified ethics rules, stablecoin rewards, and financial-crime provisions among the issues still unresolved ahead of the procedural vote.

For regulated index products, Sticco pointed in particular to provisions covering CFTC registration of digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers. Capital, asset-segregation, surveillance, and customer-protection requirements could increase the number of regulated venues capable of supporting assets used in exchange-traded products, he said.

Sticco also cited custody provisions and changes affecting financial holding companies as potentially important for institutions, while arguing that statutory classification of digital assets would give index providers more certainty than relying on agency interpretations that future regulators could change.

Policy expectations, however, have weakened even as cryptocurrency prices have risen. Sticco said Polymarket odds for the CLARITY Act becoming law in 2026 had fallen from roughly 82% in February to around 25% in late August, while Galaxy Research placed the probability closer to 10%.

The Sept. 15 vote will also fall on the first day of the Federal Reserve’s Sept. 15-16 meeting, leaving two major U.S. policy events scheduled within the same period.

Unresolved Senate negotiations include ethics and conflict-of-interest rules involving government officials, possible secondary enforcement authority for state attorneys general, illicit-finance provisions and banking-industry objections to crypto exchanges paying yield on stablecoin balances, according to Sticco.

MEXC has launched a Visa-linked Global Card offering eligible users up to 10% cashback in USDT as monthly crypto card spending reached $759 million in July, roughly 2.5 times its level a year earlier.

According to MEXC’s Aug. 31 announcement shared with crypto.news, the Global Card is a virtual Visa card that lets eligible users spend USDT through the card network while supporting Apple Pay and Google Pay for mobile payments.

The exchange is waiving purchase fees from launch through Sept. 30 and charges no issuance, annual, or top-up fees. Once the promotion ends, purchase fees will start at 1%, according to MEXC’s published fee information.

Transactions use Visa’s exchange rates, while MEXC said it does not apply an additional exchange-rate markup. Foreign exchange fees may still be charged for certain currencies under Visa’s rules.

MEXC Global Card combines USDT spending with cashback

Alongside its fee structure, MEXC has tied the Global Card to a tiered cashback program paying rewards in USDT.

Users receive between 4% and 10% cashback based on their VVIP status and M-Score, which MEXC calculates using activities such as trading, Earn subscriptions, and platform tasks. The Standard level pays 4% with a monthly cap of 100 USDT, while Premier users receive 6% with a 300 USDT cap.

At the highest Elite level, users can receive 10% cashback up to 800 USDT per month. MEXC’s rewards documentation states that a user’s rate is determined by their VVIP level on the final day of each calendar month, with cashback distributed to the user’s spot account on the 15th of the following month.

Refunded and reversed purchases can affect the final reward amount, while some merchant categories are excluded from earning cashback.

MEXC is also offering a separate flexible savings product through MEXC Earn for cardholders. Users who subscribe eligible USDT to the product can earn an annualized return of up to 7%, with MEXC saying the funds can be redeemed without a lock-up period.

The 7% rate applies to USDT subscribed to the Earn product rather than automatically applying to money available for card purchases. MEXC calculates the Earn returns separately from spending cashback.

MEXC CEO Vugar Usi described the card as part of the exchange’s effort to cover more financial activities beyond buying and selling crypto.

“We want users to see digital assets not simply as an investment tool, but as part of a complete financial journey, from saving and yield-generating products to principal-protected solutions and, ultimately, everyday spending,” Usi said.

Usi added that the card allows users to keep assets in digital form until they need to make a payment, connecting asset management with real-world spending.

Crypto card spending reached $759M in July

MEXC’s launch arrives as payment activity through crypto-linked cards has climbed during 2026.

According to an August analysis by a16z crypto using Paymentscan data, monthly crypto payment card volume reached $759 million in July, compared with $306 million one year earlier. Paymentscan had recorded less than $1 million when its tracking started in October 2023.

Transaction counts have risen alongside payment volume. Nearly 9 million purchases were recorded in July, up from about 5.2 million a year earlier, leaving the average purchase at roughly $86.

Stablecoins account for most of the activity tracked by Paymentscan. USDC and USDT together represented 84% of crypto card spending, according to the data cited by a16z.

Other crypto companies have been building similar links between stablecoins and established card networks. In May, crypto.news previously reported that Fold had started issuing its Bitcoin Credit Card to selected waitlist users, with a 1.5% base Bitcoin reward and rewards of up to 4% through additional offers. The Visa-based product also supports Apple Pay and Google Pay.

In August, Western Union launched its Stablecard with Rain, allowing customers to hold and spend its USDPT stablecoin through Visa. The service launched across 37 markets, with Western Union targeting more than 60 markets by the end of 2026.

Visa has also been testing payment models that connect stablecoin balances more directly to its merchant network. A stablecoin spending pilot with WeFi, announced in May, covered selected markets in Europe, Asia, and Latin America and was designed to make self-custodied stablecoins usable for card purchases.

Daily MEXC Global Card spending is capped at 1M USDT

For cardholders making larger payments, MEXC has set the maximum purchase at 80,000 USDT per transaction and the daily spending limit at 1 million USDT.

The limits are considerably higher than those attached to MEXC’s separate APAC card. MEXC’s published comparison states that the Global Card and APAC product remain separate cards with different fee structures and transaction limits.

Applicants must complete MEXC’s advanced identity verification before requesting a Global Card. MEXC said the application process can take about one to two minutes, after which approved customers receive a virtual card that can be used without waiting for a physical card.

MEXC’s card documentation says the Global Card is funded with USDT held on the exchange. The product sits alongside the company’s original APAC card and its co-branded card with ether.fi rather than replacing either product.

Earlier in August, MEXC also expanded its RealStocks product with recurring investment features, portfolio tracking and additional tools tied to tokenized U.S. equities. The product gives eligible users exposure to tokenized assets linked to U.S.-listed stocks, including companies such as Nvidia and Tesla.

U.S. users remain excluded from MEXC card access

Despite Visa’s large U.S. payment network and growing domestic competition among crypto-linked cards, MEXC’s Global Card is not available to U.S. residents.

MEXC’s current card eligibility documentation places the United States on its application blacklist, alongside countries including China, India, Indonesia, Turkey and Russia. Eligibility is based on proof of address, and the exchange tells users to check its current restricted-country list before applying.

The restriction separates MEXC’s launch from crypto cards already available to American users. MetaMask, for example, rolled out its Mastercard-linked debit card across 49 U.S. states in February, allowing eligible customers to spend assets from self-custodial wallets through Apple Pay and Google Pay.

MEXC also operates its main exchange under geographic restrictions. Its published regional guidance states that it does not provide exchange services to U.S. residents, while the company can revise its restricted-jurisdiction list based on legal and compliance requirements.

For eligible Global Card applicants, MEXC requires advanced identity verification before approval. Once approved, the virtual card can be activated immediately, according to the exchange, while card availability and individual services remain dependent on the user’s jurisdiction.

The Crypto.com-supported Cronos blockchain had to halt and rewind its history this week to stop an ongoing theft due to the Tectonic protocol that Crypto.com had spent months promoting.

Tectonic warned users to pause using its protocol altogether. PeckShield first estimated the value of compromised funds at approximately $74 million.

Crypto.com supplied one of the largest retail onramps for Tectonic, this newly compromised protocol that nearly drained tens of millions of dollars from Cronos’ DeFi ecosystem. As fear about the hack has spread, Cronos’ CRO token has lost 6% of its value over the past 24 hours.

Kris Marszalek’s Crypto.com exchange proudly offered TONIC purchases through more than 20 fiat currencies. Crypto.com advertised TONIC-denominated Visa card spending at 80 million merchants.

It listed TONIC for trading on its main exchange, advertised staking returns of up to 100% per annum, and promoted staking rewards within its Crypto.com DeFi Wallet.

Read more: DeFi exploiter targets lending protocols with oracle tricks

Crypto.com’s Earn program guide provided step-by-step instructions for TONIC staking, including mentioning its ‘automatic compounding’ of ‘earnings.’

Crypto.com’s DeFi Wallet even simplified TONIC staking with one-click access with no lock-up periods.

Advertisement

Tectonic’s oracle page lists only two data sources for the USD price of TONIC, VVS Finance and — you guessed it — Crypto.com.

Crypto.com’s Cronos blockchain halts, erases history

After Tectonic suffered an exploit on Sunday, the Crypto.com-supported Cronos blockchain stopped producing blocks. Validators erased some of the blockchain’s history by reverting to the pre-exploit state and then resuming block production.

Tectonic’s litepaper talked up its connections to Crypto.com and identified Particle B as its incubator, which was renamed Cronos Labs. Crypto.com’s $500 million investment arm is a “strategic partner to Cronos Labs.”

Researcher Weilin Li described the TONIC exploit as a Mango Markets-style price manipulation hack that allowed the thief to withdraw real collateral from DeFi lending protocols using an artificially inflated price of TONIC.

Advertisement

Although Crypto.com’s Cronos EVM blockchain describes itself as ‘permissionless,’ its official FAQ says its 33 validators serve by invitation only. Applications to become a validator are also closed.

Total value locked (TVL) on Cronos DeFi protocols has fallen 92% since 2022.

This controversy is certainly not the first in Crypto.com history. In 2021, Cronos ‘permanently’ burned 70 billion CRO tokens to boost scarcity and hype the price of its token. However, in March 2025 it pushed through a community vote — using its own majority validator control and despite heavy opposition — to re-mint those 70 billion tokens into a ‘Cronos Strategic Reserve’ that restored supply to 100 billion as a de facto benefit to Crypto.com.

Crypto.com effectively controlled the Cronos Strategic Reserve in practice, because the exchange and its affiliated validators held majority power governing the Cronos chain, which administered the reserve’s terms. Before February 2022, CRO tokens were known as ‘Crypto.com Coins.’

Advertisement

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Webull, a self-directed brokerage and trading platform, is widening its Canadian product lineup by adding cryptocurrency trading for retail customers. The expansion arrives as the country’s regulators continue laying groundwork for clearer rules across parts of the digital-asset market.

Webull said Monday that its Canada crypto offering will be powered by Coinbase’s “Crypto-as-a-Service” infrastructure. Under the arrangement, Coinbase is set to provide the underlying trading and custody capabilities that support Webull’s new crypto access in Canada.

Key takeaways

• Webull is launching crypto trading in Canada, expanding beyond stocks, ETFs, and options available to its retail user base.
• The service will run on Coinbase’s Crypto-as-a-Service, with Coinbase handling core trading and custody functions.
• Webull points to rising Canadian interest in crypto, citing Ontario Securities Commission research on ownership growth.
• Regulatory clarity is still developing in Canada, including work on a stablecoin framework that would apply to both domestic and foreign issuers.

Webull adds crypto to its Canadian retail platform

Webull’s Canadian website currently displays 10 cryptocurrencies, including well-known assets such as Bitcoin and Ether, along with Solana. The platform also indicates that additional cryptocurrencies are available beyond the initial list, suggesting a staged rollout or expanding selection after launch.

For investors who already use Webull for traditional markets, the move effectively brings digital assets into the same self-directed ecosystem. That matters because crypto access through mainstream brokerage-style interfaces can lower friction for retail users who prefer established platforms and consolidated account experiences rather than switching between exchanges and wallets.

Coinbase infrastructure sits underneath the offering

Webull did not present its own trading or custody stack for Canada in its announcement. Instead, it said the company’s crypto offering will rely on Coinbase’s Crypto-as-a-Service infrastructure.

In practical terms, this means Coinbase supplies critical back-end services—specifically trading operations and custody—while Webull acts as the front-end platform for Canadian users. This kind of partnership can be attractive for brokerages that want to add new asset classes without building and operating complex custody and trading systems from scratch.

Webull cites Canadian demand and regulator momentum

As a justification for the expansion, Webull pointed to growing crypto adoption in Canada, including findings from Ontario Securities Commission research. According to the OSC, digital asset ownership has risen to 25% this year from 10% in 2023.

The company also highlighted that broader regulatory activity is underway. Canada is working toward more explicit rules for parts of the crypto industry, with attention not only on exchange-like services but also on stablecoins—an area that has become a focal point for regulators globally.

Stablecoin rules remain incomplete, but a framework is coming

While Webull’s immediate product is spot cryptocurrency trading, the regulatory direction in Canada affects how stablecoin-linked products and services may develop over time. The announcement noted that Canada does not yet have comprehensive rules specifically for fiat-backed stablecoins. However, a pathway is taking shape.

The Stablecoin Act, introduced following the 2025 federal budget, is intended to establish requirements for both domestic and foreign stablecoin issuers. In addition to its domestic impact, that “foreign issuer” angle is significant because it can influence whether international stablecoin brands can operate under Canadian standards and what disclosures or operational controls they would need to meet.

Investors watching crypto in Canada will likely view this as an important medium-term signal: platforms and liquidity providers typically want stablecoin arrangements that align with clear legal expectations before expanding product offerings tied to fiat-pegged assets.

Webull’s Canada launch raises the near-term question of how its crypto lineup will evolve—whether the initial 10 assets remain limited or broaden quickly—and whether regulators’ stablecoin framework ultimately accelerates or reshapes the range of digital-asset products available to retail users.

Webull, a self-directed brokerage and trading platform, is expanding its Canadian offering to include cryptocurrencies, adding Canada to a crypto footprint that already includes the United States, Australia and Brazil.

The company announced Monday that its Canadian crypto offering will run on Coinbase’s Crypto-as-a-Service infrastructure, with Coinbase providing the underlying trading and custody services. Webull’s Canadian website currently displays 10 cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and Solana (SOL), while indicating that additional assets are also available.

The addition of crypto broadens Webull’s Canadian offering beyond stocks, exchange-traded funds and options, bringing digital assets alongside the traditional investments already available to its retail clients.

Webull cited growing crypto adoption in Canada as one reason for the expansion, pointing to Ontario Securities Commission research that it says shows digital asset ownership has risen to 25% this year from 10% in 2023. 

Canadian crypto investment is growing as the country’s regulators move to establish clearer rules for the industry, including a federal framework for stablecoins. Canada doesn’t yet have comprehensive rules for fiat-backed stablecoins, but the Stablecoin Act, introduced following the 2025 federal budget, would set requirements for both domestic and foreign issuers.

Related: Canadian crypto ownership increases to 25%: Ontario survey

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Bitcoin’s ability to extend its August rally has come under a fresh test as analysts have pointed to sustained spot ETF demand as a key requirement for overcoming rising expectations of a September Federal Reserve rate hike.

According to Bitfinex analysts in an Aug. 31 market report shared with crypto.news, Bitcoin’s latest advance has relied increasingly on spot demand rather than excessive leverage, leaving the market in a stronger position to absorb selling even as U.S. monetary conditions become less supportive.

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price was trading around $78,700 at the time of writing, down about 0.4% over the past 24 hours. The asset briefly climbed above $81,000 last week before falling to a low of $76,857 after Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh used his Jackson Hole address to signal that interest rates may still need to rise.

The decline interrupted a rally that had carried Bitcoin from below $65,000 in mid-August to above $80,000. As previously covered by crypto.news, Bitcoin gained about 24% during the previous week as Treasury buybacks, ETF demand, and forced short covering helped fuel the recovery.

Bitcoin ETF demand now faces a tougher test

Bitfinex analysts said the derivatives market has not shown the kind of rapid leverage build-up that typically accompanies an overheated rally. Bitcoin open interest stood at $55.6 billion, more than 20% above its level at the start of August, but the increase has been gradual while basis levels have remained relatively low.

“We are in a market driven by spot buying and, notwithstanding large short liquidations, open interest has only gradually increased, while basis has remained relatively low and at healthy levels historically,” the analysts said.

Holding $77,100, which Bitfinex identified as an important lower-timeframe support level, alongside continued spot buying would indicate that the market remains relatively balanced, according to the report.

ETF flows provide another measure of whether that demand can continue.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs absorbed about $3.04 billion during nine consecutive positive sessions from Aug. 17 through Aug. 27, according to Bitfinex. Friday then produced the first net outflow in 10 sessions, with investors withdrawing $201.9 million as Bitcoin reversed from above $81,000.

Despite Friday’s redemptions, the funds still finished the week with $924.5 million in net inflows, while inflows across the previous two weeks reached about $2.8 billion.

BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for only $33.4 million of Friday’s withdrawals after collecting roughly $2.3 billion during the preceding nine sessions. ARKB and BITB together recorded $164.6 million in outflows.

Institutional demand has also been absorbing Bitcoin sold by larger holders, Bitfinex said. Whale addresses holding between 1,000 and 10,000 BTC have reduced their balances by 50,500 BTC since the end of June, while institutional custodial holdings associated with exchanges and ETF platforms increased by 59,100 BTC.

During the latest August advance alone, custodial balances rose by 31,500 BTC, a move the analysts said closely tracked ETF inflows.

“While whales took profits during the rally, institutional demand absorbed that supply, indicating that assets moving into these regulated vehicles may be less prone to sudden liquidation on the basis of short-term macroeconomic news.”

$80K–$83K could test whether real buyers remain

Jeff Ko, chief analyst at CoinEx, told crypto.news that part of Bitcoin’s August rally came from Treasury buybacks pushing yields and the dollar lower at the same time that traders had built large short positions.

Ko said the mechanical part of the resulting squeeze has now “largely played out,” leaving spot demand as a more important factor around $80,000.

“Treasury buybacks pushed yields and the dollar lower, and that impulse collided with crowded short positioning to produce the squeeze,” Ko said. “What matters from here is whether spot buyers keep absorbing supply around $80K.”

The Treasury catalyst had already produced a sharp response earlier in August. On Aug. 19, the department announced that it would at least double the maximum size of liquidity-support buybacks for 10-to-20-year and 20-to-30-year nominal coupon securities from $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation from Sept. 9 through Nov. 4.

The change helped compress long-term yields as Bitcoin surged. An Aug. 20 analysis of the buybacks found that BTC jumped 8.2% from an intraday low of $64,100 to $69,500 within 12 hours of the Treasury announcement, while $1.44 billion in short positions were liquidated.

Ko now sees $80,000–$83,000 as more than a technical resistance area because the zone could show whether new investment can replace the buying pressure previously created by forced short covering.

“It is a major supply zone, and the point at which the rally stops being a short squeeze and becomes a test of real capital allocation.”

Ether could provide another signal. Ko said ETH had traded near $2,490 heading into Jackson Hole but subsequently lagged Bitcoin on price. If Treasury yields and the dollar remain elevated while Ether starts outperforming Bitcoin on both price and investment flows, he would view the move as evidence of stronger crypto risk appetite.

Bitfinex also pointed to Ether ETFs as a possible gauge of demand. U.S. spot Ether products took in $815.7 million last week and extended their positive run to 10 sessions, according to the firm. Nearly 12.3% of cumulative Ether ETF inflows since launch arrived during August, while demand adjusted for the relative size of the assets was roughly four times as intense as Bitcoin ETF demand during the past week.

Fed rate hike risk threatens the liquidity support

The pressure on Bitcoin now comes from a less favorable interest-rate outlook.

Warsh’s Jackson Hole remarks pushed the market-implied probability of a September rate increase to about 57%, according to Bitfinex. Ko similarly said CME-implied odds had risen from 39.9% on Aug. 21 to 57% following the speech, while the two-year Treasury yield moved to around 4.31% and the dollar returned toward a two-week high.

Bitfinex analysts said persistent inflation remains one of the main constraints on easier monetary policy. Headline Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation stood at 3.7%, with core inflation at 3.3%, while private domestic demand expanded at a 4.2% annualized pace during the second quarter.

Jeff Mei, chief operating officer of BTSE, told crypto.news that Warsh’s speech had raised the hurdle for Bitcoin because higher interest rates could reduce the amount of liquidity available for crypto assets.

“For a sustained rally, we need a few things to happen. First, ETF demand has to stay strong across all ETF products, and not just BlackRock’s IBIT ETF. Second, we need better inflation data for the Fed to back off and keep rates steady.”

Mei also cautioned that the boost associated with Treasury buybacks could fade quickly.

Earlier in August, Bitcoin broke above $76,000 as ETF inflows accelerated alongside improving U.S. liquidity conditions. Spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $606 million on Aug. 20 alone, extending a run of institutional demand that accompanied the recovery from the mid-August lows.

Bitcoin needs U.S. data to ease the rate pressure

Attention now turns to a run of U.S. economic releases that could alter expectations before the Federal Reserve meets in September.

Ko identified Friday’s August payroll report as the most important immediate event and the final jobs report before the FOMC decision. July payrolls fell by 23,000 against an 80,000 consensus estimate, while May and June were revised lower by a combined 103,000 jobs, according to figures cited by Ko. The unemployment rate currently stands at 4.1%.

Before payrolls, ISM Manufacturing and JOLTS data are due Tuesday, followed by ADP employment figures and the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book on Wednesday and ISM Services on Thursday. Bitfinex analysts also identified the August labor-market and inflation releases as the next major tests for rate expectations.

The August inflation report is scheduled for Sept. 11, putting another major data point immediately before the Sept. 15–16 FOMC meeting.

Ko also pointed to the CLARITY Act as a crypto-specific U.S. catalyst, with a Senate procedural vote currently scheduled for Sept. 15. In his view, the vote represents one of the largest asset-specific events on the September calendar, while the Fed meeting will determine the monetary backdrop facing Bitcoin and other risk assets.

For price, Mei sees $87,000 as the next level that would materially strengthen the bullish case after Bitcoin clears the nearer resistance areas.

“If we break the $87k mark and hold, $100K becomes the real target, and we could be looking at a bull market.”

Hyperliquid has faced a potential 10-to-12-month regulatory process to enter the U.S. market even if federal agencies move quickly, according to former SEC senior counsel Ashley Ebersole, after President Donald Trump said regulators were working on a compliant route for the perpetual futures platform.

Ashley Ebersole, co-founder and chief legal officer at tx and a former senior counsel at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, told crypto.news that the main obstacle is not simply securing permission for Hyperliquid to operate in the country. U.S. regulators would first have to establish how offshore-style crypto perpetual futures fit within existing securities and derivatives laws.

President Donald Trump brought the issue into focus on Aug. 19 during a White House meeting with crypto and financial industry executives. Trump said Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States in a “fully compliant and legal fashion.” Contemporary reports did not identify an approval, regulatory structure, or timetable for such a move.

The comments came as the administration pressed Congress to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. As previously covered by crypto.news, Trump used the same Aug. 19 meeting to urge lawmakers to pass the legislation, which would establish clearer boundaries between SEC and CFTC oversight of digital assets.

Hyperliquid would need more than CFTC approval

Ebersole said U.S. law does not currently provide a straightforward route for offering crypto perpetual futures to American retail customers in the same form commonly available on offshore platforms.

The CFTC would probably have primary jurisdiction over perpetual contracts tied to commodities, including crypto assets that are not securities, according to Ebersole. Contracts based on securities, however, could fall under the SEC’s authority as security-based swaps or other securities-linked products.

“The threshold issue is that U.S. law does not currently provide a straightforward regulatory pathway for offering crypto perpetual futures to U.S. retail customers in the form in which they trade offshore,” Ebersole said.

For Hyperliquid, a compliant structure could involve registration requirements covering the trading venue, clearing, and intermediaries. Ebersole said designated contract market, or DCM, and derivatives clearing organization, or DCO, infrastructure could form part of the process, with separate SEC requirements applying where securities are involved.

Registration would address only part of the problem. According to Ebersole, federal agencies would first need to determine whether Congress has already given them sufficient authority over the products and then establish rules under which perpetuals could legally be offered.

“The harder problem is not simply obtaining a registration; it is that the existing U.S. regulatory architecture was not designed around offshore-style perpetuals, so a lot of regulatory ‘building’ would be needed.”

Regulators could use formal rulemaking, exemptive relief, or a combination of both to create such a pathway, Ebersole added.

Some of that regulatory debate is already underway. In July, the Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom asked the CFTC to develop rules tailored to onchain markets instead of applying requirements designed for traditional intermediaries. The groups argued that decentralized software developers and non-custodial wallet providers should not automatically face the same registration obligations as conventional financial firms.

SEC and CFTC jurisdiction would follow the underlying asset

Dividing responsibility between the two federal agencies would create another layer of work.

Ebersole compared the issue with the framework established after the Dodd-Frank Act, which divided federal oversight between swaps regulated by the CFTC and security-based swaps overseen by the SEC. In his view, crypto perpetuals could follow a similar principle, with jurisdiction determined by the economic exposure of each contract.

A perpetual based on a security or group of securities would generally involve the SEC, while one tied to a commodity would normally fall under the CFTC’s derivatives authority, he said.

More complicated questions could arise when spot assets and derivatives interact inside the same trading ecosystem. According to Ebersole, such arrangements could create edge cases requiring coordination between both regulators, much as the agencies had to develop detailed jurisdictional boundaries following Dodd-Frank.

The issue has become particularly relevant for equity-linked perpetuals. On Aug. 24, the Hyperliquid Policy Center proposed treating qualifying equity perpetuals as security futures under an existing structure jointly overseen by the SEC and CFTC. The organization said HIP-3 markets had processed more than $480 billion in cumulative notional volume during their first 10 months.

Several days earlier, the Policy Center and trade[XYZ] had also submitted five proposed pillars to the SEC for regulating pre-IPO perpetual contracts. The SEC had published the submission but had not endorsed or approved the proposed products.

A Hyperliquid US pathway could take 10 to 12 months

Even with political support, Ebersole expects the administrative process to take considerably longer than the technical work needed to offer the products.

His 10-to-12-month estimate assumes the SEC and CFTC actively decide to establish a route for perpetuals. Regulators would first have to identify their statutory authority, develop a framework, and prepare any required rules or exemptions.

A formal rulemaking process could then require agencies to publish proposals, collect public comments, review those submissions, adopt final measures, and implement the resulting framework.

“The 10-to-12-month estimate assumes a lengthy procedure phase that’s principally about administrative process rather than technological implementation,” Ebersole said.

A faster process is possible if regulators rely substantially on powers and exemptions already available to them.

“Could that happen in six months? Potentially, particularly if the agencies rely heavily on existing authorities or exemptive mechanisms.”

Ebersole cautioned that the longer estimate already assumes regulators want the process to succeed. Litigation, disagreements between the SEC and CFTC, changing political priorities, or a conclusion that Congress must first pass legislation could push any U.S. launch further out.

U.S. traders already have limited exposure to perpetual products under regulated structures. In June, Kalshi filed with the CFTC to list perpetual futures linked to HYPE after rolling out Bitcoin and Ethereum perpetual contracts for U.S. customers.

Access to Hyperliquid itself remains more restricted. Coinbase added more than 290 Hyperliquid-powered perpetual markets to its Base App on Aug. 19, with leverage reaching as high as 50x on supported contracts, but U.S. users were excluded along with users in the United Kingdom and Canada.

Existing law could provide a faster but less certain route

Rather than waiting for Congress, the SEC and CFTC could conclude that their existing statutory powers are sufficient to establish a regulated framework, according to Ebersole. Such an approach could shorten the process, particularly if agencies use exemptions alongside existing derivatives and securities rules.

A legal constraint remains after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which ended the Chevron doctrine that had directed courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes.

“An agency cannot create statutory jurisdiction simply by interpreting an ambiguity in its favor,” Ebersole said.

If an SEC or CFTC interpretation were challenged, he said, a court would independently determine whether Congress had actually granted the agency authority over the product. Agency reasoning could still carry persuasive weight, but it would not receive Chevron-style deference simply because the underlying statute was ambiguous.

Congressional action would therefore provide a cleaner legal route, according to Ebersole, because lawmakers could expressly authorize perpetual products, divide responsibility between the SEC and CFTC, and establish the limits of each regulator’s authority.

Legislation carries its own timing problem. Ebersole said the congressional route could take considerably longer and may not result in a law at all.

The question is particularly relevant while the CLARITY Act remains unresolved in Washington. The legislation seeks to establish federal boundaries between digital commodities and securities, with the CFTC receiving additional authority over qualifying digital commodity markets while the SEC retains jurisdiction over securities.

A US perpetuals framework would not be limited to Hyperliquid

Any regulatory route created for Hyperliquid would also have consequences for competing U.S. trading platforms, Ebersole said.

Federal regulators could not realistically establish a lawful framework that applied only to one company. Once the SEC and CFTC set requirements for offering crypto perpetuals, other firms meeting the same regulatory standards would have grounds to seek permission to offer comparable products.

“Whatever pathway regulators create for Hyperliquid cannot realistically be Hyperliquid-specific,” Ebersole said.

Coinbase, Kraken, and other appropriately registered platforms would therefore have a strong basis to pursue similar products if regulators establish a workable U.S. framework, according to Ebersole.

“The larger significance of onshoring Hyperliquid is not simply whether one offshore platform can enter the United States. It is whether regulators are prepared to welcome a major product category that has largely developed outside the U.S. to regulated domestic competition.”