The UK Parliament’s Crypto and Digital Assets All-Party Parliamentary Group has launched a formal inquiry into why banks refuse to open accounts and block payments for crypto businesses. Written evidence will be accepted until August 31, while the group aims to publish recommendations before the FCA’s mandatory crypto regime begins in October 2027. The move tests whether the UK’s ambition to become a global digital asset hub can survive banking restrictions.

The inquiry was announced on Tuesday by co-chairs Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Labor MP Gurinder Singh Josan CBE. It covers difficulties opening and maintaining business accounts, transfer limits, payment blocks, and whether banks apply restrictions proportionately. It will also compare the UK’s approach with the US, Hong Kong, Australia, and the European Union.

The APPG outlined its concern clearly. It said crypto and digital asset firms have consistently reported difficulty accessing UK banking services. The group added that banking access is essential for legitimate businesses, while unnecessary barriers risk slowing investment, innovation, and long-term growth.

The scale of the issue remains significant. Research from the UK Cryptoasset Business Council, published in January 2026, found roughly 40% of payments to crypto exchanges were blocked or delayed by UK banks. One platform reported almost £1 billion in rejected transactions during 2025. Meanwhile, 80% of exchanges saw customer friction increase, while 70% described banking conditions as more hostile than a year earlier.

Those findings contrast with the government’s stated position. HM Treasury Economic Secretary Lucy Rigby told Parliament in March 2026 that licensed crypto firms should not face restrictions simply because they operate in the sector. As a result, the inquiry will examine why FCA-registered businesses continue facing banking hurdles despite regulatory progress.

Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio

UK Crypto and FCA Framework Sharpen the Debanking Question

The inquiry also follows the UK’s finalized FCA crypto framework. The authorization window opens in September 2026, while full compliance becomes mandatory on October 25, 2027. If licensed firms still struggle to secure banking services, confidence in the new regulatory framework could suffer.

Meanwhile, comparisons with overseas markets continue to grow. In the United States, crypto companies have compared banking restrictions to Operation Chokepoint 2.0. Kraken recently secured a $22 million settlement from an auditor it claimed abandoned the exchange during that period. In Australia, Coinbase has also criticized banks over restrictions on crypto-related services. The APPG will assess how competing jurisdictions have handled similar challenges.

The inquiry arrives during a political transition. Andy Burnham became Prime Minister on Monday, while John Healey was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Legal experts say global financial firms will closely watch whether the new government delivers a stable regulatory environment for digital assets and financial services.

Written submissions will be accepted from July 21 through August 31 across banking, payments, fintech, and crypto sectors. The APPG will then publish recommendations before the October 2027 deadline. Industry participants are expected to advocate for case-by-case risk assessments instead of blanket restrictions on FCA-registered crypto firms.

Trade on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

The post APPG Targets UK Bank Debanking of Crypto Firms Before 2027 FCA Deadline appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

Source link

But the larger pull is simpler: AI is where the speculative money and investors’ attention are now going. The capital that once chased crypto is now chasing compute, chips and model builders, and every leap in what these systems can do widens that appeal.

Each result like Fable’s finding of the Jacobian conjecture strengthens the case for pouring capital into AI, and poses a difficult conundrum for crypto investors: Why hold a token that trades as a sidecar to the AI cycle when someone can own the vehicle itself?

AI’s capability curve is steep, and the steeper it gets, the more of the market’s risk appetite it draws away from everything else, crypto included.

What the problem actually was

Think of a machine that takes two numbers and gives back two new numbers, using only adding and multiplying. The question, first asked in 1939, was whether the machine can always be run backward: given only its answer, can the original two numbers be recovered every time?

Advertisement

Mathematicians had a quick way to check whether a machine looked reversible. The Jacobian conjecture said that if a machine passed that check, it should always be reversible.

For 87 years, nobody could prove it was true, and nobody could find a machine that broke the rule.

Source link

The White House has agreed to the CLARITY Act ethics package. These are the conflict-of-interest rules that froze the crypto bill for months. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the Senate is now at the 1-yard line.

Bitcoin (BTC) climbed toward $67,000 on the news. Here is what the deal says, and why traders like it.

What Is the CLARITY Act Ethics Package?

Start with the bill itself. The Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act would give US crypto its first full federal rulebook.

The split is simple. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would police digital commodities like Bitcoin. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would keep tokens that act like securities.

The House passed the bill 294-134 in a bipartisan vote on July 17, 2025. Then it hit a wall. It needs 60 Senate votes, and it stalled before the Senate floor over one clause.

That clause is the ethics package. It would stop the president, the vice president, lawmakers, and senior officials from profiting from crypto while in office.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

Why did Democrats insist on it? Trump’s money. The president’s annual disclosure listed $635 million in meme coin royalties. It showed another $515 million from World Liberty Financial token sales.

The fight is not new. In May, Senator Chris Van Hollen offered an amendment to ban officials and their families from owning or promoting crypto. Republicans blocked it. The bill cleared committee 15-9, with just two Democrats, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, on board.

Last week, that wall cracked. Trump met Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno in the Oval Office. On Monday, the White House agreed and sent the language to Senate Republicans.

Senator Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, confirmed one more change. The Department of Justice (DOJ) would enforce the rules, not individual state attorneys general.

Why the CLARITY Act Ethics Package Is Bullish for Bitcoin

The math explains the excitement. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats. At least seven Democrats must cross over. The ethics deal answers their biggest objection. Watch Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Mark Warner, who want illicit finance safeguards first.

The administration is pushing hard. Bessent said lawmakers are at the “1-yard line,” Bloomberg reported Tuesday. He wants the bill passed before the August recess.

Markets voted fast. The $63 billion market rebound lifted total crypto value 2.8% to $2.32 trillion. Bitcoin trades near $66,604, up 2% in a day. Coinbase stock jumped as much as 12%.

The deeper case is simple. Clear rules end years of regulation by lawsuit. That lowers risk for banks, funds, and custodians. Meanwhile, the Bitcoin ETF inflow streak is back. About $727 million entered US spot funds in five days.

The chart helps too. Glassnode data shows only about 1% of Bitcoin supply last changed hands between here and $70,685. Little stands in the way.

What Could Still Go Wrong

Plenty. Van Hollen and Senator Elizabeth Warren say the draft weakens consumer protections rather than adding them.

“While the CLARITY Act may seek to do that, it not only fails to achieve those goals but also risks deregulating existing markets and opening the door to further corruption and abuse.”

Traders stay cautious too. Last week, Polymarket passage odds fell to 38% for 2026 before the breakthrough. The odds have since sprung up, however, amid recent developments.

History adds a warning. Trump signed the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin law, in July 2025. Crypto’s total value crossed $4 trillion for the first time. Yet regulators missed that law’s one-year rule deadline just last Saturday. Passage is a catalyst, not a finish line.

The clock is the last risk. Majority Leader John Thune must fit a floor vote into a tight Senate floor window before recess starts on August 7.

For now, the bill’s biggest weakness has become its momentum. Bitcoin sits about 5% below $70,000. Watch for the updated text, and for the first Democrat to say yes.

The post What is the CLARITY Act Ethics Package and Why is It Bullish for Bitcoin? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest has gained an early paper profit after buying $20.45 million of SpaceX stock one day before the shares jumped 7.10% to $128.37.

Summary

• ARK Invest bought 170,634 SpaceX shares worth about $20.45 million across four ETFs.
• SpaceX stock jumped 7.10% to $128.37, giving ARK an early paper gain.
• ARK’s SpaceX investment has surpassed $475 million despite heavy short selling and IPO losses.

ARK Invest’s July 20 trading disclosure shows that four of the firm’s actively managed exchange-traded funds bought a combined 170,634 SpaceX shares while the stock was trading under its $135 IPO price. Based on Monday’s closing price of $119.85, the purchases were worth about $20.45 million.

During Tuesday’s session, SpaceX shares rose $8.52 to $128.37 as of 11:31 a.m. EDT, according to Nasdaq real-time market data. Applying that increase to ARK’s latest purchase gives the position an unrealized gain of about $1.45 million, although its final value will depend on where the stock trades when the funds sell.

Advertisement

Tuesday’s advance followed a 3.34% decline on Monday, when SpaceX extended a steep retreat from its post-IPO peak. Despite the rebound, the stock remained about 4.9% below its $135 offer price and nearly 43% under its record high of $225.64.

ARK expands its SpaceX exposure

Among the four funds, the ARK Innovation ETF made the largest purchase by adding 97,664 SpaceX shares. ARK’s disclosure valued that position at roughly $11.70 million using Monday’s closing price.

The ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF purchased another 31,807 shares worth about $3.81 million. At the same time, the ARK Next Generation Internet ETF added 28,153 shares valued at approximately $3.37 million.

Completing the latest round, the ARK Space Exploration & Innovation ETF bought 13,010 shares for close to $1.56 million. ARK spread the purchase across funds with different mandates, although each portfolio gained exposure to the same SpaceX price recovery.

Advertisement

Monday’s transaction followed another large ARK purchase on July 17, when four funds acquired 147,623 SpaceX shares after the stock fell 5.43% to a fresh post-IPO low. According to ARK’s July 17 trading report, those shares were worth about $18.3 million at the closing price of $123.99.

ARKK led that earlier purchase with 95,129 shares valued at approximately $11.8 million. ARKQ bought 30,464 shares worth $3.78 million, while ARKX added 12,611 shares valued at $1.56 million. ARKW completed the transaction with 9,419 shares worth roughly $1.17 million.

Across the July 17 and July 20 disclosures, ARK purchased 318,257 SpaceX shares valued at about $38.75 million at the respective closing prices. The two transactions continued a series of investments that began around SpaceX’s June 12 stock-market debut.

According to Ark Invest Tracker, Wood’s firm had already invested more than $475 million in SpaceX by the week ending July 10. The tracker reported about $52.1 million of purchases during that week, following roughly $444 million of buying around the IPO.

Advertisement

Wall Street’s outlook remains largely positive despite SpaceX’s post-IPO decline. According to an Ark Invest Tracker post citing Reuters data from July 7, analysts had a median price target of $213.50, which implies about 66% upside from Tuesday’s $128.37 price. Raymond James held the highest target at $800, followed by Morgan Stanley at $300, while MoffettNathanson had the lowest estimate at $130.

WALL STREET’S MEDIAN TARGET ON SPACEX IS $213.50, 43% ABOVE ITS $149.5 CLOSE.

Raymond James has the street high at $800

Fourteen of sixteen firms have targets above the $149.5 close

Deutsche Bank ($143) and MoffettNathanson ($130) are the only two below it https://t.co/GGgmGH0GuB pic.twitter.com/tp70Lod9sa

Advertisement

— Ark Invest Tracker (@ArkkDaily) July 21, 2026

Short sellers retain large exposure

Although Tuesday’s rally gave ARK’s latest position an early lift, S3 Partners data indicates that bearish traders have benefited from the decline that followed SpaceX’s record high. According to the financial-data firm, short sellers accumulated about $4 billion in paper profits over the previous month.

S3 Partners also estimated that investors betting against SpaceX had shorted about 30% of its freely traded shares, equal to roughly 192 million shares. A large short position can add buying pressure when the price rises because some traders may repurchase shares to close their bets, though S3 Partners had not attributed Tuesday’s gain specifically to short covering.

Operational concerns have also weighed on investor sentiment since the IPO. SpaceX called off Starship’s first planned post-listing flight after an automatic abort triggered by engine problems, according to the original launch update. The cancellation added another setback while the stock was already retreating from its June peak.

Advertisement

Investors are also watching the scheduled expiration of SpaceX’s post-IPO lockup on Aug. 19. According to the lockup details cited in the original report, the expiration could make an additional 900 million shares eligible for trading, potentially increasing the stock’s available supply.

For now, Tuesday’s 7.10% jump has recovered Monday’s entire decline and moved SpaceX closer to its IPO price. Nasdaq data still placed the shares $6.63 below the $135 offer level, leaving ARK’s earlier purchases with different results depending on their entry prices, even as the latest $20.45 million bet moved into profit.

Source link

Charles Schwab (SCHW) just posted its biggest quarter ever. Revenue hit a record $7.1 billion, up 21% from a year ago, beating Wall Street forecasts. Adjusted earnings of $1.62 per share also topped the consensus near $1.55.

The broker also opened direct Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) trading for retail clients. Still, SCHW shares barely moved, trading near $102.91 after the report.

Why Charles Schwab Earnings Beat Wall Street Estimates

Almost every number came in strong. Net income rose 32% to $2.8 billion. Client assets grew 22% to a record $13.08 trillion.

Clients did the heavy lifting. They placed a record 11.9 million trades a day, up 57% from last year. Margin balances nearly doubled to $165.1 billion, a sign clients are taking bigger swings.

There is one catch. Schwab earned 19% less per trade than a year ago, at $1.64. Sheer volume, not pricing, drove the 28% jump in trading revenue.

Interest income improved too. Net interest margin climbed to 3.00% from 2.66%, as Schwab keeps recovering from the cash crunch that hurt it through 2023.

“Schwab’s leading value proposition continued to resonate in 2Q26, as investors opened 1.4 million new brokerage accounts and brought $120 billion in core net new assets to the firm,” Rick Wurster, CEO since January 2025, credited the firm’s asset gathering in the earnings release.

Rivals are watching. Analysts just raised rival brokerage price targets before Robinhood reports on July 29. Schwab has now set the tone for other companies to watch this quarter.

Schwab Crypto Arrives With Bitcoin Down 43% in a Year

Until now, Schwab clients could only touch crypto through funds and futures. Schwab Crypto changes that. It offers direct BTC and ETH trading for the first time.

The timing is bold. Bitcoin trades near $66,690, down 43% over the past year. ETH price action tells a similar story, with the token near $1,927, down 49%.

Schwab is also late to the party. Robinhood has offered retail crypto since 2018. Interactive Brokers and Fidelity followed in 2021 and 2022.

There is more in the pipeline. Portfolio Insights, a new artificial intelligence (AI) tool, now summarizes daily portfolio moves for clients. Access to Cboe’s prediction markets is slated for the coming months.

So why the flat stock? Investors saw the records coming and priced them in. The real test is whether crypto and AI can deliver the next surprise.

The post Charles Schwab July Earnings Reveal Record $7.1 Billion Revenue, How Will Stock React? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

The hardware wallet market has seen a quiet revolution over the past few years. Even though traditional USB-style devices like Ledger and Trezor still dominate the conversation, a new category of card-shaped cold wallets has emerged. These devices look like credit cards, fit in your wallet, and use NFC to sign transactions. No cables, no batteries, no Bluetooth pairing. Just tap and go.

Two names stand out here; DCENT S and Tangem. Both use EAL6+ certified secure elements, and both promise to make self-custody easier than ever. But they take fundamentally different approaches to one critical area – backup and recovery. This single difference shapes everything else about how these wallets work and who they are for.

DCENT S launched in July 2026 as the latest offering from IOTRUST, a South Korean company with years of hardware wallet engineering experience. Tangem has been around longer and comes from Switzerland, with a strong focus on simplicity and beginner accessibility. Both have loyal followings, but they serve slightly different users.

This comparison breaks down every important aspect of these two wallets so you can decide which one fits your needs. We will look at design, security, backup systems, supported assets, daily usability, mobile apps, and overall value.

DCENT S vs Tangem: Quick Comparison

Design & Build Quality

Both wallets use a credit-card-sized form factor. The DCENT S measures 85.6 by 54 millimeters and comes in at just 0.9 millimeters thick. That is thinner than most standard payment cards. Tangem is similarly sized and feels just as slim and lightweight. Both devices fit easily into any wallet slot alongside your other cards.

Tangem offers an additional form factor that D’CENT does not; a wearable ring. If you prefer something even more convenient than a card, the Tangem ring lets you carry your wallet on your finger. It is a nice option for people who do not want to carry another card or who simply like the novelty of a crypto ring.

The build quality on both is excellent. DCENT S carries an IP69 dust and water resistance rating, while Tangem goes slightly higher with IP69K. In practical terms, both can survive being dropped in water, exposed to dust, and subjected to everyday wear and tear. Tangem also advertises resistance to X-rays, electrostatic discharge, and electromagnetic pulses, which adds another layer of durability for people who travel frequently or work in environments where such exposure is possible.

Temperature tolerances are similar. DCENT S operates from minus 30 to plus 50 degrees Celsius, while Tangem works from roughly minus 25 to plus 50 degrees Celsius. Either wallet will function in hot cars, freezing winters, or tropical climates.

The one difference that stands out is that Tangem offers a 25-year warranty on their hardware, while DCENT S provides a limited lifetime warranty. Both are generous, and neither company expects you to replace your wallet anytime soon.

Security & Private Key Protection

This is where both wallets are remarkably similar – and that is a good thing. Both use EAL6+ certified secure elements. This is the same level of security certification used for government IDs, passports, and EMV payment cards. It protects against both invasive physical attacks and non-invasive side-channel attacks.

The private key generation process is identical in concept. When you set up either wallet, the secure element generates your private key on-device. The key never leaves the chip under any circumstances. It never touches your smartphone, never goes to the cloud, and never gets stored on company servers.

Both wallets are battery-free and get powered entirely by your phone’s NFC field during signing sessions. This means there is no always-on power source that could be exploited. The card is inert until you tap it against your phone, which significantly reduces the attack surface compared to Bluetooth-enabled wallets that remain discoverable.

Tangem adds anti-counterfeit verification through their app, which lets you confirm that your card is genuine before you use it. DCENT S does not emphasize this feature in their marketing, though the secure element itself provides strong protection against cloning attempts.

Firmware security is another point where Tangem has an edge in transparency. They have had their firmware independently audited by Kudelski Security in 2018 and Riscure in 2023. DCENT S is newer to the market, and while their secure element is certified, they have not published equivalent third-party audit results at this stage.

Both wallets lock themselves automatically after repeated incorrect PIN entries, and both include tamper protection that locks the card if someone attempts to physically extract the chip.

Backup & Recovery

This is where the two wallets diverge completely, and it is the single most important difference between them.

DCENT S uses what they call the R3covery Card. Every box contains two cards – the main DCENT S for everyday transactions and a dedicated recovery card. The recovery card cannot sign transactions. Its only purpose is to restore your wallet if you lose your primary card. The backup is stored inside another EAL6+ secure chip, so your recovery data is never displayed as words, never written on paper, and never typed anywhere.

If you lose your DCENT S, you tap the R3covery Card against your phone, restore the wallet, and then move everything to a new DCENT S card. The recovery card itself remains a high-value target because whoever holds it can restore your wallet. The company recommends storing the two cards in different physical locations.

Tangem takes a different approach. Instead of a dedicated recovery card, they sell wallet sets that include two or three identical cards (or combinations of cards and a ring). During setup, the private key is securely copied to all devices in the set. Any of these duplicate cards can function as the primary wallet. If you lose one card, you simply use another from your set.

The Tangem approach means you do not need to order a replacement card just to restore access. You already have a backup ready to go. The downside is that every card in your set can sign transactions. If someone gets hold of one of your backup cards and knows your PIN, they have full access to your funds. With DCENT S, the recovery card cannot sign anything, so even if stolen, it is useless without the main card and PIN.

There is a trade-off here. Tangem offers immediate redundancy – you have multiple working cards from day one. DCENT S offers a recovery-only backup that cannot be misused for transactions but requires you to obtain a new primary card after loss.

Supported Coins & Networks

DCENT S supports over 100 blockchain networks and more than 4,900 tokens. Tangem supports more than 90 blockchain networks and over 14,000 tokens.

In practice, both wallets cover all the major assets you are likely to hold. Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, Stellar, Polygon, and BNB Chain are supported on both. New chains are added through app updates on both platforms, so you do not need to update the physical card firmware.

Where DCENT S distinguishes itself is in XRP support. The company has been working with the XRP Ledger since 2018, and they make a point of emphasizing full XRPL functionality. Trust Lines, decentralized applications, swaps, sending, receiving, and holding XRP are all fully supported. If you are active on the XRP Ledger, DCENT S feels like it was built specifically for you.

Tangem supports XRP as well, but they do not make it a central part of their marketing. For most users, both wallets cover everything they need. The difference in token count is more about counting methodology than actual compatibility.

Ease of Setup & Daily Use

Both wallets are exceptionally easy to set up. Tangem claims a two-minute setup time, while DCENT S estimates three minutes. In reality, both are fast enough that the difference is negligible. You download the app, tap the card, create a PIN, and you are ready to send and receive crypto.

Daily use is where the similarity continues. Both wallets require an NFC-enabled Android or iPhone. You open the app, create a transaction, tap the card against your phone, wait about one second for the signing to complete, and the transaction is broadcast. No cables, no pairing, no charging.

Neither wallet has a display, which means you cannot verify transaction details directly on the device. You rely on the app to show you the transaction details before you sign. This is a trade-off for the card form factor – traditional hardware wallets with screens offer an extra layer of verification that these card wallets cannot provide.

For people who frequently use their crypto on mobile devices, both wallets feel natural. The tap-to-sign workflow is almost identical to using a contactless payment card. It takes the friction out of self-custody and makes it feel like a normal part of your daily routine.

Mobile App Experience

The DCENT app and Tangem app both serve as the primary interface for managing your assets. They let you send and receive crypto, view your portfolio, and track transaction history. Both apps are available for Android and iOS.

Tangem’s app has been around longer and benefits from more mature feature development. It offers built-in swapping through integrated providers, staking support for certain assets, and the ability to connect to decentralized applications. The portfolio tracking and market price features are polished and regularly updated.

DCENT’s app is part of a broader ecosystem that includes their other hardware wallet products. It is clean, functional, and gets the job done. The app supports swapping, portfolio tracking, and all the basic functions you need. It may not have quite as many built-in services as Tangem, but it covers the essentials well.

Both apps are beginner-friendly and do not assume prior experience with cryptocurrency. If you can use a basic banking app, you can use either of these.

Price & Value

Pricing for both wallets depends on the configuration you choose. Tangem offers two-card and three-card sets, with higher prices for larger sets. The ring version is also priced higher than the card version. DCENT S comes as a single primary card plus the R3covery Card in every box.

DCENT S launched with free U.S. shipping, delivered duty paid, a 30-day money-back guarantee, and a limited lifetime warranty. Tangem typically offers similar shipping options and warranty coverage, though their standard warranty is 25 years rather than lifetime.

When comparing value, the backup method matters. With Tangem, you are paying for multiple working cards upfront. With DCENT S, you get one working card and one recovery-only card. If you lose your primary DCENT S, you need to buy a replacement. If you lose a Tangem card, you already have another one in your set.

Tangem and DCENT S take different approaches to backup. Tangem focuses on immediate multi-card redundancy, while DCENT S separates daily use from recovery by pairing the main card with a dedicated R3covery card.

DCENT S vs Tangem: Pros & Cons

DCENT S Pros:

• Dedicated recovery card that cannot sign transactions
• Seedless setup available
• Full XRPL support with Trust Lines, dApps, and swaps
• Thinner card design at 0.76mm
• Limited lifetime warranty
• Korean hardware engineering with design and assembly in South Korea

DCENT S Cons:

• Fewer built-in app features compared to Tangem
• No third-party security audit published yet

Tangem Pros:

• Multiple identical cards included, immediate backup ready
• 25-year warranty
• Wider token support (14,000+)
• More mature app with built-in staking, swapping, and dApp connectivity
• Available in ring form factor
• Independent firmware audits by Kudelski and Riscure

Tangem Cons:

• Every backup card can sign transactions (higher risk if stolen)
• No dedicated recovery-only card option
• Slightly thicker than DCENT S
• Less emphasis on XRP-specific features

Which Wallet Should You Choose?

After spending time with both wallets and looking closely at what each one offers, I lean toward the DCENT S for most users. The deciding factor is the backup system.

Tangem gives you multiple identical cards that all work as primary wallets. This is convenient, no question about it. If you lose one card, you grab another from your set and keep going. But here is the catch – every single one of those cards can sign transactions. If someone steals one of your backup cards and figures out your PIN, they have full access to your funds. The redundancy is nice, but the security model is less segmented.

DCENT S takes a different approach that I find more thoughtful. The R3covery Card cannot sign transactions. Its only purpose is to restore your wallet. This means even if someone gets hold of your backup card, they cannot move a single coin without also having your primary card and PIN. That separation between daily use and emergency recovery is a smarter security design. You store the two cards in different places, and you have built-in protection against a single point of failure.

The XRP support on DCENT S is another strong reason to choose it. Full XRPL functionality with Trust Lines, decentralized applications, and swaps makes it the obvious choice if you hold XRP or interact with the XRP Ledger. Tangem also supports XRP, but DCENT S places more emphasis on XRP-oriented workflows and recovery-focused positioning.

There is also something to be said for a company that has been building hardware wallets since 2017 and serves users across 220 countries. IOTRUST has engineering experience that predates many of their competitors. The DCENT S is designed and assembled in South Korea, which speaks to the quality control and manufacturing standards you get with the product.

At the end of the day, both wallets represent a major step forward in making self-custody accessible. But the DCENT S offers a more secure backup architecture, better XRP support, and the peace of mind that comes from knowing your recovery card cannot be used against you. That is why I would choose it over Tangem.

The post DCENT S Wallet vs Tangem: Full Comparison of Design, Security, Supported Coins, and Mobile App appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

With stablecoin supply above $300 billion and payment use reaching an estimated $390 billion in 2025, more than twice the previous year, competition increasingly centres on distribution, liquidity, reserve income, and access to payment networks. 

Open USD has brought these commercial forces together through a consortium of more than 140 participants, including Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, Coinbase, and BlackRock. Participating companies will be able to distribute the asset through exchanges, wallets, merchant products, and payment services while receiving a share of reserve earnings.

The model places Open USD against established issuers and smaller competitors seeking partnerships with the same financial companies.

BeInCrypto spoke with Louisa Bai, Head of Stablecoins at Mysten Labs, Marc Boiron, CEO of Polygon Labs, and Kevin Cui, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of OSL Group, about stablecoin competition, regional use cases, currency demand, and blockchain settlement.

Open USD Links Distribution With Reserve Income

Open USD gives participating companies a financial incentive to support adoption through their own products. Reserve earnings can be returned to consortium members, linking token distribution to commercial revenue.

“OUSD is primarily built to share stablecoin reserves across its partners, including Visa, Stripe, Coinbase, Mastercard, and leading blockchains such as Sui,” said Louisa Bai, Head of Stablecoins at Mysten Labs. “Its partner network and revenue-sharing model could increase competition in a market with deeply entrenched incumbents.”

USDT and USDC retain an advantage built through liquidity, trading pairs, exchange listings, and widespread use across crypto markets.

“Their moat comes from liquidity depth and years of exchange listings,” Bai said. “Mid-sized issuers face the greatest pressure because they lack the liquidity of USDT and USDC and the partner economics offered by OUSD.”

Open USD also depends on cooperation between companies with different commercial priorities. Decisions covering reserves, governance, supported networks, and distribution will require agreement across banks, payment companies, exchanges, and crypto firms.

Its progress will depend on whether shared reserve income produces sustained adoption across participating products.

Different Stablecoins Will Serve Different Products

Stablecoin control will remain divided between issuers, payment companies, exchanges, applications, and blockchains.

Issuers manage reserves and redemption, while payment companies control merchant access and customer distribution. Exchanges provide liquidity, and blockchains determine transaction speed, fees, and settlement capacity.

“Different stablecoin assets aimed at different use cases will coexist, together with different forms of control,” Bai said.

PYUSD remains closely connected to PayPal and its consumer products, while Open USD may develop around business payments and merchant settlement. Exchange-backed coins can focus on trading, while bank-supported assets can serve treasury management and institutional transfers.

This division allows stablecoins to develop around specific commercial environments rather than a single dominant operating model.

Regional Demand Splits Between Dollar Access and Local Settlement

Stablecoin adoption follows currency stability, remittance costs, regulation, and access to banking. Latin America currently provides some of the strongest examples of stablecoins functioning as everyday money across savings and cross-border payments, according to Marc Boiron, CEO of Polygon Labs.

“Latin America, and it’s not close,” Boiron said. “When a currency loses value overnight and sending money home costs 6% and takes three days, a digital dollar is a household decision.”

Boiron pointed to the Mexico-US and Brazil-US corridors as major sources of current volume. He described the Gulf as an early regulatory leader, Japan as a careful builder of bank-connected products, and the US as a market gaining more room for regulated issuance and payments.

Emerging markets such as Argentina, Brazil, and Pakistan use dollar stablecoins as protection from inflation and currency depreciation.

In Nigeria, Paga plans to use Sui-based stablecoin payments to support international transfers for freelancers and businesses paying overseas suppliers.

Local-currency coins serve a different economic need. Markets with trusted currencies and regulators seeking domestic settlement onchain have stronger incentives to develop assets denominated in yen, dirhams, euros, or other local units.

“A stablecoin inherits the reputation of the currency behind it,” Boiron said.

He expects dollar coins to lead in markets where people seek protection from inflation, while local-currency stablecoins can develop in places such as Japan and the Gulf, where domestic currencies retain public trust.

Business adoption depends on liquidity and reliable fiat conversion, while distribution and licensing determine how easily merchants and exchanges can support a new asset. Boiron said businesses need coins already present in the wallets and payment services they use, backed by issuers acceptable to banks and auditors.

“It comes down to liquidity, distribution, and whether there is a licensed issuer standing behind it,” he said.

Europe follows MiCA rules covering issuance, authorization, reserves, and distribution. Exchanges have restricted several assets, including USDT, while providers adjusted their offerings to European requirements.

The resulting market divides between dollar access in weaker-currency economies and local settlement in regions where domestic units retain trust.

Dollar Stablecoins Will Retain Their Lead

Dollar coins still dominate supply and liquidity, while local-currency assets are developing around domestic settlement and regional trade.

“Non-dollar stablecoins remain concentrated in foreign-exchange trading within DeFi,” Bai said. “Locally denominated assets such as JPYC will continue to develop, while USD is likely to remain dominant in the near term.”

Meanwhile, Cui expects local-currency stablecoins to grow alongside dollar coins as companies adopt them for domestic payments and regional trade.

“Local-currency stablecoins are developing a durable role alongside dollar coins by reducing FX exposure and allowing businesses operating in euros, reais, or yen to retain their own unit of account,” said Kevin Cui, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of OSL Group.

Local coins may gain adoption where companies earn and spend in the same currency, while dollar coins continue serving international settlement and savings demand.

Blockchains Provide the Settlement Base

Blockchains determine how efficiently stablecoins move between users, companies, and financial applications.

Boiron offered a complementary view of the chain’s role, arguing blockchains create more value by supporting widely used assets across many products than by issuing coins tied to one ecosystem.

“The most valuable stablecoin is the one everyone else already accepts,” Boiron said.

Chains therefore compete through transaction performance, developer tools, and support for several major stablecoins.

“Sui’s role in stablecoin growth is settlement, with fast execution built for the transaction volumes mass adoption requires,” Bai said. “Stablecoins need fast finality, capacity for large user numbers, stable fees, and strong user experience.”

Sui introduced gasless stablecoin transfers in May 2026, allowing users to send supported assets without holding SUI separately for transaction fees. Confidential transfers entered public beta in June, allowing issuers to conceal balances and transaction values while preserving access for compliance and auditing.

Sui also recorded more than six million transactions per second during a July public experiment using programmable tunnels. These offchain payment and state channels process activity away from the main network before settling final results on Sui.

Such features can support payroll, merchant payments, treasury transfers, and institutional settlement.

Open USD shows how stablecoin competition is expanding beyond issuance. Reserve income, distribution partnerships, payment access, and blockchain performance will influence which assets gain adoption.

Dollar coins will retain their advantage in global markets, while local assets develop around domestic payments and regional commerce. The strongest providers will combine reliable reserves with liquidity, distribution, and efficient settlement.

The post Open USD Raises Competition in the Global Stablecoin Payments Market appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Source link

Source link