“As it uses existing rules, it’s going to be much less like a standalone framework,” Lightstone said. “A crypto firm will be treated like any normal traditional financial institution,” adding that “it will still be hard to get FCA authorization.”

For established banks and investment firms already operating under those rules, adapting to crypto may be relatively straightforward. For newer crypto businesses, however, the cost of building governance, capital and custody systems from scratch could prove considerably more burdensome.

That challenge is particularly evident in the FCA’s proposed client asset regime, applying the Clients Asset Sourcebook (CASS) framework, which would require firms to segregate customer crypto assets from company funds under trust arrangements while introducing crypto-specific operational safeguards around private keys and reconciliations.

“The CASS requirements are very onerous,” Lightstone said. “That could encourage those newcomers to merge [with], be acquired by, a traditional firm that’s already subject to CASS and has those controls in place.”

Banking adoption

The prospect of consolidation comes as banks themselves appear more willing to enter digital assets now that regulatory uncertainty is beginning to lift.

“As of today, there is less than 20% of all the banks in Europe [that] offer today any type of crypto services, so it’s heavily underserved,” said Simon Schneider, CEO of Sygnum Europe.

Cardano co-founder Charles Hoskinson has warned that Bitcoin could lose its position as the largest cryptocurrency if its governance system cannot organise a response to quantum computing.

He made the comments during an interview with The Starting Block published on July 24. Hoskinson described Bitcoin as “frozen in time” because major changes require wide agreement across developers, miners, node operators and users. He argued that Cardano’s formal voting system gives its community a clearer route for approving upgrades. His comments present a governance argument rather than evidence of an immediate quantum attack.

Hoskinson frames quantum security as a governance test

Bitcoin relies on elliptic-curve cryptography to prove ownership of funds. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could, in theory, derive private keys from exposed public keys and authorise transactions without the owner’s approval. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology describes this as a future risk and has already standardised algorithms designed to resist quantum attacks.

Hoskinson said quantum computing would test whether Bitcoin can change without weakening the qualities that support its value. He said BTC may not remain the leading cryptocurrency if its governance cannot make progress. However, he did not name another network that would replace it or give a date for a threat.

Bitcoin developers are already studying migration options

Bitcoin has no formal onchain voting body. Developers can propose code, but users and node operators decide whether to run it. Miners, exchanges and wallet providers also influence whether an upgrade gains enough support. This slower process avoids frequent rule changes, though it can make urgent coordination harder.

Work on quantum resistance is already active. Bitcoin Optech has tracked BIP 361, which outlines a phased move away from current ECDSA and Schnorr signatures after developers select a post-quantum system. Other proposals cover new address formats, hybrid signatures and recovery paths. These ideas remain under review.

Any such change would also need wallets, exchanges, custodians and long-dormant holders to migrate funds without splitting the network or creating conflicting ownership rules during a limited transition.

Some researchers estimate that millions of BTC sit in addresses whose public keys are visible. Those coins could face greater exposure if a capable quantum computer appears. The timing remains uncertain, and researchers continue to debate which coins should move, freeze or remain spendable.

Cardano points to formal onchain governance

Cardano completed its move to full community governance through the Plomin hard fork in January 2025. ADA holders can vote directly or delegate voting power to representatives known as DReps. Stake pool operators and a constitutional committee also take part in selected decisions. The system can approve hard forks and treasury withdrawals onchain. 

Hoskinson said Cardano could use that structure to vote on a migration away from quantum-vulnerable infrastructure. Yet Cardano has not completed such a migration. Its governance system must still evaluate technical designs, approve funding and organise users, developers and service providers around any change.

The process has also produced disputes.Cardano delegates rejected or challenged several proposals linked to Hoskinson and Input Output during 2026. One request included research into Leios scaling and quantum-resistant cryptography. Formal voting does not guarantee approval of a founder-backed plan.

Cardano prepares scaling work alongside security research

Hoskinson also said Cardano is preparing for its largest upgrade and claimed the network would become “60 times faster.” Development updates show teams are testing Ouroboros Leios, a design intended to increase throughput by separating block roles and allowing more work in parallel. Developers continue to integrate the prototype with Cardano node software. 

The 60-fold figure remains Hoskinson’s estimate rather than a measured result from the live network. Leios still requires testing, technical review and governance approval. Cardano’s recent van Rossem hard fork shows that DReps, stake pool operators and the constitutional committee can coordinate an upgrade.

Hoskinson described Cardano as a “spiritual successor” to Bitcoin because it keeps a fixed-supply monetary model while adding smart contracts and formal governance. Bitcoin supporters may reject that comparison, since Bitcoin’s limited change process forms part of its security model. Bitcoin depends on broad offchain consensus, while Cardano records many decisions directly onchain.

The quantum issue remains open for both networks. Bitcoin developers are designing migration options, while Cardano is funding research and building governance tools. Neither network has deployed a complete post-quantum transaction system. The practical test will come when developers agree on secure cryptography and communities must decide how to move users and funds.

Institutional trading platform LMAX Group is working with Morgan Stanley and KBW, Stifel’s investment banking arm, to review a possible sale or public listing.

People familiar with the private discussions told CoinDesk that a transaction could value the London-based company at up to $5 billion. The options include a full sale, a special purpose acquisition company merger, and initial public offerings in the U.S. or Europe.

A Nasdaq listing currently ranks as the preferred route, according to one of the unnamed sources. However, LMAX has not started a formal public process or agreed to a transaction. The company said it “declines to comment on speculation.” Morgan Stanley also declined to comment, while Stifel had not responded when the report was published.

LMAX considers several routes to a $5 billion valuation

LMAX operates trading venues and infrastructure for foreign exchange and digital assets. Its clients include banks, brokers, hedge funds and asset managers. The group owns LMAX Exchange, LMAX Global and LMAX Digital. It runs matching infrastructure in London, New York, Tokyo and Singapore, giving institutional clients access across major financial centres. The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority authorises LMAX Limited for specified financial activities.

The reported review does not mean LMAX will complete a sale or IPO. One source said the company felt no pressure to list while crypto markets remained weak. Its established foreign-exchange operation gives it a wider revenue base than companies that depend only on digital asset trading. That mix could allow management and shareholders to wait for better market conditions. It also gives potential buyers exposure to established currency markets and institutional crypto services.

Ripple financing supports LMAX’s cross-asset expansion

LMAX expanded its digital asset business in January through a multi-year partnership with Ripple. Ripple agreed to provide $150 million in financing, while LMAX agreed to integrate the RLUSD stablecoin across its institutional infrastructure. The companies said clients could use RLUSD for settlement, collateral and margin across spot crypto, perpetual futures and contracts for difference.

As crypto.news previously reported, the agreement formed part of a wider flow of capital into centralised finance and institutional market infrastructure. LMAX said RLUSD would also connect with LMAX Custody and its Kiosk service. The arrangement gives institutions another way to move dollar-denominated value between foreign exchange and digital asset positions outside standard banking hours.

Omnia and Kiosk widen the platform beyond spot crypto

In February, LMAX introduced Omnia Exchange, a 24/7 platform designed to let institutions convert traditional and tokenised assets through one API. The company said Omnia would support foreign exchange, cryptocurrencies, commodities and tokenised securities. The launch moved LMAX beyond its earlier focus on separate FX and spot crypto venues.

LMAX added Kiosk in May to combine custody, collateral management and trading access.institutions can deposit digital assets into LMAX Custody and use them across spot FX, precious metals, cryptocurrencies, perpetual futures and other products. In July, LMAX and Standard Chartered also completed their first digital asset prime brokerage trades for Bitcoin and Ether with T+1 settlement.

Crypto firms pursue deals despite weaker IPO conditions

The reported review comes as crypto firms seek scale through acquisitions and public listings. Kraken parent Payward completed its purchase of U.S. derivatives platform Bitnomial in May. Bullish also agreed to buy transfer agent Equiniti for $4.2 billion, adding shareholder recordkeeping and tokenisation infrastructure to its exchange business.

Public market conditions remain uneven. As crypto.news reported, hardware wallet maker Ledger paused its IPO plans because of weak investor demand and difficult market conditions. Blockchain.com, by contrast, filed confidentially for a U.S. listing. LMAX’s foreign-exchange business and recent institutional partnerships may separate it from crypto-only candidates, but any valuation will depend on market demand, financial results and the final structure.

LMAX last disclosed a major private valuation in July 2021. J.C. Flowers agreed to buy a 30% stake for $300 million, valuing the group at $1 billion. That deal involved a secondary sale by employees, while chief executive David Mercer and the management team kept substantial holdings.

A valuation of up to $5 billion would mark a fivefold increase from the 2021 transaction. No adviser or company statement has confirmed that figure as an agreed price. The strategic review remains at an early stage, and LMAX may choose to remain private if available offers or listing terms do not meet its requirements. LMAX has not named a timetable for completing the review process.

BitMart, a cryptocurrency exchange, has announced an orderly wind-down of its trading platform. The firm will end all trading services on Aug. 26 and fully cease operations on Jan. 31, 2027, according to a notice posted to its support portal on Sunday.

As part of the shutdown plan, BitMart said it has stopped accepting new user registrations and deposits. Futures trading has been moved to reduce-only mode, while spot markets will no longer accept new orders—changes that can materially affect liquidity and how quickly users can reposition or exit positions.

Key takeaways

• BitMart will halt trading services on Aug. 26 and close permanently on Jan. 31, 2027, following an orderly wind-down announcement.
• The platform has stopped new registrations and deposits; futures are reduce-only and spot trading no longer accepts new orders.
• BitMart’s native token BMX fell sharply, losing nearly 70% in a short window amid user complaints about withdrawals.
• According to Arkham data, wallets attributed to BitMart held about $71 million in crypto assets on Sunday, down from roughly $102 million on July 6.

BitMart’s wind-down timeline and trading restrictions

In its notice, BitMart said it reached the decision after evaluating “operating conditions, market environment, and future strategic direction,” and that it would begin an orderly wind-down of its trading platform operations.

Operationally, the company has already tightened access: it stopped accepting new user registrations and deposits. It also introduced trading limitations consistent with a platform winding down risk: futures trading was shifted to reduce-only mode, and spot markets stopped taking new orders.

For users, these restrictions typically mean the exchange becomes less capable of accommodating new risk-taking activity, and positions may become harder to manage as market depth changes. The policy also increases the importance of withdrawal functionality, since exiting holdings may be the primary remaining action.

BMX plunges as withdrawal complaints surface

BitMart’s BMX token came under heavy pressure during the announcement cycle. At the time of writing, BMX traded around $0.09464, down nearly 70% from about $0.31 late Friday. The token reportedly slipped as low as $0.1058 early Saturday before extending its decline.

Several users on X reported that withdrawals were taking longer than usual. Some claims focused on Tether’s USDT withdrawals remaining pending for hours.

BitMart also warned that some withdrawal requests could be subject to additional compliance and security reviews, which may extend processing times. That detail can be important for users deciding whether to wait, cancel, or resubmit withdrawal requests as the exchange transitions toward shutdown.

Before publication, BitMart did not respond to a request for comment made by Cointelegraph.

On-chain balances and what Arkham data suggests

While trading has been winding down in stages, attention has turned to whether user funds can be withdrawn smoothly. Arkham data, accessible via its explorer, indicated that wallets attributed to BitMart held about $71 million in crypto assets on Sunday—down from roughly $102 million on July 6.

Of the tracked holdings, about $41.5 million was in stablecoin-banking platform WeFi’s WFI tokens, while BitMart-attributed wallets held about $91,000 in USDT, according to the same Arkham view.

The decline in total assets over the period highlighted by Arkham does not, by itself, explain whether assets are moving into customer withdrawals, into other custody arrangements, or into operational buffers. Still, it provides traders and users with a real-time way to observe whether BitMart-attributed balances are shrinking as the wind-down progresses.

More platform shutdowns—and token confusion around BitMart vs BitMEX

BitMart’s plan places it among a growing list of crypto trading platforms announcing closures. Earlier in the week, BitMEX and Dango also said they would shut down their respective trading platforms, according to Cointelegraph’s coverage of those announcements.

Separately, social media chatter showed some confusion between BitMart’s token and BitMEX-related tickers. On Saturday, an X user in a Mandarin-speaking crypto community referred to BMX’s drop while speculating about the reason, and another user responded—citing a mismatch between online discussion and BitMEX’s announced shutdown date.

That reference did not align with BitMEX’s Sept. 23 shutdown date, as Cointelegraph previously reported. Cointelegraph also noted that BitMEX’s own token BMEX fell about 90% shortly after BitMEX’s notice, while multiple accounts in the same community appeared to mix up BMX with BitMEX.

It was not immediately clear whether that confusion materially affected BMX trading or simply reflected broader information noise during the broader shutdown cycle. Still, it highlights a recurring risk for users: during periods of exchange closures, similarly named products and tokens can lead to misinterpretation of price moves and the underlying drivers.

As BitMart moves from trading restrictions toward full cessation in January 2027, users should watch withdrawal processing times and any further changes to compliance review steps, while traders may want to monitor whether on-chain balances tied to BitMart continue trending downward as the wind-down advances.

Bitcoin mining’s annualized electricity demand rose to about 190 terawatt-hours in December 2025, up 38% from 138 the in June 2024, according to preliminary research reported by theEnergyMag.

Alexander Neumueller of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance presented the figures at the Energy Investors Forum in Dallas. Cambridge expects to publish the second edition of its Digital Mining Industry Report later in 2026.

The research also found that hydropower had overtaken natural gas as Bitcoin mining’s largest single energy source. Low-carbon power supplied 59.4% of the reported mining mix, up from 52.4% in the previous study. However, total estimated greenhouse-gas emissions still increased by 20%, from about 40 million to 48 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent.

Hydropower takes the largest share of mining power

The 2025 Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report found that natural gas supplied 38.2% of surveyed miners’ electricity, making it the largest single source at the time. Renewables provided 42.6% in total, while nuclear power added 9.8%. Coal’s share had fallen to 8.9%, down from 36.6% in the earlier 2022 estimate.

The preliminary update changes that order. Hydropower now ranks ahead of natural gas, although Cambridge has not released the full breakdown for each source. Neumueller linked part of the change to stronger survey coverage in hydro-rich markets such as Ethiopia.Ethiopia expanded Bitcoin mining around low-cost electricity from the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

Electricity demand rises faster than emissions

The network’s annualized power use increased by about 52 TWh between the two reference points. Annualized demand measures the electricity Bitcoin mining would use over a year if the December 2025 rate continued. It does not mean miners consumed exactly 190 TWh during the 2025 calendar year.

Emissions rose more slowly than electricity demand because miners reported using a lower-carbon power mix. Even so, Cambridge’s estimate still increased from roughly 40 million to 48 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. The cleaner mix slowed the rate of emissions growth, but it did not offset higher overall electricity consumption.

More mining machines joined the network during the measured period, raising total computing power. Newer hardware can perform more calculations for each unit of electricity, but efficiency gains did not fully counter the increase in hashrate. Cambridge’s Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index tracks how prices, transaction fees, mining equipment and network difficulty can change estimated electricity demand over time.

Preliminary figures carry survey limits

Cambridge based the new estimates mainly on responses from mining companies representing slightly more than half of global Bitcoin hashrate. The wider coverage gives researchers a larger sample than the first report. However, the final publication may revise some figures after Cambridge completes further checks.

The 2025 report also warned that survey participation can distort geographic estimates. U.S. companies supplied a large share of responses, which likely overstated the country’s portion of global mining activity. The latest rise in reported hydropower may partly reflect better coverage of miners in Ethiopia and other markets that rely more heavily on hydroelectric generation.

Cambridge’s earlier study estimated 39.8 million tonnes of emissions using its survey-based method. A separate location-based model produced a much higher estimate of 69.6 million tonnes. The gap shows that results depend on assumptions about mining locations, electricity contracts, grid mixes and the use of stranded or flared energy.

Miners explore AI, but deployments remain limited

The new survey also examined whether Bitcoin miners are shifting power capacity into artificial intelligence and high-performance computing. About 10% of respondents said they had already allocated some power to AI or accelerated computing. More than 40% of the remaining miners said they were actively exploring the option.

Neumueller cautioned that “intent to look into it is not commitment to deploy.” AI data centers need costly networking, cooling and reliability systems that basic Bitcoin mining sites may not have. Miners can quickly reduce Bitcoin loads when electricity prices rise, while AI customers usually require steady power and stronger service guarantees.

Still, almost nine in ten respondents expected AI and HPC diversification to gain ground over the next several years. As crypto.news reported, listed miners have already announced more than $70 billion in AI and HPC contracts as they seek steadier revenue outside Bitcoin production.

The change is already visible in some company results. TeraWulf generated more revenue from HPC hosting than Bitcoin mining during the first quarter of 2026. It reported $21 million from HPC services, compared with less than $13 million from digital asset mining.

The Cambridge findings show two changes taking place together. Bitcoin mining uses more electricity, while hydropower and other low-carbon sources account for a larger share. At the same time, mining companies are assessing whether their power connections and sites can support AI services. Cambridge’s full report will provide a detailed energy breakdown and final methodology later in 2026.

The XRP Ledger added about $2.6 billion in tokenized real-world asset value during the past six months, excluding stablecoins, according to data from RWA.xyz. 

That placed XRPL second among tracked blockchain networks for net RWA inflows during the period. BNB Chain ranked first with about $3 billion, while Stellar followed XRPL with roughly $2.1 billion.

The increase lifted XRPL’s combined distributed and represented RWA value to about $4.38 billion on July 26. The RWA.xyz dashboard listed $323.21 million in distributed assets and $4.06 billion in represented assets. The network also held $995.12 million in stablecoins, taking its broader total above $5.37 billion when those tokens are included.

XRP Ledger moves higher in RWA rankings

The six-month figures placed XRPL ahead of several larger smart-contract networks for new tokenized asset value. Solana added about $1.6 billion, while Avalanche attracted roughly $972 million. Ethereum remained the largest home for distributed tokenized assets, but its net addition during the measured period was lower at about $424 million.

The latest rise continues a trend visible earlier in 2026.XRPL moved into sixth place in the tokenized RWA rankings in February after adding $354 million in one month. A crypto.news report in July found that tokenized assets on the ledger had passed $3 billion as developers added compliance tools, permissioned trading and proposed lending features.

Tokenized energy drives most of XRPL’s total

Justoken’s JMWH product accounts for the largest share of XRPL’s RWA value. RWA.xyz valued the represented commodity asset at $2.229 billion on July 26. Each JMWH token represents one megawatt-hour of contracted energy output. The issuer mints tokens against energy agreements and burns them after the electricity is delivered and consumed.

The asset also shows why represented value and active onchain liquidity are not the same measure. RWA.xyz recorded only 19 JMWH holders, one active address over 30 days, no monthly transfers and no monthly transfer volume. The token therefore works mainly as a blockchain record for energy contracts rather than a widely traded asset. JMWH alone accounts for about 51% of XRPL’s total RWA value.

Justoken said it had tokenized more than $2.84 billion in total value across its products. In March, the company announced an energy tokenization project with Argentina-based power producer YPF Luz using the XRP Ledger. The wider product links blockchain records with contracts for electricity generation and consumption.

Distributed assets and stablecoins expand

XRPL’s distributed asset segment remains much smaller than its represented segment, but several financial products now operate on the network. RWA.xyz listed about $323 million in distributed assets. Ondo Finance, Braza Crypto, OpenEden Digital, Société Générale-FORGE and other issuers contribute to this category through tokenized Treasuries, credit products and regulated digital money.

Ripple’s RLUSD remains the largest stablecoin platform on XRPL. RWA.xyz showed about $894.7 million in RLUSD on the network, while all XRPL stablecoins totalled about $995.12 million. Braza Crypto ranked behind RLUSD with products worth about $83.4 million. Stablecoin transfer volume reached $4 billion over 30 days.

A May pilot also tested how tokenized funds can connect XRPL with bank payment rails. As crypto.news reported, Ripple redeemed part of its holdings in Ondo Finance’s OUSG Treasury product on XRPL. Mastercard sent settlement instructions to Kinexys by J.P. Morgan, which moved U.S. dollars to Ripple’s Singapore bank account.

Ondo said the asset leg settled in under five seconds. Ondo Finance President Ian De Bode called it the “first time tokenized U.S. Treasuries have settled across borders and banks in near real time.” The transaction combined a public blockchain asset transfer with traditional bank settlement.

RWA growth does not equal direct XRP demand

RWA growth measures asset value recorded or issued on the ledger. It does not show how much XRP investors purchased or how often they used the native token. Most institutional products can use XRPL for issuance and settlement while paying only small network fees in XRP. Stablecoins such as RLUSD can also handle the cash side of transactions without using XRP as a bridge asset.

The asset mix also matters when comparing networks. Represented assets refer to offchain holdings or contracts recorded on a blockchain, while distributed assets are issued and held more directly onchain. XRPL’s represented value accounts for more than 92% of its non-stablecoin RWA total. JMWH alone drives more than half of that figure.

Even so, XRPL has added more issuers and asset types during 2026. Its RWA count reached 373, while the number of tracked holders rose 14.29% over 30 days to 176. The ledger’s stablecoin holders reached about 60,080. These figures show a broader tokenization base, although ownership remains concentrated in several products.

Ripple and XRPL developers are also building infrastructure for regulated markets. Crypto.news reported that permissioned domains, credentials and a permissioned exchange layer now support identity-based access rules on the public ledger. Proposed lending standards could add fixed-term credit products if validators approve them. The next stage will depend on whether issuers turn the growing asset base into regular transfers, trading and settlement activity.