What’s with the hold up?

What is New York’s pied-à-terre tax?

The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab is running a trade-finance experiment designed to test whether stablecoins and a potential digital British pound could work together inside the same cross-border payment flow.

In a project announced on Wednesday, NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs said the trial links an exporter’s advance delivered via a stablecoin rail with a UK importer’s settlement using simulated digital pounds. The focus is on the practical mechanics of payments timing—particularly the point at which trade finance is released and how long settlement takes.

Key takeaways

• The Digital Pound Lab trial pairs a stablecoin payment to an exporter with simulated digital pound settlement by a UK importer in a single cross-border workflow.
• NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs are combining payments testing with a separate effort to generate reusable credit profiles for small businesses.
• The project is explicitly using simulated systems: the Bank of England has not committed to issuing a digital pound and the lab uses no real customers or money.
• The work targets a long-standing trade finance problem where exporters may wait days after shipment to receive payment, tying up working capital.
• The broader initiative aligns with ongoing UK regulatory development for stablecoins and tokenized settlement models.

Trade finance, simulated digital pounds, and stablecoin rails

The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab experiment is centered on trade finance—an area where cash flow can be constrained by settlement delays between shipping goods and receiving payment. According to the announcement from NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs, the test scenario involves an exporter receiving an advance through a stablecoin-based payment flow while a UK importer completes settlement using simulated digital pounds.

The companies did not describe the trial as a live market product; instead, it is positioned as an experiment within the lab’s research environment. The Bank of England has also emphasized that lab experiments designed by participants should not be treated as signals about future policy or as endorsements of any specific firm or technology.

For exporters—especially smaller businesses—payment timing can determine how much working capital is locked up. When funds arrive days after shipment, firms can face higher financing costs or reduced ability to take on new orders. By testing whether different digital payment components can operate in the same cross-border route, the lab project aims to assess whether tokenized settlement could reduce friction that slows trade.

Reusable credit profiles for small businesses

Beyond payments plumbing, the initiative includes a separate workstream aimed at helping small businesses access credit more efficiently. The plan, as described by the participating companies, is to create reusable credit profiles by combining transaction data, open-finance information and commercial risk data from Dun & Bradstreet.

Polygon Labs is providing the smart contract infrastructure for this part of the project. The practical idea is straightforward: instead of rebuilding risk assessments from scratch for each transaction, the system would attempt to turn available data into a standardized credit profile that could be reused in future trade finance arrangements.

If that approach works as intended, it could reduce the operational cost and time involved in underwriting and credit checks—an issue that often weighs more heavily on smaller firms than on larger counterparties with more established financing relationships.

Why this matters amid UK stablecoin and tokenization rulemaking

The trade-focused lab experiment lands as UK authorities continue building the regulatory structure for stablecoins and preparing the financial system for tokenized assets. In June, the Bank of England published draft rules for sterling-denominated stablecoins it considers systemic to the UK’s financial stability.

That proposal, according to the Bank of England, would allow systemic stablecoin issuers to hold up to 70% of their reserves in interest-bearing government debt. It also introduces a temporary issuance cap of 40 billion pounds (about $52.8 billion) per systemic stablecoin, replacing earlier suggestions that would have limited holdings at the level of individual participants and businesses. The Bank of England has said it aims to finalize those rules by the end of 2026, ahead of a planned 2027 rollout.

Under the framework, stablecoins deemed systemic—because their use could pose risks significant enough to affect financial stability—would fall under the Bank of England’s regime. Non-systemic stablecoins would remain under the Financial Conduct Authority’s oversight.

Meanwhile, tokenization is also being tested through updates to legacy settlement infrastructure. In May, the Bank of England proposed moving its Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) and CHAPS systems toward near-24/7 operation, including weekends and extended daily hours, partly to support cross-border payments and new settlement models as tokenization develops.

Additionally, the Bank of England approved HSBC’s Orion platform to operate in the UK’s Digital Securities Sandbox. That sandbox is expected to support digital bond issuance, including the country’s planned Digital Gilt Instrument—another sign that regulators are exploring how tokenized assets might integrate with existing market infrastructure.

What to watch next in the Digital Pound Lab

Because the Digital Pound Lab trial uses no real money or customers and the central bank has not committed to issuing a digital pound, the near-term value for market participants is primarily methodological: seeing whether a stablecoin rail and a simulated digital pound can coordinate inside a realistic cross-border trade workflow. The next step is whether the lab’s findings inform practical designs for interoperability, settlement timing, and how credit and compliance data could be translated into reusable structures for small businesses.

Why the new Medicaid rule is contested

An Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) shareholder plans to seek Federal Court permission to sue certain former ASX officers and directors over alleged breaches of duty connected to its failed blockchain-based clearing and settlement overhaul.

On Wednesday, ASX said Rosherville Pty Ltd had notified the exchange that it proposes to apply for leave to commence a statutory derivative action under sections 236 and 237 of Australia’s Corporations Act. If approved, Rosherville would bring the proceedings on ASX’s behalf. 

The exchange said there were no allegations against ASX itself. It did not identify the former officials targeted, describe their alleged breaches in detail or disclose the remedies Rosherville intends to seek, while the court has not considered whether the proposed case can proceed. 

The proposed lawsuit could test whether shareholders can hold former ASX leaders accountable for overseeing one of Australia’s costliest financial-technology failures. 

Failed CHESS overhaul draws regulatory action

ASX began exploring a replacement for its Clearing House Electronic Subregister System, or CHESS, in 2016 and selected a distributed-ledger system developed with New York-based Digital Asset. In December 2017, ASX was expected to become the first securities exchange to use blockchain for its core services. 

The intended launch was repeatedly postponed. In November 2022, ASX paused the project after an Accenture review found significant problems with its design and ability to meet the exchange’s requirements. In May 2023, ASX had formally abandoned blockchain for the replacement and would consider more conventional technology. 

Related: Australia orders Cryptolink Bitcoin ATMs offline over ‘basic reporting’ failures

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sued ASX in August 2024, alleging it lacked a reasonable basis for telling the market in February 2022 that the project was “progressing well” and on track for an April 2023 launch. At the time, ASIC called the episode a collective failure by ASX’s board and senior executives. 

In June 2026, ASX admitted to misleading conduct linked to the blockchain replacement project. On July 3, the Federal Court ordered the company to pay a $14.4 million penalty and $2.1 million toward ASIC’s costs, closing the regulator’s case weeks before Rosherville notified the exchange of its proposed action against former officials. 

Magazine: Inside the fake crypto startup that fooled North Korean IT workers

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

An Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) shareholder is seeking permission from the Federal Court to pursue a statutory derivative lawsuit targeting certain former ASX officers and directors over alleged breaches connected to the exchange’s ultimately abandoned blockchain-based clearing and settlement overhaul.

ASX said on Wednesday that Rosherville Pty Ltd has notified the exchange of its intention to apply for leave to bring the case under sections 236 and 237 of Australia’s Corporations Act. If the court grants leave, the proceedings would be brought on ASX’s behalf. ASX also emphasized that the proposed action does not include allegations against the exchange itself, and it provided limited detail about who would be named, what duties were allegedly breached, or what remedies Rosherville would seek.

Key takeaways

• Rosherville wants the Federal Court’s leave to file a statutory derivative action on ASX’s behalf under Australia’s Corporations Act.
• ASX says the proposed claims target former officers and directors, not the exchange, but the court has not yet considered whether the case can proceed.
• The litigation follows a broader regulatory reckoning over ASX’s CHESS replacement project, including findings by ASIC.
• ASIC’s case against ASX was resolved earlier in 2026 with a penalty and cost order, potentially setting the stage for shareholder-focused accountability efforts.

Why the proposed action could matter for corporate governance

Statutory derivative actions are designed to allow shareholders, with court approval, to pursue claims on behalf of a company when directors or officers may have breached duties owed to that company. Here, Rosherville’s proposed case would test how far that accountability can extend for board and senior leadership decisions related to one of Australia’s most expensive financial-technology failures.

While ASX did not specify which former officials Rosherville plans to name or what conduct it alleges, the core premise is straightforward: that responsibility for overseeing the CHESS replacement project may not have been adequately discharged. For investors, the practical significance is that litigation risk can reach beyond the corporate entity itself and toward the individuals who managed or governed the decisions leading to regulatory and operational consequences.

At the same time, the court has not yet examined whether the proposed suit meets the legal threshold to move forward, meaning there is still uncertainty about the scope and viability of the claims.

From CHESS replacement to abandoned blockchain plans

The dispute traces back to ASX’s long-running attempt to replace its Clearing House Electronic Subregister System (CHESS). According to earlier reporting cited in the record, ASX began exploring a replacement in 2016 and selected a distributed-ledger system developed with New York-based Digital Asset.

In December 2017, ASX was widely expected to use blockchain for core services, a prospect described at the time as a first for a securities exchange. But the project repeatedly slipped. In November 2022, ASX paused the initiative after an Accenture review identified significant problems with the design and with meeting ASX’s requirements.

Then, in May 2023, ASX formally abandoned blockchain for the replacement, saying it would consider more conventional technology instead. The progression—from early expectations of a groundbreaking launch to a pause, then abandonment—became the backdrop for subsequent regulatory scrutiny.

ASIC’s case against ASX and the question of board accountability

The shareholder effort comes after ASIC took action against ASX itself. In August 2024, the regulator sued the exchange, alleging it did not have a reasonable basis for telling the market in February 2022 that the project was “progressing well” and on track for an April 2023 launch. ASIC later characterized the episode as a collective failure by ASX’s board and senior executives.

Later developments in 2026 narrowed the regulator’s focus to misleading conduct tied to the CHESS replacement effort. In June 2026, ASX admitted to misleading conduct related to the project. On July 3, 2026, the Federal Court ordered ASX to pay a $14.4 million penalty and $2.1 million toward ASIC’s costs, effectively bringing ASIC’s case to an end weeks before Rosherville notified ASX of its intention to seek leave for a derivative action against former officials.

Although those steps were not the same as a case against individuals, the sequencing is notable. ASIC’s enforcement action concluded against the company, but the shareholder proposal suggests some investors believe the responsibility for the issues may also sit with former decision-makers at the governance and management level.

What investors should watch next

Rosherville’s application is not yet a filed lawsuit; it hinges on the Federal Court granting leave to commence the statutory derivative action. That process will be central for determining whether the allegations can proceed, who qualifies as a potential defendant, and what legal theories and remedies the shareholder is attempting to pursue on ASX’s behalf.

In the meantime, the case is likely to remain closely tied to how courts interpret directors’ and officers’ duties in complex technology transitions—especially where public statements to the market and later regulatory outcomes are in the background. The next concrete milestone for market participants will be whether the Federal Court approves the leave request and, if it does, how the claims are framed.