Strategy is asking shareholders to approve a change to the payment schedule for its four preferred “digital credit” securities—moving them from periodic payouts to daily dividends. The company says the switch would not alter the preferred stocks’ dividend rates or the total amount paid, but would make dividend record dates occur on every calendar day.

According to a Friday filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the board approved the proposal on Thursday. Shareholders are set to vote on the amendments during a virtual special meeting scheduled for Oct. 28.

Key takeaways

• Strategy wants to convert STRC, STRF, STRK, and STRD to daily dividend record dates, without changing their dividend rates or aggregate payout.
• If approved, each calendar day becomes a record date, with payments made on the next business day.
• STRC would be the first to transition, with an initial expected daily dividend payment on Nov. 2.
• The other three preferred stocks would follow in January, with their first daily-schedule payments expected on Jan. 4.
• Strategy is following Strive’s earlier step toward daily dividends after Strive became the first public company to adopt the model.

Strategy seeks approval for daily dividend schedule

In its SEC filing, Strategy outlined amendments that would alter how dividends are timed for its preferred stock lineup, including STRC. The company’s stated goal is to shift to a daily framework while keeping economics consistent—specifically, maintaining the same dividend rates and the same total amount paid.

Under the proposed structure, a dividend record date would be set for every calendar day. The corresponding dividend payment would then be processed on the next business day. Strategy also specified an implementation sequence: STRC would transition first, followed by STRF, STRK, and STRD in the subsequent months.

Strategic timing details included in the filing indicate that STRC’s first expected daily dividend payment would arrive on Nov. 2. The remaining three preferred stocks are expected to begin daily payouts in January, with the first payments under the daily record-date schedule anticipated for Jan. 4.

The company said the amendments would take effect after Strategy updates the preferred stock certificates governed under Delaware law.

A broader shift in Bitcoin treasury preferred securities

Strategy’s move arrives after Strive, another Bitcoin treasury-focused public company, changed its own preferred stock payout mechanics to daily dividends. Earlier coverage of Strive noted that SATA began paying dividends every business day on June 16 at a 13% annual rate, after Strive reported eliminating outstanding debt in the first quarter.

While both companies are aiming for the same general outcome—more frequent income timing—the details differ. The source describing Strive’s change emphasized dividends on each business day. Strategy’s plan, by contrast, would treat every calendar day as the record date, with payments aligned to the next business day. For investors, that distinction matters for cash-flow timing and for how dividends accrue around weekends and holidays.

Strategy also positions the preferred securities within its “digital credit” approach—preferred securities designed to generate income from a capital structure anchored by its Bitcoin holdings.

Why daily dividends may matter to holders

Daily dividend schedules can be appealing because they more closely align income distribution with the passage of time. For traders and income-focused investors, more frequent payouts may reduce reliance on longer intervals between distribution dates and can improve short-term planning around liquidity needs.

At the same time, Strategy emphasized that the proposal would not change the dividend rates or the total amount paid. That detail signals the company is aiming primarily at payment mechanics rather than changing the underlying economics of the securities.

Strategy’s scale within the Bitcoin treasury category provides context for why the proposal could draw attention. According to BitcoinTreasuries.NET, Strategy holds about 846,000 BTC, compared with Strive’s 26,355 BTC.

CEO discusses volatility tied to leverage in STRC

Beyond the dividend schedule, Strategy has also been managing investor expectations around STRC’s trading behavior. The article notes that STRC saw notable volatility during the year. In June, it dropped sharply below its $100 stated amount, with an intraday low reported at $71.25 on June 26 based on Yahoo Finance data.

Speaking on Natalie Brunell’s Coin Stories podcast earlier this week, Strategy CEO Phong Le attributed the downturn to more leverage entering the STRC market than the company expected. He said that some investors borrowed against Bitcoin at lower rates to buy STRC and capture the spread between their borrowing costs and STRC’s dividend yield. When Bitcoin’s price declined, Le said those positions faced pressure to add collateral or sell STRC.

“We did not expect the amount of leverage that came into the system,” Le said. “And so that’s a lesson learned, next time around.”

Le also described measures Strategy is pursuing to avoid another similar unwind. These include maintaining a strong U.S. dollar reserve, using a policy that allows the company to repurchase STRC when it trades below its $100 stated amount, and working to attract more long-term holders—particularly institutional investors.

Since the June lows, the article states that STRC has recovered to around $98.41, near Strategy’s stated target range of keeping the security between $99 and $100. It also notes that STRC currently carries a 12% variable annual dividend rate.

What to watch before the shareholder vote

Investors should focus on the Oct. 28 special meeting outcome and on the implementation details once Strategy updates its Delaware certificates. If the daily schedule is approved, traders will likely watch how the more frequent record-date structure interacts with STRC’s ongoing volatility and with the company’s repurchase and reserve strategy.

The Bitget hacker has converted stolen USDC into ETH after a breach that the exchange valued at about $351.6 million, renewing questions about when Circle freezes funds linked to an attack.

Security researcher Taylor Monahan flagged the attacker’s activity on X, pointing to USDC moving through wallets as stolen assets were converted into ETH. Monahan questioned why the funds remained movable despite Circle’s ability to block transfers from specific USDC addresses.

Anthropic has sought shareholder approval for a plan that would give CEO Dario Amodei and six other co-founders a combined 50.1% of voting power after its planned IPO.

According to The Information, which cited people familiar with the planning, Anthropic is asking shareholders to approve a special class of shares before the Claude developer goes public. The proposed shares would give its seven co-founders majority voting power on most matters, provided at least three of them continue to hold a minimum number of company shares.

Anthropic founders would hold voting power beyond their stakes

Each of the seven founders currently owns about 2% of Anthropic, according to the report. Their proposed shares would increase their voting rights without giving them a larger economic stake. As a result, the founders could retain collective control of shareholder votes even if they own far less than half of the company.

The plan resembles a founder-control structure used by Palantir, The Information reported. Its minimum shareholding condition would allow the arrangement to continue while at least three founders keep the required stakes; the report did not specify the threshold each would need to meet. Shareholder approval is still required for Anthropic’s proposal.

Board elections would work differently from most shareholder votes. Under the reported plan, Anthropic’s Long-Term Benefit Trust would retain the power to choose a majority of directors, while the number of seats elected by founders would rise from two to three. The board has seven seats, one of which is vacant, according to The Information.

Employees would also receive a special class of shares that could break ties on certain corporate matters, the report said. Their role would give them a vote in those specific decisions without transferring the trust’s board-election power to the founders.

The trust would keep its role in choosing directors

Anthropic describes itself as a public benefit corporation and says its Long-Term Benefit Trust is an independent body whose members have no financial stake in the company. The trust holds a separate class of stock that gives it authority to elect and remove directors, with that authority designed to grow to a majority of board seats.

The company said when it established the trust that its board would continue to oversee major decisions. Its trust structure gives people outside the shareholder group a role in selecting directors, even as investors and founders hold other voting rights.

The reported proposal would therefore put two kinds of control in different hands. Founders would hold 50.1% of the votes on most shareholder matters, while the trust would select most directors. The details of how those powers interact would be relevant to investors reviewing the company’s offering documents.

For U.S. investors, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s IPO guidance points to the prospectus as the place to check a company’s share classes and their voting rights. The SEC says shares with extra votes can let founders control a company without owning most of its equity, leaving public shareholders with less influence over corporate decisions.

Anthropic has previously been reported to have confidentially filed for a U.S. listing. A public prospectus would give prospective buyers firmer details on the proposed share structure, alongside the company’s financial information and offering terms. In earlier coverage of its IPO timetable, crypto.news reported that the prospectus was expected in late September and investor marketing could begin in mid-October; both dates were subject to change.

Anthropic’s IPO valuation remains under discussion

The voting proposal arrives while Anthropic prepares a potential public offering whose size and timing have changed in recent reports. On Sep. 19, reporting on a November IPO said investors were discussing a listing that could raise up to $100 billion at a valuation of about $2 trillion. The reported terms were preliminary.

Anthropic’s last announced funding round provides a separate figure. In May, the company said it raised $65 billion in Series H financing at a $965 billion valuation after the investment. Its announcement also said annualized revenue had crossed $47 billion earlier that month.

Secondary-market estimates later put Anthropic’s value at about $1.5 trillion, according to earlier coverage of its offering preparations. Those private transactions do not set the price for a public listing, where the final valuation will depend on the shares sold and the price investors pay.

Pre-IPO contracts give traders no shareholder vote

Anthropic’s approaching listing has also drawn interest from crypto trading platforms. Kraken offers perpetual futures tied to Anthropic’s private-market valuation, as reported in September. The contracts give eligible traders price exposure, but no Anthropic shares, dividends or voting rights. Kraken excludes U.S. customers from the products.

OKX introduced Anthropic-linked pre-IPO contracts for eligible European customers on Sep. 10. Its products likewise track an implied valuation without making contract holders company shareholders. The exchange said the contracts can be traded with up to 10 times leverage, while their prices may differ from both private funding valuations and any eventual IPO price.

XRP has risen 15.92% over the past week to $1.54, putting the token back against the 1.55–1.60 resistance zone as ETF demand and whale accumulation remain active.

CoinGecko shows XRP trading near $1.54 after moving between roughly $1.45 and $1.55 during the past 24 hours. The rebound follows a volatile week that saw XRP reach $1.65 on September 23 before sellers pushed it back toward $1.48.

The recovery has restored positive momentum without producing a confirmed breakout. XRP’s 14-day Relative Strength Index stands at 62.77, above its signal average near 56.24 but below the conventional overbought threshold of 70. The Aroon Oscillator sits at +50, showing that recent highs are occurring more recently than recent lows.

Can XRP price finally break through $1.60?

The 1.55–1.60 region remains the immediate test because XRP has repeatedly struggled to hold above it. On September 23, the token reached $1.6581 before retreating toward $1.51, according to recent XRP price analysis from crypto.news. A sustained move through $1.60 would put the recent 1.65–1.66 high back in play.

EGRAG Crypto sees the current hesitation as a compression phase. The analyst wrote that XRP’s 21-day, 50-day and 100-day exponential moving averages are converging with a macro trendline near price. He described XRP as being “squeezed,” though his much higher long-term targets of $12, $15 and $27 remain speculative and require moves far beyond current resistance.

His shorter-term setup places more weight on $1.55. A strong recovery through that level after a retest of 1.40–1.41 would support his bullish continuation scenario. If XRP cannot reclaim $1.55, EGRAG sees the middle of a falling channel near $1.22 becoming more relevant.

Current momentum data lean toward buyers. RSI at 65 remains comfortably above 50, while the +50 Aroon Oscillator supports the recent upward trend without showing extreme dominance.

The next confirmation would need to come from price. Crypto.news previously identified the $1.60 barrier after XRP’s September 23 rejection, with roughly $1.70 representing the next visible resistance area if buyers establish support above $1.60.

Whales bought the dip while XRP recovered

Large-holder accumulation has accompanied the rebound. Santiment data shared by analyst Ali Martinez showed wallets in the tracked whale cohort accumulating roughly 1.54 billion XRP within 96 hours, worth approximately $2.2 billion at prices during the accumulation period.

The tracked holdings increased from roughly 8.27 billion XRP to 9.81 billion XRP. The buying began while XRP traded near $1.40 following the market reaction to the failed CLARITY Act vote.

Wallet data cannot identify every beneficial owner because exchanges, custodians and institutions may control multiple addresses. The 1.54 billion XRP figure therefore measures balances within the monitored wallet cohort, not confirmed purchases by a known group of individual investors.

Price nevertheless strengthened after the accumulation period. XRP moved from roughly $1.41 on September 20 to $1.53 the following day before eventually testing above $1.65, historical market data show.

EGRAG’s RSI roadmap gives another way to measure whether momentum can continue. He wants RSI to cross its moving average above 53, retest that region and hold it before targeting stronger momentum readings toward 80.

His downside alternative places 47 as the next momentum level if RSI fails to hold above 53. The current RSI reading of 62.77 already sits above that gateway, but maintaining it through another price test would be required for his “preferred bullish roadmap” to remain intact.

XRP ETF demand keeps building below resistance

U.S. spot XRP ETFs have continued attracting new money while XRP trades below $1.60. SoSoValue data reported for September 24 showed $14.89 million in daily net inflows, taking cumulative net inflows to approximately $1.76 billion. Bitwise led the session with $9.91 million, while Franklin Templeton added $4.98 million.

The previous session brought another $18.04 million. Bitwise received $11.54 million on September 23 and Franklin’s XRPZ drew $6.50 million, pushing cumulative inflows at that point to approximately $1.748 billion.

Fund demand has not removed XRP’s price volatility. September 23 offers the clearest example: XRP ETFs absorbed fresh capital while spot XRP fell sharply after failing to sustain its move above $1.60.

As crypto.news reported when Bitwise’s XRP ETF passed $500 million, regulated fund demand has continued through multiple XRP corrections. Seven U.S. spot XRP funds had already attracted roughly $1.57 billion by late August.

Institutional exposure is extending beyond dedicated XRP products. A September 9 SEC filing for the T. Rowe Price Active Crypto ETF showed XRP carrying a 9.15% weight in the fund’s benchmark as of August 31. Bitcoin represented 39.54%, Ethereum 18.86% and BNB 9.29%.

The filing lists XRP among the fund’s eligible assets. T. Rowe Price had already launched the actively managed crypto product earlier in 2026, so the filing represents an updated allocation disclosure, not a pending request for permission to begin holding XRP.

The Cyber Hornet S&P 500 and XRP 75/25 Strategy ETF is likewise already operating. Its SEC prospectus states that the product targets approximately 75% exposure to S&P 500 stocks and 25% to XRP through direct holdings, futures and XRP-linked exchange-traded products. The fund commenced operations on January 30, 2026.

Ripple’s institutional push continues behind XRP’s rally

Ripple has continued building institutional connections separately from XRP’s short-term trading setup. At the Middle East Stablecoin Forum in Dubai on September 17, Ripple Middle East and Africa Managing Director Reece Merrick joined representatives from BlackRock, HSBC, Mashreq and other financial firms for a discussion covering stablecoins, tokenized deposits and tokenized money-market funds.

Crypto bros with stagnating portfolios have turned to so-called “dopamine shopping” — pretending to buy luxury goods online — to get their kicks.

Emerging in South Korea earlier this year, dopamine shopping involves going through the process of browsing and paying for high ticket items like luxury watches, designer clothes, and fancy meals, but without actually spending any real money.

The idea is to experience the rush of spending big without the financial hit. After all, budgets for authentic luxury goods are still tight after crypto’s market cap dropped 30% from its all-time high a year ago.

A Singapore-based lawyer and crypto influencer has poked fun at the trend, proposing a startup that introduces real giveaways into fake shopping apps as a way to introduce variable rewards.

A company that could convert users into paying customers by combining a dopamine purchase with a lottery entry for a real item could be worth “multi billions” he joked.

Japan has expanded its push to bring yen stablecoins into everyday business use, with 26 companies, financial institutions and local government bodies joining a six month program that will test EJPY and other stablecoin use cases across payments, remittances and digital assets.

Japan Blockchain Foundation said the Stablecoin Proof of Concept Partners program began in September and will run until February 2027, giving participants access to test EJPY tokens, wallets and the Japan Open Chain infrastructure needed to develop and verify potential services.

Toshiba is among the companies taking part, alongside SCSK, QUICK, Seiko Solutions, Hachijuni Nagano Bank, Asahi Broadcasting Group Holdings, Tobu Top Tours and several technology and financial services firms. Tagawa City has joined from the public sector.

Sixteen participants have been publicly named so far, while another 10 will be disclosed after discussions with the companies are completed.

The program moves EJPY beyond the preparation work outlined earlier this year and into testing with businesses that could eventually use stablecoins for actual transactions. The foundation is developing EJPY as a trust based, yen denominated stablecoin centered on Japan Open Chain, an Ethereum compatible Layer 1 blockchain operated by a consortium of Japanese companies.

EJPY tests move toward business payments

Participants will examine potential applications across domestic payments and remittances, cross border transactions, business to business settlements and payments involving digital assets such as real world assets and security tokens.

Other areas include Web3 services, local government and regional economy payments, and new financial services built around stablecoins.

Japan Blockchain Foundation said the companies will develop use cases based on their own business needs instead of working from a single predefined payment model. Technical testing will then be used to examine whether those ideas could eventually become commercial services.

Participation does not mean the companies have committed to issuing, handling or commercially launching stablecoins. The program is intended to study possible applications and verify the technology before any individual company decides whether to proceed with a product.

The latest work builds on plans for EJPY that were disclosed earlier this year. As crypto.news previously reported, Japan Blockchain Foundation was preparing the yen pegged token for business to business settlement, with Japan Open Chain serving as a core issuance network and Ethereum support planned from the start.

At the time, launch terms and timing had yet to be finalized as work continued around regulatory reviews, trustee selection and discussions with potential partners.

The foundation is still preparing the trust structure, issuance and redemption process, systems and legal compliance arrangements for EJPY.

Under the new program, participating organizations will receive information on stablecoin regulations, market developments, the EJPY structure and use cases already being explored in Japan and overseas. Individual consultations will be offered for companies designing stablecoin based business models or systems.

Technical support will include EJPY test tokens and wallets that can operate on Japan Open Chain, allowing companies to test transactions before deciding whether a service is commercially viable.

Japan stablecoin use is moving beyond issuance

EJPY is entering testing as several Japanese businesses explore how stablecoins could work within existing payment systems.

Convenience store operator Lawson expanded a stablecoin trial in August to include JPYC, USDC and USDT at two Tokyo stores. The test processes wallet barcodes through Lawson’s existing point of sale registers without requiring separate payment terminals.

Lawson said it would examine payment speed, system integration and store operations before deciding whether stablecoin payments should be introduced more widely.

Corporate payment use is developing alongside retail trials. Japanese logistics group AZ COM Maruwa Holdings has laid out plans to use JPYC for payments involving roughly 2,300 business partners and contractors, including truck drivers.

JPYC itself has continued attracting corporate backing. The stablecoin issuer raised a total of 6 billion yen, or roughly $38 million, through an extended Series B round announced in August. AZ COM Maruwa invested 1 billion yen as part of the funding while preparing its planned payment use.

EJPY would add another yen denominated option to the market. Japan Blockchain Foundation expects the token to support business settlements, digital asset payments, remittances and transactions involving Web3 services.

Japan Open Chain is intended to serve as the main network for issuance and circulation, though the foundation is considering multichain support to make EJPY available to businesses in Japan and overseas.

Japanese banks prepare their own stablecoin services

Stablecoin development is taking place within Japan’s banking sector as well.

MUFG Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and Mizuho Bank are targeting live stablecoin transactions during fiscal 2026, which ends in March 2027.

The three banks have been working through a shared framework covering issuance infrastructure, governance, operating rules and systems. Their work followed a Financial Services Agency backed pilot that tested corporate cross border payments through a trust structure using Progmat blockchain infrastructure.

Cross border testing has continued outside that project. Kyobo Life Insurance and Japan’s SBI Group completed a yen and won stablecoin test in September using the Canton Network.

The pilot tested direct exchange between representations of yen and won stablecoins without first converting the funds through the US dollar. Institutional transfer, foreign exchange, settlement, tracking and reconciliation were included in the test, although no institutional funds changed hands.

Japan Blockchain Foundation has identified similar cross border payments as one of the areas EJPY participants want to explore.

Japan builds a regulated stablecoin market

Japan already has a legal framework covering stablecoins, while regulators have continued adjusting oversight as more financial institutions and businesses enter the sector.

The Financial Services Agency established a dedicated Cryptocurrency and Stablecoin Division in August, bringing digital asset supervision, innovation and digital payment planning under a standalone department.

Yen stablecoin activity has meanwhile expanded through JPYC, which operates as a regulated electronic payment instrument. JPYC Inc. received registration as a funds transfer service provider in August 2025 and formally launched its current stablecoin and JPYC EX issuance and redemption service later that year.

The token is designed to maintain a one to one value with the yen and is backed by yen denominated deposits and Japanese government bonds. Its use has since spread into retail and corporate payment tests, while the token became available for trading on South Korean exchange Upbit in September.

EJPY is being developed under a different trust based structure. Japan Blockchain Foundation plans to use the proof of concept program to work through potential business applications while continuing preparations for issuance and redemption, regulatory compliance and the underlying system.

Participation in the program is free and is open to businesses, financial institutions and local governments considering stablecoin payment infrastructure, remittance services or blockchain based digital transformation.

The current testing period is scheduled to continue through February 2027, with participating organizations expected to develop and verify EJPY use cases using test tokens and Japan Open Chain infrastructure.

The CFTC has updated its guidance on tokenized customer-fund investments and blockchain records, putting the focus back on the rules that already let some futures intermediaries take crypto as margin. A fall in the token’s price sets off several different calculations. The crucial distinctions are whose asset it is, which haircut applies, and who must fill a shortfall.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has updated its crypto activity FAQs as regulated derivatives firms work with tokenized assets and digital records.

The agency’s September 24 release says the latest additions address investments of customer funds in tokenized forms of permitted investments and blockchain recordkeeping. It points back to the March 20 FAQs, Staff Letter 25-39 on tokenized collateral and Staff Letter 26-05 on digital assets accepted as customer margin. The announcement does not say that September 24 created an unrestricted new right to pledge any token against any derivatives trade. The collateral permission, and its conditions, predate the new release.

The CFTC’s existing crypto guidance was covered by crypto.news in March. Its practical question has become more urgent as firms put digital assets into structures usually associated with cash and government securities. Suppose a customer posts bitcoin against a futures position and bitcoin falls while the futures position loses money. A mark on the coin and a mark on the trade occur together. The first reduces the value of security available to the account; the second raises what the account needs.

The regulatory papers separate these movements. Staff Letter 26-05 concerns what a futures commission merchant, or FCM, may count while evaluating a customer account and segregated funds. A derivatives clearing organization, or DCO, sets its own haircut for assets accepted as initial margin under separate rules. A 20% charge on an intermediary’s proprietary bitcoin inventory is a third issue. Applying one number to all three would give the reader a false answer.

September’s FAQ update is narrower than the collateral headlines

CFTC Release 9303-26 names the Market Participants Division, Division of Market Oversight and Division of Clearing and Risk as the staff groups publishing the update. The release specifies two matters: tokenized versions of investments already permitted for customer funds and use of blockchain technology to satisfy recordkeeping requirements. It traces the FAQ series to March 20, 2026. That chronology is the first check on claims circulating about a new collateral rule.

The original March FAQs explicitly say an FCM may not invest customer funds in payment stablecoins under Regulation 1.25 merely because it can accept a qualifying stablecoin as customer margin. An FCM may, under Staff Letter 26-05, place its own payment stablecoins into segregated customer accounts as residual interest. These are different sources of funds and different transactions. Buying tokens with segregated customer cash is not interchangeable with receiving a customer’s token as a margin deposit.

The distinction carries into the September update. A tokenized form of an investment already permitted under Regulation 1.25 is a question about the wrapper on an eligible underlying asset. It is not a general license for an intermediary to use customer cash to buy bitcoin or a payment stablecoin. Without the full text of the updated FAQ attached to the CFTC’s public release as reviewed for this feature, the release supports only its stated scope. We do not attribute new haircut values or new eligibility categories to yesterday’s update.

An agency staff FAQ is not an amendment to every CFTC rule. Staff Letter 26-05 is a no-action position: the Market Participants Division says it will not recommend enforcement against an FCM acting within specified conditions. It does not repeal the customer segregation provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, and it does not promise that a DCO will accept every coin. The original letter was issued following a request by Coinbase Financial Markets and was reissued on February 6, 2026, to clarify that a national trust bank may qualify as a payment stablecoin issuer for its purposes.

The CFTC’s latest tokenization comments show the policy context. Chairman Michael Selig has discussed round-the-clock markets and tokenized collateral; an agency’s interest in those markets does not eliminate the ordinary margin test. A clearinghouse still has to decide whether a proposed collateral asset has sufficiently low credit, market and liquidity risk for its clearing program.

The customer owns the token, but its recognized value can move

A futures customer places margin with an FCM, which carries the customer’s trading account. Federal segregation rules require the intermediary to account for customer property separately from the firm’s own assets. Staff Letter 26-05 lets an FCM count certain non-security digital assets, including payment stablecoins, when determining whether the customer account is undermargined and performing specified segregation calculations, provided it follows the letter’s conditions.

The FCM does not simply copy the wallet’s displayed market value into those calculations. For a payment stablecoin it determines fair market value and applies a haircut under its risk policies. For other qualifying digital assets the letter calls for a haircut of at least 20% for the specified calculations, subject to the letter’s particular exception for collateral and a position both based on and denominated in the same asset. The FCM’s relevant valuation or a clearing organization or trading venue’s measure may differ depending on the calculation. The text matters more than a slogan that bitcoin is accepted at 80 cents on the dollar everywhere.

Here is a deliberately simple illustration, not a report of an actual account. A customer posts bitcoin worth $100,000, and the relevant FCM calculation applies a 20% haircut. Recognized value is $80,000. If bitcoin’s spot value then falls by 15% to $85,000 and the haircut remains 20%, recognized value becomes $68,000. The haircut alone did not jump; market value fell. The account has lost $12,000 of recognized collateral value without a single bitcoin leaving custody.

Now assume the relevant margin requirement for the futures position stays at $75,000. Before the bitcoin move, $80,000 of recognized collateral exceeds the requirement by $5,000. After the move, $68,000 leaves a $7,000 shortfall. The gap changed by $12,000. If the position itself simultaneously loses $10,000, the economic pressure becomes more severe, but the precise cash call depends on the account’s other balances, settlement, portfolio margin and the FCM’s rules. The illustration deliberately holds those factors fixed to show one moving part at a time.

It follows that a 20% haircut is not an insurance policy against a 20% fall. Starting with $100,000, a 20% haircut gives $80,000 of credit. If spot subsequently drops 25%, the asset is worth $75,000 and its value after the same haircut is $60,000, a $20,000 decline in recognized credit. The ratio applies to the new price each time. Calling the initial discount a guarantee would obscure the mechanics of margin calls.

The hypothetical can be run in the other direction to see what would invalidate the concern. If the token price is flat, the recognized collateral value stays at $80,000 under the fixed 20% assumption; a fall in the trader’s futures position could still create a margin deficit. If the futures position earns enough to offset a decline in the pledged token, the combined account may remain above its required margin even as the bitcoin collateral loses value. The public letter does not allow an outsider to infer a margin call from a token price alone. Account equity, product exposure and the firm’s house margin are needed.

Nor is the haircut necessarily static. The 20% in the letter is a minimum for the specified non-stablecoin FCM calculations, not a cap. If the FCM’s risk policy required 30%, a $100,000 holding would initially count as $70,000. After a 15% decline in the asset price, it would count as $59,500. Changing the assumed discount from 20% to 30% while holding the post-decline price at $85,000 would reduce recognized value by another $8,500. A fall in spot and an increase in the discount can therefore compound; whether a firm changes its policy in a real episode requires its actual rules or an announcement, neither of which follows from the CFTC letter alone.

The same caution applies to a payment stablecoin that moves below its intended peg. The letter instructs a firm to use fair market value and its risk policy, with an appropriate haircut, when counting a payment stablecoin. A token trading at 98 cents does not retain one dollar of regulatory collateral value merely because its issuer promises redemption at par. The recognized amount would depend on the policy’s treatment of market price, redemption access and the relevant haircut. It would be wrong to use the 2% proprietary capital charge as an automatic discount on a customer’s stablecoin margin: the figure addresses the firm’s own position in a different calculation.

The letter has a narrower exception when a customer posts a non-stablecoin digital asset to support a contract both based on and denominated in that same asset. For the permitted offset against the deficit in that specific contract, the applicable clearing organization or foreign clearing organization’s haircut alone may govern. The exception does not turn that asset into universal collateral for every unrelated contract. For an account holding more than one kind of derivatives exposure, the FCM must still apply the relevant requirements to the exposures outside the exception.

The clearinghouse sets a separate haircut

The March CFTC FAQs answer the DCO question directly. A clearinghouse may accept crypto assets, including qualifying payment stablecoins, as initial margin if the assets meet Regulation 39.13(g)(10), which limits accepted assets to those with minimal credit, market and liquidity risks. Regulation 39.13(g)(12) makes the DCO responsible for setting haircuts that account for those risks, including stressed market conditions, and for reassessing them at least monthly.

No universal CFTC clearinghouse bitcoin haircut appears in that answer. A venue might apply a larger discount, restrict a coin, impose concentration limits or decline it under its risk rules. The FCM’s treatment of a customer’s margin and the DCO’s treatment of collateral posted to the clearinghouse operate at different links in the chain. An individual can see a token in an FCM account without the clearinghouse necessarily holding that same token as its own initial margin. The FCM may satisfy clearing obligations in another accepted form.

The easiest error is to import the 20% proprietary capital charge from Question 6 of the March FAQ into Question 8 about a DCO’s initial-margin haircut. Question 6 says the CFTC staff would not object if an FCM used a minimum 20% capital charge for its own inventory positions in bitcoin or ether, and 2% for its own payment stablecoins. Those are regulatory net-capital deductions on the firm’s property. Question 8 requires the DCO to choose its own haircut for initial margin. Question 1 separately tells the FCM how to treat customer property using the conditions in Staff Letter 26-05.

Three percentages might happen to coincide in one arrangement. They still come from different rules and belong to different balance sheets. The comparison is especially relevant when an FCM tries to meet a shortfall with its own stablecoins. Staff guidance permits proprietary qualifying payment stablecoins as residual interest in a segregated customer account but does not permit the firm to substitute proprietary bitcoin or ether for that purpose. The 2% capital charge on proprietary stablecoin holdings is a separate firm-level cost.

The market for tokenized funds supplies a related example. A fund share represented on a blockchain can carry the legal and economic rights of a conventional eligible fund share, yet the speed of moving a token is only one part of its margin value. Fund redemption terms, ownership records, settlement restrictions and who can receive the shares remain relevant. The CFTC’s tokenized-collateral guidance focuses on equivalence of rights, not merely on whether a blockchain transaction confirms quickly.

Franklin Templeton’s tokenized BENJI fund shares illustrate how a fund token can sit inside securities and custody structures even while its ownership record uses a blockchain. Whether any such share is accepted in a particular derivatives margin program depends on that program’s rules. The existence of a token and a large pool of underlying government assets does not show that a DCO has approved it as collateral.

A falling price reaches three balance sheets

When a customer’s bitcoin collateral declines, the customer faces the first exposure: it must keep its account adequately margined under the firm’s and venue’s rules. A deficit can lead to a call for more collateral, reduced positions or liquidation under the applicable agreements. An FCM that serves as intermediary must monitor its own exposure and keep customer segregation intact. The clearinghouse monitors its members and the assets it accepts as initial margin. They are linked, but their duties are not identical.

The Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations prohibit an FCM from using one customer’s property to carry another customer’s positions. Staff Letter 26-05 describes why FCMs may have to place their own funds into segregation equal to customer undermargined amounts, including deficits. That obligation is the reason a rapid collateral move is not merely an app notification for one trader. An intermediary must account for it in a protected customer-funds system whose balance changes with the value of pledged assets.

Time complicates the chain. The March FAQs say the FCM’s daily segregation reports compute separate schedules as of the close of each business day. Crypto prices can move continuously. A firm may monitor and call margin more often under its own risk policies, but the existence of daily regulatory reporting should not be mistaken for a token price that changes only once daily. Nor does a blockchain timestamp itself establish the legal value accepted by a clearing organization when the relevant market becomes thin.

An FCM’s own contribution to a segregated account deserves a separate explanation. Customer property is protected by segregation, but if a customer account is undermargined, the firm may have to put its own money into the segregated pool so the protected total is not short. The margin call issued to a customer and the firm-level deposit into segregation can occur on different schedules. A customer may later cure a deficit or close a position; the firm’s immediate duty to preserve required segregation does not wait for an optimistic prediction about that customer’s next transfer. Staff Letter 26-05 addresses how the FCM counts the qualifying crypto when it determines that amount. It does not authorize using another customer’s surplus as a substitute for the firm’s money.

In practice, the customer agreement can set a house margin above a clearinghouse minimum. A trader looking only at the DCO’s public haircut or product margin schedule may therefore understate the collateral demanded by its FCM. Conversely, a clearinghouse’s decision to recognize a token does not force every intermediary to offer that token to customers. Those choices can be checked against a particular firm’s disclosures, but the CFTC’s general FAQ does not supply a single industrywide customer contract.

The staff letter first limited an FCM relying on the no-action position to payment stablecoins, bitcoin and ether as customer margin for its initial three months. It required notices of significant operational or cyber problems during that period and weekly reporting of amounts held by asset and account class. After the initial period, an FCM may accept other qualifying crypto assets if it meets the letter’s continuing conditions; it must submit revised risk policies before accepting some assets. Reporting and the initial restriction have different start and end mechanics. It would be inaccurate to claim all FCMs became eligible to accept every token on the same calendar date.

A second 2026 staff action addressed customer crypto sent to foreign brokers for certain foreign futures arrangements. The location and reuse rights of pledged property can change in such a structure. It should not be folded into the domestic clearinghouse example without checking the relevant letter and customer agreement. Asset custody, margin recognition and legal claims need to be traced for the particular route a trader uses.

A strong case for crypto collateral still needs limits

The strongest affirmative argument comes from the CFTC’s own pilot and subsequent staff work. In December 2025, acting chair Caroline Pham launched a digital-asset pilot that included bitcoin, ether and tokenized collateral in derivatives markets with reporting and monitoring requirements. A trader who already holds these assets may avoid selling them simply to create cash margin. Tokenized fund shares may preserve claims on an eligible investment while making transfers faster within approved systems. The staff letters set conditions because officials saw a use case they were prepared to test.

Neither faster movement nor a public ledger cancels market risk. Regulation 39.13(g)(10) still asks a DCO to assess credit, market and liquidity risks. CFTC Staff Letter 26-05 still requires valuation policies and deductions for an FCM relying on relief. A clearinghouse can consider stressed markets when setting a haircut. A token whose transfer settles promptly can still have a falling market price or a legal ownership claim that takes time to verify. The regulatory system treats those as separate questions.

There is a measurable distinction between holding a token as customer collateral, holding an FCM’s token as firm inventory, and using a tokenized security as an investment of customer cash. The September 24 FAQs concern the third of these subjects and blockchain records. The March FAQs and February letter speak to the first two. A story that merges them would incorrectly imply a new permission or an official 20% haircut across every venue.

Limits remain. The CFTC releases reviewed here do not show how many FCMs filed a notice, how much bitcoin they currently hold as collateral, or a definitive haircut for a named clearinghouse’s latest program. The $100,000 example shows the math of a fixed haircut and a market move; it is not a forecast of liquidations. An actual customer’s result requires its account records, product margin schedule, collateral mix and agreements.

What to watch

• Updated CFTC FAQs: Check the published text for the exact treatment of tokenized permitted investments and blockchain records.
• FCM collateral terms: Look for each firm’s accepted coins, customer valuation policy and house haircuts.
• DCO margin schedules: Check the clearinghouse’s eligible assets and its own haircut for each accepted token.
• FCM notices and disclosures: Identify firms publicly reporting reliance on Staff Letter 26-05 without assuming all intermediaries participate.
• Token price and required margin: Compare both at the same timestamp to see whether a customer’s recognized collateral still covers its obligation.

The March FAQ specifies that a DCO must reassess whether its collateral haircuts remain appropriate at least monthly. Its staff answer leaves the actual discount to the clearinghouse under Regulation 39.13(g)(12).

FAQ

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 25, 2026.

NEAR has pushed toward the $5 level after NYSE Arca approved Bitwise’s NEAR ETF listing application under ticker NRR, extending a rally that has lifted the token more than 170% this year.

The SEC filing trail shows that Bitwise registered the ETF’s shares under Section 12(b) on September 24, with the Form 8-A stating that NYSE Arca had approved the listing application. The filing names common shares of beneficial interest in the Bitwise NEAR ETF for trading on the exchange.

The wording requires an important distinction. Bitwise’s prospectus states that neither the SEC nor any state securities regulator has “approved or disapproved” the securities themselves. The exchange has approved the listing application, while the SEC registration process governs the public offering disclosures.

What did NYSE Arca approve for the Bitwise NEAR ETF?

Bitwise plans to list the product under the ticker NRR, giving investors exposure to NEAR through a traditional brokerage account. Its primary objective is to track the value of NEAR held by the trust after fees and liabilities, while staking serves as a secondary source of additional tokens. The fund does not plan to use derivatives.

The SEC’s September 16 amended S-1 sets a 0.75% annual management fee. Coinbase Custody will safeguard the fund’s NEAR, while Bitwise will select staking agents to operate validators for tokens placed into staking. Creation and redemption baskets will contain 10,000 shares.

Bitwise’s September 24 prospectus goes further on the staking economics. The trust currently intends to stake 100% of its NEAR holdings, subject to liquidity requirements and operational exceptions. Staking-related expenses will absorb 33% of newly generated NEAR, leaving approximately 67% for the trust.

Bitwise Investment Manager is expected to buy the first 20,000 shares for $500,000 at $25 each. The proceeds are intended to purchase NEAR at or before the listing. Bitwise Asset Management had previously provided $200 in seed capital by purchasing eight shares at $25 each.

Why is NEAR struggling to hold $5 after the ETF catalyst?

NEAR’s price moved rapidly before the latest filing. CoinGecko data show the token closing near $2.62 on September 16 and$ 4.96 at press time. The same source showed a 43% seven-day gain and a roughly 176% year-to-date increase.

The rally briefly pushed NEAR into the 4.80-5.00 region before momentum cooled. That leaves $5 as the next obvious psychological barrier after one of NEAR’s strongest monthly advances of 2026.

As crypto.news reported in its September 23 NEAR market update, NEAR spot trading recently went live on Hyperliquid through a NEAR/USDC market. Hyperliquid perpetual open interest stood near $344 million at the time, while positive funding showed leveraged longs were paying shorts.

The ETF story adds another catalyst to a rally that had already been building. Crypto.news previously covered Bitwise adding staking to its NEAR filing in July, when NEAR traded near $2. The amended structure introduced staking rewards while confirming NYSE Arca, Coinbase Custody and BNY Mellon as key parts of the product’s infrastructure.

Could staking change how investors value the NRR product?

The staking feature separates NRR from a product that merely holds idle tokens. Under Bitwise’s structure, additional NEAR generated through validators can increase the trust’s token holdings after staking expenses, which then feed into its net asset value.

Investors will not receive every token generated by staking. Bitwise’s prospectus says the trust retains approximately 67% after 33% is allocated to the staking agents, custodian and sponsor as staking expenses. The 0.75% management fee applies separately.

Bitwise already operates a European NEAR staking product. Its Frankfurt-listed NEAR Staking ETP recently crossed $100 million in assets as NEAR’s price climbed. Reporting on the product found that much of the asset increase came from token appreciation, while outstanding units rose much more slowly.

The distinction between rising assets and fresh investor demand will matter once NRR begins trading. A higher NEAR price automatically raises the dollar value of tokens held by the trust, while share creations would provide clearer evidence that new investor capital is entering the product.

Is NEAR becoming overheated near the $5 resistance?

Momentum remains strong on the technical snapshot. The 14-period Money Flow Index stands near 77.01, signaling heavy buying pressure and placing the indicator close to the upper end of its normal range.

The Know Sure Thing indicator remains strongly positive near 912.24, well above its signal line around 626.11. Both readings continue rising, supporting the strength of the September trend even as the price struggles to establish itself above $5.

An MFI reading near 77, however, places NEAR close to conditions traders often consider stretched. The token has moved from roughly $2.30 in mid-September to nearly $5 within less than two weeks, leaving price far above several moving averages from the earlier consolidation.

Recent market history puts the first support area around 4.20-4.30, with the next deeper zone around 3.70-3.80. A clean move through 4.80-5.00 would remove the resistance that has capped the latest advance, while a failure to hold the low-$4 range would represent a larger reset after the September run.

Crypto.news noted a similar tension in its coverage of NEAR’s 2026 alternative-asset rally, where the token had emerged as one of the stronger smart-contract platform trades as capital moved beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum.

When could the Bitwise NEAR ETF begin trading?

Bitwise has completed several steps associated with bringing the product to market. The September 24 Form 8-A registers the shares for NYSE Arca, while the final prospectus filed the same day states that the sponsor first intended to use the document on September 24.

The prospectus says NRR shares are expected to list “subject to notice of issuance.” Bitwise’s filing materials did not specify a confirmed first trading date in the documents reviewed. The SEC prospectus further states that the shares are registered only for public sale in the United States.

Once trading begins, authorized participants can create or redeem shares in 10,000-share baskets using either NEAR or cash under the trust’s procedures. Bitwise expects the initial $500,000 seed basket proceeds to be used to acquire NEAR at or before the exchange listing.

Polygon has tested a new agent payment system that processed more than 11 million verified payment updates per second across 25 hubs while keeping final settlement anchored to Polygon Chain.

Polygon Labs said the benchmark used agent pay channels designed for software that pays for inference, data, API calls and other services as they are consumed, instead of sending every individual payment through an onchain transaction.

The system combines high frequency offchain payment updates with batched settlement on Polygon, allowing an agent to make repeated small payments while working through a task. Each update was confirmed by the payment engine in 20 microseconds, excluding network latency between the user and the hub.

Polygon payment channels separate payments from settlement

Agent pay channels begin with a payer depositing funds into a vendor agnostic channel contract on Polygon and binding a session key. The deposited amount determines how much the agent can spend during the session.

Once a service requests payment through x402, the agent sends signed cumulative vouchers through a hub as it consumes the service. The hub checks the signature, price, replay ID, authorization ceiling and remaining escrow before returning a receipt.

A valid receipt lets the provider release the next unit of work, which could be a token window, data result, API response or another service. Instead of putting each payment on Polygon individually, the hub batches the accumulated state and posts an epoch Merkle root to the chain. Providers can then prove what they earned against the root and claim the funds.

The design gives x402 and the payment channel separate roles. The x402 protocol lets an online service state a price and request payment over HTTP, while the channel processes repeated payment updates and later batches them for settlement.

Interest in x402 has grown as developers build payment infrastructure for autonomous software. The protocol uses HTTP’s 402 “Payment Required” status code to let software pay for online resources without relying on a conventional checkout process. As crypto.news previously reported, agents can use the system to buy compute, data and other services while carrying out tasks.

How Polygon reached 11 million payments per second

Polygon tested the architecture against an OpenRouter style inference API on a live devnet. A signed payment was triggered through the channel for every 100 token window, with Polygon saying the payment path was real while the inference provider itself was a stand in.

Performance differed depending on how much of the payment stack was included in the test. A full x402 path involving the agent, site, facilitator and hub processed roughly 40,000 payments per second. Polygon recorded 2.4 million payments in the test with a 100% success rate.

Testing the engine directly on one 24 core server produced between 533,000 and 536,000 fully verified payments per second. Polygon then distributed the workload across 25 independently scaling hubs with 16 vCPUs each, where the system passed 11 million payment updates per second.

The figure does not mean Polygon Chain itself processed 11 million onchain transactions per second. Individual payment updates moved through the offchain channels, while deposited funds remained secured through Polygon and accumulated payment states were settled onchain in batches.

Polygon said its hubs partition payers and do not need to coordinate with each other while payments are being processed. Capacity can therefore be added by running more hubs. Based on the 25 hub test, the company estimates that a larger fleet could process more than 100 million payment updates per second.

Participants can determine when those accumulated payments are settled. Settlement could take place after one payment, 50,000 updates or 100 million updates, depending on how the service is configured.

The benchmark configuration put the processing cost for one billion payment updates at approximately $0.15, according to Polygon.

x402 payment activity is spreading across blockchain networks

Polygon’s test arrives as x402 is being adopted across several blockchain ecosystems. Circle reported that USDC accounted for 99.3% of x402 payment volume measured during the second quarter, although the figure covered Circle’s x402 data and did not represent all AI agent payment systems.

Network support has continued to grow. Cardano added x402 to its software stack in September, allowing developers to build agents and applications capable of paying for services with ADA and Cardano native tokens. Its initial TypeScript release had been tested on Cardano’s preproduction environment but had not yet demonstrated commercial payments at scale on mainnet.

Block joined the x402 Foundation this week and contributed Lightning support to the protocol. The x402 Foundation reported 75.41 million transactions and $24.24 million in volume over a recent 30 day period, while the Lightning addition gives developers a Bitcoin based payment option alongside the stablecoins that have supplied much of the protocol’s activity.

Ripple has pursued a similar path around the XRP Ledger. AI agents had generated more than 1.4 million transactions on XRPL by July, while Ripple was working on developer infrastructure for autonomous payments involving XRP and RLUSD.

Agent payments fit Polygon’s Open Money Stack plans

The agent pay channel system is expected to connect with Polygon’s Open Money Stack, which brings together the infrastructure used to move funds into applications, hold them, apply spending rules and settle accumulated value.

Polygon has spent much of 2026 building its payments infrastructure around stablecoins and institutional settlement. PayPal USD became native on Polygon in July through the Open Money Stack, giving businesses access to PYUSD alongside wallets, fiat ramps and compliance tools. Polygon Labs said at the time that its network had settled more than $2.6 trillion in stablecoin transactions.

The network had already reduced its average block time to 1.75 seconds in May as part of its payments push, taking its estimated theoretical onchain throughput to roughly 3,260 transactions per second.

Agent pay channels use a different scaling model because millions of individual payment updates do not have to compete for that onchain transaction capacity. Funds are committed to the channel first, payment updates take place away from the chain, and Polygon records the resulting settlement in batches.

Polygon said the setup is intended for services that charge by individual API call, token, lookup or completed task, allowing an agent to move between providers without maintaining a separately funded prepaid account with each service.