Shibarium has resolved its reported reorg issue as of Sept. 19, while dRPC migration and other infrastructure work remain unfinished.

Mazrael, a longtime Shiba Inu community member, relayed an update attributed to developer Kaal Dhairya in a Sept. 19 X post, saying “Kaal says reorg is solved.” The message said dRPC still needed to complete the same transition in the network’s new environment. Public reporting reproduced the statement, though detailed technical information explaining the reorg’s cause, duration or affected blocks has not been released.

A separate public statement directly from Dhairya explaining the reorg was not located in the sources reviewed. The resolution therefore remains attributed to the update shared by Mazrael, while current Shiba Inu technical documentation independently confirms several infrastructure changes surrounding Shibarium’s RPC and node setup.

Shibarium reorg is fixed while dRPC work continues

The latest update places the reorg fix inside a longer infrastructure migration that began before September. Shibarium replaced its previous public RPC setup in late 2025 and now directs users and applications to https://rpc.shibarium.shib.io, according to the network’s current official documentation. The page lists Shibarium as chain ID 109, with BONE as its native currency and Shibariumscan as the network explorer.

Mazrael’s update describes dRPC as the remaining party that needs to complete the transition into the new environment. No deadline for that step was provided in the post, and the available Shiba Inu documentation does not give a completion date for the dRPC migration.

The current material does not identify the reorg as a new exploit. No published security notice reviewed for this report links the September 2026 reorg to stolen funds, compromised validator keys or another bridge attack. The lack of technical disclosure means the scope of the reorganization cannot yet be independently measured from the statements released so far.

Shibarium suffered a separate security event in September 2025. As crypto.news reported, an attacker obtained control over enough validator keys to exploit the bridge and remove roughly $2.4 million in assets after using a 4.6 million BONE flash loan. Developers responded by restricting functions and securing remaining assets.

Node operators received new Bor and Heimdall peers

Days before the reorg resolution update, Shibarium node operators were told to replace old peer information.

On Sept. 15, Mazrael reported that the network had completed a full peer rotation covering Bor static nodes and Heimdall persistent peers. The update was described as a replacement of the previous configuration, not an expansion of the existing peer list. Contemporary reports said the new IP set differed completely from the old one.

Shibarium’s official node guide currently instructs operators to confirm that seeds and bootnodes match official values when setting up nodes. The guide covers separate Heimdall and Bor processes and tells operators to check Heimdall synchronization before starting Bor. A catching_up: false result indicates that Heimdall has completed synchronization.

The documentation specifies port 26656 for Heimdall peer-to-peer communication and port 30303 for Bor peer-to-peer traffic. Full and sentry nodes require at least 16 GB to 32 GB of RAM under the published minimums, while validator nodes are listed at 32 GB to 64 GB.

Shibarium advises operators to use snapshots for quicker recovery and migration, monitor disk and network performance and keep node software updated. Its documentation says public access should go through sentry nodes instead of exposing validator ports directly to the internet.

RPC registry now points to Shibarium’s official endpoint

The public Ethereum chain registry independently confirms the updated Shibarium connection information.

The current ethereum-lists chain ID 109 entry names Shibarium and lists https://rpc.shibarium.shib.io as its first RPC endpoint, followed by a NOWNodes endpoint. It records both the chain ID and network ID as 109 and points users to Shibariumscan as the explorer.

The registry is used by wallets and Web3 services to obtain standardized EVM network metadata. Its Shibarium entry now matches the RPC endpoint published by Shiba Inu’s own documentation, providing an independently visible record of the updated network configuration.

Reporting around the current migration said the registry entry had lagged behind Shibarium’s November 2025 RPC move before being refreshed in 2026. The official documents reviewed confirm the present endpoint configuration, though they do not state when every third-party wallet, node provider or middleware service adopted it.

Shibarium’s infrastructure work comes after the network crossed a major usage threshold last year. In related crypto.news coverage, Shibarium surpassed one billion cumulative transactions in April 2025, with more than 194 million addresses recorded at the time.

Explorer indexing and validator maintenance remain unfinished

Shibariumscan has been rebuilding its indexed chain data during the infrastructure work. U.Today reported on Sept. 20 that the explorer displayed 53% of blocks as indexed at the time of its check. The percentage refers to explorer reindexing and should not be treated as a measurement of overall Shibarium network recovery.

The live Shibariumscan explorer remains accessible, though its current index-completion percentage was not available as retrievable text during this review. The 53% figure is therefore best treated as the Sept. 20 snapshot reported from the explorer, not a current figure guaranteed to remain unchanged.

Infrastructure work extends beyond the explorer. Shiba Inu’s official ecosystem status service currently lists Shibarium Validator Staking as under maintenance following an infrastructure migration that began April 17, 2026. The notice says users may be unable to access or interact with validator staking during the maintenance period and advises them not to attempt staking transactions until service is restored.

The official SHIB Ecosystem Status page still displays the validator staking disruption as unresolved, with the engineering team working on restoration and no public completion date listed.

First, he flagged a crucial mix-up in Beni’s original post, explaining that the Artemis chart cited in the complaint measured prediction-market share rather than perpetual contract volume.

He also demystified why Kalshi’s volume numbers look so high, explaining that they use the exact same reporting convention as Polymarket: volume reflects the maximum potential payout, not the upfront cash spent. Because each event contract pays out exactly $1 to the winner, the industry tracks volume by counting the total number of $1 outcomes on the line. For example, if a trader buys 100,000 contracts priced at 30 cents, they spend only $30,000 in cash, but the system records $100,000 in volume because that is the total maximum value of the contracts at maturity. This naturally inflates the headline volume figures, but it represents real user demand, not fake wash trading.

Turning his attention to the perpetual contracts, IcoBeast firmly rejected the idea that Kalshi handpicks a closed club of Self-Clearing Members. Under CFTC regulations, “fair access” is legally mandated, meaning any firm that clears the necessary capital and operational hurdles is legally entitled to join.

“Separately on perps you claimed that “Here SCM means market makers that are selected by Kalshi lmfao”. This isn’t true. Anyone can become a Self-Clearing Member of a CFTC regulated exchange as long as they meet the regulatory requirements. “Fair access” is a reg requirement for us,” IcoBeast.eth said.

Michael Saylor has urged the U.S. crypto industry to use existing regulatory paths and target 50 million users after the Senate’s Sept. 15 CLARITY Act cloture vote failed 49-50.

Strategy’s Sept. 19 policy essay on digital assets after CLARITY lays out Saylor’s preferred path for 2027 and 2028: expand compliant digital-asset products under current agency authority, build a large customer base, then pursue focused legislation where Congress is still needed.

The official Senate roll call shows 49 senators voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633, while 50 voted against and one did not vote. The motion needed three-fifths support. It was a procedural vote on whether to begin consideration, not a final vote on passage.

Michael Saylor wants adoption before another CLARITY push

Michael Saylor said the industry should concentrate on products that lower costs, improve access and give users more control over money. His examples include Bitcoin custody and lending, digital credit, tokenized equity trading, exchanges combining regulated services, and dollar stablecoin payments.

The Strategy executive chairman set a target of 50 million U.S. users benefiting from such products. He argued that a large user base would create a constituency with a direct interest in keeping those services available, writing, “Adoption raises the political cost of reversal.” The 50 million figure is Saylor’s proposed policy target, not a government projection or adoption forecast.

Saylor’s position differs from the case made by CLARITY’s Senate sponsors. Sens. Cynthia Lummis, John Boozman and Tim Scott said their Sept. 14 draft would establish a statutory market structure while adding consumer, developer and ethics provisions after more than a year of negotiations. Their statement said the text contained 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats.

CFTC Chairman Michael Selig has taken a two-track approach. In August, he said passage of CLARITY remained his preferred legislative outcome while directing staff to prepare possible rules under existing Commodity Exchange Act authority if Congress did not advance the bill.

CLARITY compromise would restrict some stablecoin rewards

The final Senate draft supports part of Michael Saylor’s description of the stablecoin provisions. Section 10404 would prohibit a covered digital-asset service provider from paying interest or yield to a U.S. customer solely for holding payment stablecoins, or through arrangements economically equivalent to an interest-bearing bank deposit.

The same section would permit bona fide activity-based or transaction-based rewards that are not equivalent to deposit interest. The text lists examples tied to payments, transfers, liquidity provision, collateral, governance, validation, staking and other qualifying product use.

A separate circuit-breaker would require Treasury action if the secretary determined within 18 months of enactment that transfers from community-bank interest-bearing deposits into payment stablecoins had caused substantial detrimental effects tied specifically to the regulated reward activity. The Senate sponsors described the provision as a tool to address deposit flight from community banks.

The separate GENIUS Act already prohibits permitted payment stablecoin issuers from paying holders interest or yield solely for holding, using or retaining a payment stablecoin. Its statutory effective-date provisions remain separate from CLARITY. Michael Saylor argued that the Senate compromise would place another layer of restrictions on service providers beyond the issuer rule.

Saylor raised a second objection to the proposed CFTC-SEC Micro-Innovation Sandbox. The Sept. 14 draft says eligible firms could employ no more than 25 people, report annual gross revenue of no more than $10 million and commit no more than $20 million in customer, investor or counterparty funds for sandbox activities. Each commission could approve no more than 20 projects per year.

SEC and CFTC are moving under existing authority

Two federal developments after the Senate vote match the regulatory path Michael Saylor cited, though neither creates the full statutory framework contemplated by CLARITY.

On Sept. 17, the SEC granted temporary, conditional exemptive relief allowing eligible Tokenized Securities Venues to trade certain tokenized National Market System stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. Eligible tokens must carry the same rights and privileges as the corresponding traditional shares, and issuers can object to their securities being traded through the framework. 

As crypto.news reported in its coverage of the SEC order, the exemption creates a five-year conditional pathway for qualifying tokenized stocks. The SEC is seeking public feedback while considering further regulatory action.

The CFTC moved its process forward the same day. An Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs record shows the agency submitted “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets” for White House review on Sept. 17. The entry lists the action at the prerule stage and shows no legal deadline.

As crypto.news reported on the CFTC submission, the filing follows Selig’s August direction to staff to explore a crypto market structure using existing authority. Selig had identified possible rules for leveraged or margined crypto trading through regulated markets and engagement with developers seeking lawful routes for onchain finance.

Bank regulators have taken separate steps under existing statutes. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said in March 2025 that national banks and federal savings associations may conduct crypto custody, certain stablecoin activities and distributed-ledger node verification, subject to applicable law and risk controls. The OCC removed a prior supervisory non-objection requirement for those activities.

Treasury is working through the GENIUS Act on a different track. Its Aug. 17 proposed rule sought comment on implementing payment-stablecoin requirements, with Treasury identifying Jan. 18, 2027 as the expected effective date. 

CLARITY remains available for another Senate attempt

The Sept. 15 vote did not remove H.R. 3633 from the Senate calendar. After the cloture motion failed, Sen. Thom Tillis made a motion to reconsider, according to the Senate’s daily floor record. No new cloture vote date had been announced in the official material reviewed as of Sept. 21.

Negotiations have continued outside the floor vote. As crypto.news reported after the Senate setback, seven Democratic senators who opposed cloture said the failed vote was not the end of negotiations. Any renewed attempt would still need enough support to meet the Senate’s procedural threshold before debate and amendments could begin.

The latest concrete agency update is now at OIRA. Its public docket lists CFTC rulemaking RIN 3038-AF80 as pending review, received Sept. 17, under the title “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets.” The filing does not publish proposed rule text, and the prerule designation does not itself impose new trading or registration obligations.

Hana Bank has issued a $100 million five-year foreign-currency digital bond through Euroclear’s blockchain-based D-FMI platform, completing allocation and settlement on the same day.

Yonhap News reported on Sept. 21, citing Hana Bank, that the transaction used Euroclear’s Digital Financial Market Infrastructure to process issuance, registration and settlement through distributed ledger technology. Hana said the structure reduced a process that normally takes three to five business days to same-day settlement.

A separate report citing the bank placed the issuance on Sept. 18 and described it as the first T+0 settlement in South Korea’s foreign-currency bond market. The same report said the bond was issued under Hana Bank’s global medium-term note documentation, with Standard Chartered serving as sole lead manager.

Hana Bank digital bond settles through D-FMI in one day

Hana Bank said the $100 million bond used DLT for bond allocation and payment settlement. Euroclear’s platform recorded the digital security while keeping the instrument connected to its international securities infrastructure, according to the bank’s statement reported by Yonhap.

Investors do not need a separate trading system to access the bond. Hana said holders can use their existing Euroclear accounts and trading arrangements because D-FMI connects to Euroclear’s established global settlement network.

Euroclear’s own D-FMI documentation confirms the platform supports issuance, distribution and primary-market settlement of fully dematerialized Digital Native Notes using DLT. Euroclear says Digital Securities Issuance, or D-SI, forms the first service available through D-FMI.

The infrastructure supports delivery-versus-payment settlement in U.S. dollars and euros. Euroclear says securities created through D-FMI can then move into its conventional settlement environment for secondary-market activity, allowing investors to use existing trading venues and liquidity tools.

Euroclear’s documentation states that pricing, distribution and settlement can take place on the same day. It describes the service as integrated with Euroclear Bank and compliant with the Central Securities Depositories Regulation.

Hana’s deal follows another $100M Korean digital bond

Hana Bank’s transaction is not South Korea’s first foreign-currency digital bond overall. KB Kookmin Bank completed a separate $100 million blockchain-based bond sale in June using HSBC’s Orion platform.

As crypto.news previously reported, KB Kookmin issued a two-year digital bond in Hong Kong, with the transaction cutting settlement from five business days to three. The deal used HSBC Orion instead of Euroclear D-FMI.

Hana’s Sept. 18 transaction therefore carries a narrower first: Yonhap described it as South Korea’s first digital bond to directly use Euroclear’s proprietary blockchain infrastructure. The bank’s other cited first concerns same-day settlement in the domestic foreign-currency bond market.

The structure kept the digital security connected with established institutional market infrastructure. DigitalToday reported that Hana used documentation from its existing global medium-term note framework, with Standard Chartered managing the bond’s structure, issuance and sale.

Hana Financial Group and Standard Chartered had already agreed in March to cooperate on global business and digital assets. Their agreement covered areas including tokenization and other digital-asset services, according to Hana Financial’s announcement reported at the time.

Euroclear has expanded D-FMI since its 2023 launch

Euroclear introduced D-SI in October 2023 as the first service built on its D-FMI infrastructure. The inaugural transaction involved a €100 million digital bond from the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The World Bank security was issued, distributed and settled using DLT before being connected with Euroclear’s conventional infrastructure for later trading. Citi acted as issuing and paying agent, TD Securities served as dealer, and the bond was listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange.

Euroclear has since processed digital debt from banks and multilateral institutions in several markets. Its current D-FMI materials list transactions involving the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Türkiye’s İşbank and Akbank, France’s Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations and Citi.

In 2025, İşbank issued a $100 million digitally native note through D-FMI with the International Finance Corporation as sole investor. Euroclear said the transaction used DLT for issuance, distribution and settlement while remaining connected to established trading and liquidity infrastructure.

Akbank followed with another $100 million DNN in December 2025. Euroclear said at the time that it had facilitated seven other digital issuances worth €800 million since the platform’s first deal with the World Bank.

Institutional use continued into 2026. In related coverage, crypto.news reported that Banco do Brasil invested $5 million in a digitally native structured note issued by Citi through Euroclear’s D-FMI infrastructure. Citi’s Luxembourg entity issued the note, while its London branch handled issuance and payment agency functions.

Digital bond settlement is expanding across Asian markets

South Korea’s banks are testing digital debt while other Asian financial centers are developing regulated DLT settlement systems.

In June, the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation priced approximately HK$12 billion, or $1.5 billion, of digital bonds across three tranches. As crypto.news reported, the issuer described the transaction as the world’s largest completed digital bond sale at that point, with orders reaching around HK$24 billion from more than 100 institutional accounts.

Hong Kong’s transaction used the Central Moneymarkets Unit’s blockchain platform and reduced settlement from five business days to three. Investors retained access through existing infrastructure connected with Euroclear and Clearstream.

Hana Bank has been building its own connection to international securities settlement channels this year. On Aug. 27, the bank said it had completed a Korean government bond transaction and linked U.S. dollar settlement through an international central securities depository, becoming the first South Korean commercial bank to complete that type of transaction, according to Yonhap.

The bank had been building the process since South Korea permitted offshore settlement of government bonds through international central securities depositories in January 2026. Hana said the August transaction combined the government bond trade with foreign-exchange settlement in dollars.

For the new digital bond, Hana has disclosed a five-year tenor but has not announced another D-FMI issuance schedule in the materials reviewed as of Sept. 21. Euroclear’s platform will allow the issued security to move through its existing settlement infrastructure for secondary-market transactions using participating investors’ current accounts and systems.

Bitcoin ended the week above a level that many market watchers associate with cycle turning points: its 50-week moving average. The move marks the first time in more than 10 months that the benchmark has been reclaimed on a weekly closing basis—an outcome analysts say often aligns with the end phase of bear markets, though they caution that one close alone cannot confirm a new bull cycle.

According to TradingView, Bitcoin closed Sunday’s session at $81,159 on Coinbase, holding above its 50-week moving average of $78,788. The previous weekly close above the 50-week average occurred on Nov. 9, 2025. The latest result also represents Bitcoin’s highest weekly close in about four months, per the same TradingView data.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin’s weekly close at $81,159 is the first above its 50-week moving average in over 10 months, based on TradingView.
• Galaxy Research’s Alex Thorn has previously framed the 50-week moving average as a “bear market ceiling,” with historical follow-through after reclaiming it.
• Analysts including Bitget’s Ryan Lee stress that confirmation now depends on whether Bitcoin can stay above the average and build higher lows.
• Galaxy Research has also highlighted that reclaim signals can fail—especially in past cycles when the broader macro environment remained strained.
• Not all traders view the 50-week level as decisive; some are instead watching higher thresholds on the monthly and quarterly charts.

Why reclaiming the 50-week moving average matters

The 50-week moving average has become a commonly cited technical line because of how price tends to behave around it during downtrends. In August, Galaxy Research head of firmwide research Alex Thorn described the metric as functioning like a “ceiling” during bear markets—an area that price struggles to regain until the market’s momentum shifts.

In a research note cited in this week’s discussion, Thorn pointed out that in four of the five completed bear markets, once the 50-week moving average was first broken upward, the bear-market bottom was later confirmed. He added that retaking the 50-week moving average has previously served as a practical confirmation of bear-market completion.

That context helps explain why this week’s close is drawing attention: it doesn’t just represent short-term strength; it reconnects Bitcoin with a longer-duration trend gauge that has historically been more meaningful than many shorter moving averages.

A milestone, but traders want follow-through

Even with the technical milestone, several analysts are careful not to treat a single weekly close as the full verdict on the cycle. Bitget chief analyst Ryan Lee, speaking to Cointelegraph, said the latest close increases the odds that Bitcoin’s recovery is underway—but emphasized what comes next.

Lee noted that in prior cycles, reclaiming the 50-week moving average has often occurred after the major low was already established and longer-term momentum began to repair. However, he argued that buyers still need evidence that the market can hold the level and develop a healthier structure.

“What matters now is whether Bitcoin can stay above the 50-week average and continue forming higher lows,” Lee said. He also warned that failures can happen when macro conditions remain difficult, pointing to instances of “failed reclaims” in earlier cycles.

This concern aligns with Galaxy Research’s own caution. While Thorn’s framework suggests the 50-week moving average tends to confirm bear-market resolution, the research also indicates the indicator isn’t perfect. Galaxy’s warning, as referenced here, notes that among 13 weekly crossings back above the 50-week moving average, two were followed by a lower low—both within the 2021–2022 bear market. The implication is straightforward for investors: the reclaim is meaningful, but it must be validated by continued trend behavior.

What’s driving the stronger backdrop

Beyond the chart, analysts referenced improvements in the broader market environment since earlier in the year. Lee said the backdrop is stronger than earlier in 2025, highlighting that Bitcoin has rebounded significantly from July lows around $57,000. He also pointed to the possibility that repeated liquidations may have reduced leverage that had accumulated in the market, potentially improving the ability of price to sustain upward moves.

Lee further mentioned signs of renewed institutional interest, framing institutional demand as an element that could help support follow-through if the technical level holds.

For traders, this mix—improving structure on the weekly chart alongside evidence of de-leveraging and participation—helps explain why the 50-week reclaim is being treated as more than a one-week anomaly.

Other levels still in focus

Not everyone agrees that the 50-week moving average is the decisive checkpoint for a bull market call. Crypto trader Craig Cobb told Cointelegraph that he does not use the 50-week level as his primary trigger. Instead, he emphasized $83,000 as a key threshold.

According to Cobb, breaking above $83,000 would imply there is no lower high on the monthly chart—meaning the longer-term trend would no longer be down. His second condition is tied to Bitcoin’s quarterly chart pattern: he is watching for a sequence where red quarterly candles are followed by a shift into a green candle, and then a later candle breaks above the green candle’s high.

Cobb said this red-to-green transition has occurred 15 times in Bitcoin’s history. He stated that in 11 instances, the high of the first green candle was later broken, and each of those outcomes eventually produced a new all-time high. On that basis, he argued that investors should be attentive to specific technical confirmations rather than relying on a single moving average.

His framework ties cycle interpretation more directly to higher-timeframe trend structure—useful as a reminder that different traders often treat the 50-week metric as a supporting signal, not the entire thesis.

Going forward, the most important question is whether Bitcoin can hold above the 50-week moving average and continue the process of forming higher lows, as Lee suggested. Investors and traders will likely watch for additional weekly closes around the $78,788 area, while others may shift attention to higher breakout levels such as $83,000 and quarterly chart confirmation.

Kalshi has faced fresh wash-trading allegations after trader Beni cited roughly $538.6 million in 24-hour ETH-PERP volume against approximately $3.1 million in open interest, while the exchange’s crypto lead disputed the claims and pointed to differences between prediction markets and perpetual futures.

Beni’s Sept. 20 thread on X argued that the reported ETH perpetual turnover appeared unusually large compared with open interest. He calculated the ratio at roughly 174 times and cited a Kalshi position leaderboard that he said showed its largest position at $17,598 at the time of his screenshots.

The figures in Beni’s screenshots could not be independently reconstructed from Kalshi’s current public pages because trading data changes continuously. No CFTC enforcement action reviewed as of Sept. 21 has accused Kalshi of wash trading in its crypto perpetual markets. The regulator’s current Kalshi-related release index contains no public case matching the ETH-PERP allegations.

Beni wrote, “Kalshi fakes their crypto volume and I can prove it.” His posts present that statement as an allegation. They do not establish through an enforcement finding, exchange audit or identified trading accounts that wash trades occurred.

Kalshi rebate filing puts crypto perps under scrutiny

A separate part of Beni’s argument focused on Kalshi’s temporary perpetual fee rebate program, which can be checked against the exchange’s official regulatory filing.

Kalshi submitted its latest program update to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Sept. 2. The filing was certified on Sept. 16, according to the CFTC filing database. Kalshi said the program applies to all of its perpetual markets, including cryptocurrency and metals contracts, and remains scheduled to run through Dec. 31 unless amended or ended sooner.

For cryptocurrency perpetuals, eligible taker fees are rebated down to 0.3 basis points, or 0.003%. Eligible makers receive rebates that leave them with a net 0.3-basis-point payment. The terms define eligible participants as all Kalshi Self-Clearing Members.

Beni cited the positive maker rebate and reduced taker charge to argue that matched trading could face little or no combined fee cost. Kalshi’s filing addresses that structure directly: payments must be reduced when overlapping incentive programs would produce net-negative combined maker and taker fees on an individual trade.

More importantly for the wash-trading allegation, the same document states that fees from transactions resulting from, or being investigated for, self-matching, wash trading, pre-arranged trading or other abusive practices are excluded from rebate eligibility. Kalshi says its Chief Regulatory Officer can revoke a participant’s program status and pursue disciplinary proceedings when warranted.

The filing therefore confirms the rebate rates Beni discussed, but it does not establish that rebates were paid on wash trades.

Kalshi says prediction volume and perps were conflated

Kalshi crypto lead IcoBeast disputed Beni’s argument in a Sept. 20 response on X, saying two separate products had been mixed together.

IcoBeast said the Artemis chart that prompted the initial exchange concerned prediction-market share, not perpetual futures. He said Kalshi does not operate the cited rebate program for its crypto prediction markets and described the perpetual incentives as a separate program.

Kalshi’s own documentation confirms the product distinction. Its current trading glossary defines prediction-market volume as the number of contracts traded during a period. The same glossary states that perpetual futures are separate products involving margin, leverage, funding payments and no fixed expiry.

Beni separately alleged that Kalshi’s interface displays prediction-market contract volume beside a dollar sign, which he argued could make contract counts appear to represent dollars traded. The reviewed Kalshi glossary confirms that its stated prediction-market definition is contract count, but the historical interface presentation described in Beni’s screenshots was not independently verified.

IcoBeast maintained that Kalshi uses a convention common among prediction platforms. “I know it’s all real,” he wrote in an earlier exchange after Beni questioned the reported activity. 

Kalshi’s ETH perpetual market has operated since June. As crypto.news reported when ETH-PERP launched, the exchange introduced Ethereum perpetual futures shortly after its regulated Bitcoin perpetual contract began trading in the U.S. Kalshi has since expanded to Bitcoin and 17 altcoin perpetual products.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported in June that Kalshi said perpetual volume exceeded $5.5 billion within the first two weeks of the product rollout. That figure came from Kalshi through Bloomberg and predates the present dispute.

CFTC guidance specifically addresses wash-trading risks

The CFTC had issued detailed guidance on exchange incentive programs more than a month before the current dispute.

In its Aug. 12 staff advisory, the Division of Market Oversight said properly structured incentive programs can support liquidity and price discovery, while some designs can encourage improper activity if controls are inadequate. The advisory mainly discusses prediction-market programs, though it states that the cited core-principle requirements apply to other derivatives traded on designated contract markets.

CFTC staff specifically warned that steep volume thresholds can increase the risk of wash trading and pre-arranged transactions. It said market-maker arrangements that guarantee net profits or cover losses through rebates may encourage artificial strategies.

The advisory did not accuse Kalshi of either practice. It directed exchanges to conduct real-time surveillance, build program-specific controls and use monitoring capable of finding suspicious wash or fictitious trading patterns.

Kalshi’s Sept. 2 rebate filing addresses several of those areas. The company told the CFTC that it had reviewed potential manipulation risks, would monitor participating Self-Clearing Members with heightened attention and would exclude suspicious transactions from rebates. The exchange said its program is public and offered to eligible members on nondiscriminatory terms.

IcoBeast pushed back on Beni’s suggestion that Kalshi picks the Self-Clearing Members benefiting from the program. CFTC guidance states that designated contract markets must provide impartial, transparent and nondiscriminatory access, while participants still have to satisfy applicable financial and operational requirements.

The regulator separately reminded exchanges in February that wash sales, pre-arranged transactions and noncompetitive trading can violate the Commodity Exchange Act. It said designated contract markets have an independent duty to maintain audit trails, conduct surveillance and enforce their trading rules.

Market-maker rebates exist beyond Kalshi

IcoBeast compared Kalshi’s incentives with programs used elsewhere in derivatives trading. Public documentation confirms that maker rebates are not unique to the company.

Hyperliquid’s current fee schedule provides maker rebates for traders meeting specified volume-share thresholds. Its documentation lists rebates reaching negative 0.003% at the highest displayed maker tier, though Hyperliquid separately states that it does not operate a designated market-maker program with privately negotiated special fees.

Binance’s Liquidity Hub similarly publishes maker programs for spot and futures markets. Its U.S.-dollar-margined futures program lists negative maker fees for qualifying tiers, meaning eligible liquidity providers receive rebates.

Kalshi has separately announced a multi-year agreement with Nasdaq Market Surveillance. In its Aug. 10 company release, Kalshi said the system would cover both event contracts and perpetual futures and provide cross-market monitoring intended to identify manipulation, insider trading and other abusive activity. The description represents Kalshi’s stated surveillance setup, not an independent audit of the ETH-PERP trading questioned by Beni.

Jump relationship does not establish wash trading

Beni brought Jump Trading into his argument, pointing to a previously reported commercial relationship between the trading firm and Kalshi.

Bloomberg reported in February, citing people familiar with the matter, that Jump was set to receive a small Kalshi equity stake in exchange for providing liquidity. Bloomberg described the Kalshi arrangement as involving a set amount of equity. Kalshi and Jump were not quoted in that report confirming the terms.

A separate trading relationship is publicly documented. As crypto.news previously reported, Jump supplied liquidity for Kalshi’s first bespoke prediction-market block trade, involving a carbon allowance contract.

No official filing or enforcement record reviewed for this report identifies Jump as responsible for the ETH-PERP volume Beni questioned, and the reported commercial relationship by itself does not establish wash trading.

Late in the dispute, Beni said he had received new non-public information and was delaying another Kalshi thread for roughly 24 to 48 hours while consulting lawyers. He said he planned to provide an update after determining what information he could publish; no regulator filing or independently verifiable evidence supporting that new claim had appeared publicly at the time of writing.

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams has said Sam Bankman-Fried paid seven figures for Uniswap.com before Uniswap Labs secured the domain through a 2021 legal proceeding that found it had been used in bad faith.

In a Sept. 21 post on X, Adams said the original owners wanted a seven-figure payment for the domain, which his team declined. He claimed Bankman-Fried later paid that amount and redirected Uniswap.com toward a fork of the Uniswap protocol. Adams did not disclose the purchase price, transaction documents or identity of the seller in his post.

“I guess to flex / mess with us,” Adams wrote while discussing Bankman-Fried’s possible motive. The phrasing was speculation by Adams, not a documented finding from the later domain proceeding.

A review of the official WIPO case record confirms several other parts of the account. Uniswap Labs filed a complaint over Uniswap.com in May 2021, and a three-member World Intellectual Property Organization panel ordered the domain transferred to the company on Sept. 3, 2021.

Uniswap.com redirected users to SushiSwap in 2021

The dispute began after Uniswap.com appeared to send visitors to SushiSwap, the decentralized exchange created as a fork of Uniswap. Contemporary reporting from The Block documented the redirect in May 2021, when the identity of the domain owner was not publicly known. SushiSwap contributor 0xMaki said at the time that the SushiSwap team had not bought the domain.

WIPO later examined the redirect directly. Its panel reviewed a screenshot dated May 18, 2021 and checked archived versions of Uniswap.com through the Wayback Machine. The records showed pages from May resolving to a SushiSwap webpage. The panel described SushiSwap as operating in the same financial market as Uniswap Labs.

The respondent contested parts of Uniswap Labs’ case. According to the WIPO decision, it argued that SushiSwap was an open-source derivative of the Uniswap protocol and disputed whether the redirect had initially been established. The panel rejected those arguments after reviewing the additional evidence.

WIPO found that using the Uniswap name for a domain did not become permissible simply because the underlying software was open source. Uniswap Labs held registered rights to the UNISWAP trademark, and the panel found the domain identical to that mark.

The panel determined that redirecting users to SushiSwap did not qualify as a bona fide use of the domain and created a high risk of implied affiliation with Uniswap Labs.

WIPO found Uniswap.com had been used in bad faith

Registration records cited by WIPO show that Uniswap.com itself was first registered on July 30, 2000, years before Hayden Adams created the Uniswap protocol. The respondent in the 2021 proceeding acquired the domain on April 7, 2021, according to a declaration from its legal representative.

The official proceeding identified the respondent as Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Future XXX of Hong Kong. The published decision does not identify Bankman-Fried as Future XXX, name him as the domain purchaser or disclose a seven-figure transaction.

WIPO found credible evidence showing that the respondent knew about Uniswap Labs before acquiring the domain and regarded the company as a competitor. The panel said the respondent failed to address evidence contradicting its earlier claim that it lacked prior awareness of Uniswap Labs.

On the domain’s use, the panel found that the SushiSwap redirect intentionally created confusion over whether Uniswap Labs was connected to, sponsored or endorsed the destination. WIPO consequently determined that the domain had been registered and used in bad faith.

Its Sept. 3, 2021 decision ordered Uniswap.com transferred to Universal Navigation Inc., which operates as Uniswap Labs. The decision came under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and did not require Uniswap Labs to purchase the domain from the respondent.

Adams described that result more simply in his Sept. 21 post, saying the “malicious use” gave Uniswap’s legal team enough grounds to obtain the domain “for free.” The WIPO record supports the court-like transfer mechanism, though it does not use Adams’ wording or state what legal expenses Uniswap Labs incurred.

SBF had an earlier connection to SushiSwap

Bankman-Fried had a documented role in SushiSwap months before the Uniswap.com dispute. As crypto.news reported in September 2020, SushiSwap creator Chef Nomi handed control of the project to Bankman-Fried during a governance crisis after withdrawing tokens from its developer fund.

Bankman-Fried helped oversee SushiSwap’s migration before control moved toward a multisignature structure. SushiSwap itself had launched as a fork of Uniswap during the 2020 decentralized-finance boom.

The historical relationship provides context for Adams’ new statement but does not independently establish Bankman-Fried’s ownership of Uniswap.com. Reporting in May 2021 said the person controlling the domain remained unknown, while 0xMaki denied that the SushiSwap team itself had purchased it.

The WIPO record similarly stops short of naming Bankman-Fried. Its respondent was Future XXX, represented in the proceeding by Australian law firm Cornwalls, and WIPO based its ruling on trademark rights, the SushiSwap redirect and evidence of bad-faith use.

Uniswap.com now redirects to Uniswap’s official app

More than five years after the dispute, Uniswap.com now redirects directly to the official Uniswap application at app.uniswap.org. A live check of the domain on Sept. 21 confirmed the redirect.

Uniswap Labs’ current trademark guidelines state that third parties should not use UNISWAP, UNI or UNISWAP LABS trademarks in domain names or create names that could falsely suggest affiliation. The company says it enforces its trademark rights to protect users.

Its current support directory still identifies Uniswap.org as the company’s official website and app.uniswap.org as its trading interface, while Uniswap.com functions as a redirect.

Bankman-Fried remains involved in separate criminal proceedings stemming from FTX’s collapse. In related crypto.news coverage, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit formally affirmed his fraud conviction, 25-year prison sentence and approximately $11 billion forfeiture order in 2026.

The official Second Circuit opinion was issued June 12, 2026. It concerned Bankman-Fried’s FTX criminal case and made no findings about the 2021 Uniswap.com domain transaction.

Apple and Google have opened senior roles seeking stablecoin, blockchain and tokenized-finance expertise as both companies build teams around payments and digital-asset infrastructure.

Apple’s official careers posting, dated Aug. 26, shows the company recruiting an Apple Pay Financial Product Strategy Lead in the U.S., with understanding of stablecoins, tokenized deposits and blockchain technology listed among its preferred qualifications.

The position sits within the Apple Card and Apple Cash group, which handles consumer credit cards, peer-to-peer transfers, stored value and other financial products linked to Apple Pay. Apple says the employee will assess new product structures, commercial models and potential partnerships while helping shape long-term financial product strategy.

Google, meanwhile, is recruiting an Industry Principal Architect for Web3 in Hong Kong. Its official job posting lists real-world asset tokenization, stablecoin rails, tokenized deposits and custody architectures among the institutional Web3 use cases candidates should understand.

The reviewed postings do not state that either company intends to issue a stablecoin. They describe strategy, infrastructure, architecture and customer-facing work tied to existing payments and digital-asset businesses, leaving any future product decisions unannounced.

Apple’s stablecoin role sits inside Apple Pay strategy

Apple is seeking a payments professional with at least six years of experience in consulting, investment banking, corporate strategy, strategic finance or a similar planning function. The company lists experience with consumer payment models, international payment systems and financial modeling among the role’s main requirements.

Stablecoin knowledge appears under preferred qualifications alongside tokenized deposits and blockchain technology. Apple describes the job as one that will identify new growth opportunities, build business cases and help guide product decisions for Apple Card and Apple Cash. The U.S. base-pay range runs from $149,700 to $280,000, depending on qualifications, experience and location.

Apple says the employee will work with product, business development and data science teams to evaluate potential products and partnerships. Its description refers to projects across Wallets, Payments and Commerce, though it does not identify a planned blockchain product or stablecoin integration.

Existing Apple financial services remain centered on conventional payment infrastructure. Apple announced in January that Chase will become the new issuer of Apple Card, with the transition expected to take approximately 24 months. Mastercard will remain the card’s payment network during the change.

Apple’s public Apple Pay materials currently describe card, merchant, peer-to-peer and digital wallet payment services. No company release reviewed for this report announces an Apple-issued stablecoin.

Google stablecoin hiring targets institutional Web3 systems

Google’s Hong Kong opening has a more technical focus. The company requires 10 years of experience in system architecture, distributed systems or cloud infrastructure, along with at least four years working with production-grade Web3 systems, blockchain protocols or smart-contract ecosystems.

Preferred qualifications cover multi-party computation, hardware security modules, transaction-signing systems and confidential computing. Google specifically names RWA tokenization, stablecoin rails, tokenized deposits and digital-asset custody within regulated financial environments.

The role will support Google Cloud engagements across Asia-Pacific with blockchain foundations, institutional exchanges, custodians, financial institutions and decentralized applications. Google says the architect will help customers design systems involving validator operations, blockchain indexing, key management and enterprise security.

Compliance forms part of the job. Google says the employee will guide customers on virtual-asset risk, security and compliance architectures aligned with regional rules, including requirements from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and Securities and Futures Commission.

Google describes the position as a bridge between customers and its product and engineering teams. Its posting says the employee can influence Google’s Web3 product roadmap by identifying recurring infrastructure needs among institutional clients.

Google already operates digital-asset payment infrastructure

Google’s recruitment comes after the company introduced several products involving blockchain-based payments.

Google Cloud’s Universal Ledger documentation describes a managed distributed-ledger service for financial institutions. The API lets organizations create payment services, tokenize assets and manage digital representations of commercial bank money.

The documentation, updated in 2026, says operators can mint, transfer and burn tokenized forms of value under defined permissions. Google describes the service as a platform for banks and intermediaries building payment and financial-market products, not as a Google-issued stablecoin.

Google has separately developed crypto-payment infrastructure for software agents. Its Agent Payments Protocol, or AP2, supports extensions for stablecoins and cryptocurrencies. Google Cloud said the A2A x402 extension was developed with Coinbase, the Ethereum Foundation, MetaMask and other participants to support agent-based crypto payments.

As crypto.news reported, Google launched AP2 with an extension designed to support stablecoin and digital-asset payments between AI agents. The protocol uses cryptographically signed mandates to record user authorization and payment instructions.

In another project, crypto.news reported in May that Google Cloud and the Solana Foundation launched Pay.sh, which allows AI agents to pay for APIs and cloud resources using stablecoins on Solana.

Google Cloud executive Richard Widmann later discussed crypto payment rails for AI agents at Consensus Miami. In related coverage, crypto.news reported that Widmann described crypto as a machine-readable payment interface because autonomous agents cannot open conventional bank accounts under existing technological and regulatory systems.

Hong Kong regulation shapes Google’s hiring environment

Google’s choice of Hong Kong for the Web3 architect role places the position inside a jurisdiction that already regulates fiat-referenced stablecoin issuers.

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority says the Stablecoins Ordinance took effect on Aug. 1, 2025, creating a licensing system for companies issuing fiat-referenced stablecoins in Hong Kong. The regulator said in February 2026 that it was processing applications and expected to grant only a small number of licenses initially.

HKMA rules cover issuers operating inside Hong Kong, overseas issuers marketing Hong Kong dollar-pegged stablecoins and firms actively marketing regulated issuance services to the local public. Supervisory requirements cover reserve management, governance, risk controls and anti-money-laundering obligations.

The regulator’s 2026 priorities include processing stablecoin applications, supervising licensed issuers and monitoring the local market. HKMA is simultaneously running EnsembleTx through 2026 to test real-value transactions involving tokenized assets and tokenized deposits.

Consumer technology companies are approaching stablecoin payments in different ways. Crypto.news reported in July that Samsung plans to add stablecoin support to Samsung Wallet, although Samsung had not disclosed supported assets, technology partners or a launch timetable.

Apple’s current job posting provides no comparable product announcement. Google’s listing centers on institutional architecture and Google Cloud clients, while its existing AP2, Pay.sh and Universal Ledger products already involve blockchain or tokenized-payment systems.

Hong Kong’s monetary authority plans to publish a register of licensed stablecoin issuers in December 2026 and update the dataset when licensing information changes.