Kraken’s consumer app Krak has rolled out a multi-asset debit card in the United States, giving customers a way to pay with crypto and fiat while earning cashback denominated in either US dollars or Bitcoin (BTC). The launch adds to a broader push by crypto exchanges to move beyond trading and into everyday financial services.

According to Krak’s announcement, the card supports more than 600 currencies and assets. At the point of sale, users’ holdings are converted into US dollars, and a single purchase can draw from multiple balances depending on the spending order the customer sets.

Key takeaways

• Krak’s US debit card lets users spend from a wallet containing both crypto and fiat, with point-of-sale conversion into USD for purchases.
• Cashback can be earned in dollars or Bitcoin, with rates tied to average assets held across Krak, Kraken, and Kraken Pro.
• The card is issued by Lead Bank on Visa’s network and uses Stripe Issuing for program infrastructure, with physical and virtual options available to eligible customers.
• Krak positions the card as a rewards alternative to credit cards, aiming to appeal to customers wary of carrying monthly balances.
• Kraken and its parent Payward continue expanding into financial services beyond crypto trading, including payments and broader market products.

A multi-asset card designed for everyday spending

The Krak debit card is built around a simple promise: users can spend using a range of crypto and fiat holdings without having to manually select which asset to use for each transaction. Instead, the app allows cardholders to configure an asset-spend order, and the card will then pull from multiple balances as needed for a purchase.

Cashback is described as a key part of the value proposition. Krak said customers can receive up to 2% cashback, with the payout available in either US dollars or BTC. The company also noted that the specific cashback rate is dependent on the average assets held across Krak, Kraken, and Kraken Pro—meaning rewards are designed to scale with longer-term engagement rather than a one-off balance.

For US cardholders, the program includes both physical and virtual cards, with issuance routed through Visa’s network via Lead Bank. Krak said the rollout is powered by Stripe Issuing, an arrangement that signals how payment infrastructure is being leveraged to bring crypto-linked benefits into mainstream checkout flows.

Why Krak is leaning on “no-debt” rewards

Krak is framing the card as a counterweight to credit-card rewards programs. To support that positioning, the company commissioned a Morning Consult survey of 2,001 US adults.

The survey found that 42% of credit card holders worry about paying off their monthly balance. It also reported that 60% of respondents said they would switch to a debit card offering rewards without taking on debt.

In practical terms, that message targets a common friction point for rewards programs: the possibility that benefits come with a cost if consumers carry balances. By centering the product around debit spending—rather than credit limits—Krak is attempting to fit crypto rewards into behavior patterns that resemble traditional consumer debit programs, while still offering exposure to digital assets through BTC-denominated cashback.

From payments to broader financial services

Kraken’s consumer card launch lands within a wider strategy for Payward, the company behind Kraken and its apps. Co-CEO Arjun Sethi discussed broader expansion during remarks Tuesday at the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium, according to coverage of his comments.

Sethi said that expanding into multiple asset classes can reduce exposure to any single market. He also described tokenization as “a large part” of Payward’s effort to widen its financial offerings, and he argued the company must build products and services that are “not too different to a JP Morgan or a financial institution.”

The framing highlights the direction many major exchanges have taken in recent years: using regulated infrastructure and institutional know-how to develop more than trading platforms. When exchanges move into banking-related services and asset tokenization themes, the emphasis often shifts from pure price speculation to product distribution—placing crypto-linked capabilities closer to how consumers already spend, invest, or move money.

Kraken’s card rollout also aligns with a broader industry pattern. Coinbase and other large platforms have been expanding into additional product categories beyond spot trading, including areas such as equities, derivatives, prediction markets, tokenized assets, and pre-IPO products.

Kraken’s US expansion doesn’t stop at payments

In parallel with the debit card announcement, Kraken said it launched stock trading for customers in the European Economic Area (EEA) for more than 7,000 US-listed stocks. The company’s decision to widen trading access to traditional markets underscores that its consumer growth strategy is not limited to payments.

Taken together, the card and the stock expansion show how crypto platforms are working to broaden their customer base and deepen engagement. A debit card can drive day-to-day usage, while expanded market offerings can capture users looking to trade across asset classes within a single ecosystem.

For investors and users, the key question is how these product lines will reinforce each other over time. Cashback incentives tied to average holdings across apps could encourage users to maintain balances within the Kraken ecosystem, potentially improving retention. At the same time, regulators and payment networks will remain central to whether these offerings can scale smoothly and sustainably.

Looking ahead, readers should watch how Krak’s cashback terms perform in practice—especially how average-holding calculations are applied—and whether Kraken continues to add card-linked features or expand into more mainstream financial services categories beyond crypto payments.

Kalshi filed two product submissions with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Aug. 18, seeking permission to launch perpetual futures tied to a broad U.S. stock index and copper.

The exchange submitted both products through the voluntary approval process under CFTC Regulation 40.3. Kalshi said it plans to list the contracts shortly after approval, meaning neither product can begin trading based on the filings alone.

The applications extend Kalshi’s perpetual futures expansion beyond digital assets. They also arrive while CME Group challenges the CFTC’s authority to classify no expiry contracts as futures rather than swaps.

Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 18 to create a regulatory framework for pre IPO perpetual contracts.

The SEC added the joint submission to its public IPO modernization docket. Posting the letter confirms its receipt but does not mean the agency supports its recommendations or has approved the products.

The groups call the proposed instrument an IPOP. It would provide cash settled price exposure to a company approaching a public listing without conveying shares, voting rights, IPO allocations or claims against the issuer.

Hyperliquid proposal seeks five regulatory pillars

The 15 page letter asks the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission to determine whether equity linked perpetuals are security futures or security based swaps. The classification would decide which registration, trading venue, clearing and margin requirements apply.

The groups also proposed rules covering product disclosures, listing eligibility, investor access and market integrity. They recommended disclosures addressing funding rates, leverage, liquidations, pricing methods, settlement and contract conversion rather than treating holders as equity owners.

Listing rules could limit an IPOP to a defined period after a company publicly files registration documents. Oracle and settlement procedures would be announced in advance, while changes would need disclosure.

Market integrity provisions could include audit trails, conflict controls and restrictions on deployers or affiliates trading while holding material nonpublic information. A phased rollout could also impose leverage and position limits before expanding access to retail investors.

Five markets underpin the price discovery argument

Trade[XYZ] told the SEC it had completed five IPOP markets tied to Cerebras, Quantinuum, SpaceX, SK Hynix and ChangXin Memory Technologies. The products operated for between one and 25 days before the referenced listings.

According to the applicants’ data, each contract’s final price before trading began was within 0.44% to 7.23% of the relevant stock’s opening price. Four U.S. offerings priced between 10.8% and 38.4% below the IPOP level recorded one day earlier.

Those figures support the groups’ claim that continuously traded derivatives “could” provide issuers and underwriters with an independent measure of demand. They do not establish how the products would perform across a larger or less active group of listings.

The SEC has not independently endorsed those performance claims. A five market sample is also too limited to establish that similar contracts would consistently improve IPO pricing.

As previously reported, the SpaceX product exposed a regulatory gray zone around private markets. SpaceX had not authorized the contract and received no proceeds from its trading.

Oracle risk remains central to investor protection

Pre IPO perpetuals depend on pricing and settlement rules designed by market deployers. Unlike listed stocks, private companies may lack a continuous, authoritative market price before their public debut.

Trade[XYZ] experienced a related problem after one unusually low SK Hynix share transaction entered its oracle inputs. As crypto.news reported, the SK Hynix pricing anomaly pushed the perpetual’s mark price down about 18% and triggered liquidations.

Trade[XYZ] later agreed to cover eligible losses as a discretionary measure. The company said its oracle followed its published design, although the external transaction involved only one share in a thin trading session.

The episode supports the letter’s call for disclosed oracle rules and market controls. It also shows why an accurate technical process may still produce a price that does not represent a deep or durable market.

SEC and CFTC must settle product classification

Trade[XYZ] currently operates these markets offshore and excludes U.S. persons. No approved U.S. pre IPO perpetual framework presently gives American retail traders access to the products described in the letter.

The CFTC’s May 29 policy established case by case review for perpetual contracts outside the Bitcoin product it approved for KalshiEX. The related policy text said equity based perpetuals would benefit from coordinated SEC and CFTC review.

The agencies have separately asked whether a cash settled perpetual referencing an equity security could qualify as a security future. Their eventual answer would determine whether current security futures rules can accommodate an instrument tied to a company whose shares have not yet started trading.

No response deadline applies to the Hyperliquid submission, and the SEC does not have to adopt its recommendations. Further steps could include staff discussions, another request for comment, joint agency guidance or formal rulemaking.

Short seller James Chanos described Strategy and Bitcoin as an “$80 billion actionable spread” on Aug. 18, reviving debate over the valuation of Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin treasury company.

Chanos called the relationship one of the largest “pure arbitrage opportunities” he had seen. His earlier trade involved shorting Strategy’s MSTR shares while taking a long position in Bitcoin.

The latest claim requires context. Strategy no longer holds the 847,363 BTC cited in some reports. Recent company disclosures place its balance at 840,447 BTC following several sales during July and August.

At Bitcoin’s Tuesday price of approximately $64,188, those holdings were worth about $53.95 billion. MSTR had a market capitalization of roughly $34.4 billion, while its shares gained close to 5% to $97.68.

The $19.5 billion difference between those two figures is not a direct arbitrage profit. It excludes debt, preferred stock, cash, software operations, taxes and the costs required to maintain a hedged position.

Chanos’s $80 billion figure is not a simple market gap

Chanos did not publish a complete calculation showing how he reached the “$80 billion actionable spread.” The figure therefore remains his characterization of the opportunity rather than a directly verifiable difference between two market prices.

Strategy’s own dashboard placed its modified net asset value multiple, or mNAV, near 1.04 on Tuesday. That measure compares enterprise value with the value of its Bitcoin after accounting for parts of the capital structure.

An mNAV of 1.04 indicates a premium of approximately 4%, based on the company’s methodology. It does not show MSTR trading at the wide premium that supported Chanos’s original trade in 2025.

Comparing common equity market capitalization directly with Bitcoin holdings produces a discount because common shareholders rank behind creditors and preferred shareholders. Strategy has issued several preferred securities carrying dividend obligations and also has outstanding debt.

The company’s software operation, dollar reserve and other assets must also be included. As a result, buying MSTR does not provide the same economic exposure as holding an equivalent dollar amount of Bitcoin.

Strategy’s Bitcoin balance has declined from its peak

A June 29 SEC filing showed that Strategy held 847,363 BTC at the end of June. The company had spent $64.1 billion acquiring the coins at an average price of $75,651.

Strategy subsequently sold Bitcoin under a board authorized monetization program. The program allows sales to fund its dollar reserve, interest expenses, preferred dividends and security repurchases.

As previously reported, the company sold 1,690 BTC and used the proceeds for preferred share repurchases during the week ending Aug. 9.

Those sales reduced the balance to 840,447 BTC. The remaining tokens carried an aggregate acquisition cost of approximately $63.36 billion and an average cost of $75,385 per coin.

At Tuesday’s Bitcoin price, the position was approximately $9.4 billion below its disclosed purchase cost. That is an unrealized accounting difference rather than a realized loss unless the coins are sold.

The same filing series showed that the company raised cash by issuing additional MSTR shares. Common stock issuance increases liquidity but also expands the number of shares participating in the Bitcoin exposure.

MSTR and Bitcoin carry different financial risks

Direct Bitcoin ownership exposes an investor mainly to changes in Bitcoin’s market price and the security of their custody arrangement. MSTR adds corporate financing and management risks.

Strategy has issued STRC, STRF, STRD and STRK preferred shares. These securities sit ahead of common shareholders and carry dividend rates ranging from 8% to 12%, subject to their respective terms.

The company has also established a dollar reserve to meet preferred dividends and interest obligations. In related coverage, the reserve reached $4.65 billion after further common stock sales.

Strategy’s board authorized up to $1.25 billion of additional Bitcoin sales to help fund that reserve. It also approved separate $1 billion repurchase programs for preferred securities and MSTR common stock.

These layers prevent the trade from being risk free. A short seller must borrow MSTR shares, pay borrowing costs and manage the possibility that the stock rises faster than Bitcoin.

The long side also requires financing. If Bitcoin falls while MSTR rises because of short covering, new financing or changing investor demand, both parts of the trade can lose money temporarily.

Chanos previously exited after the premium contracted

Chanos began constructing his earlier position in late 2024, when MSTR traded at a large premium to the value of Strategy’s Bitcoin. The premium exceeded three times the Bitcoin value at points during November 2024.

He publicly described the trade in 2025 as long Bitcoin and short MSTR. Chanos argued that investors were paying too much for Bitcoin exposure available directly or through lower cost exchange traded products.

As Reuters reported, Strategy’s market value stood around 1.74 times its Bitcoin holdings when Chanos renewed his criticism in June 2025.

The gap later narrowed. Chanos said his firm closed the hedged position on Nov. 7, 2025, after the trade gained more than 50%. He described the remaining opportunity as too small to justify keeping the position open.

His latest statement does not confirm that he has reopened the trade. It also does not disclose position size, entry prices, borrowing costs or the instruments that would be used.

Future SEC filings will show whether Strategy continues selling Bitcoin, issuing MSTR shares or repurchasing preferred securities. Those decisions, together with Bitcoin’s price and changes in financing costs, will determine whether the company trades at a premium or discount to its adjusted asset value.

Investigators may have given U.S. authorities information capable of identifying an attacker responsible for the first Coldcard theft wave, Bitcoin Magazine reported on Aug. 18.

Galaxy Research’s Alex Thorn said the first wave attacker’s identity “may be known to law enforcement.” His statement was cautious, and the FBI has not publicly confirmed identifying a suspect, opening a case, making an arrest or recovering any stolen Bitcoin.

The first wave removed 1,082.65 BTC from wallets generated using vulnerable Coldcard firmware. At Bitcoin’s recent price near $64,000, those coins would be worth approximately $69 million, not $11.8 million.

Block found an offchain trail from the first sweep

Block engineering lead Clay Garrett said investigators found an unusual pattern in the attacker’s onchain sweeps. The operator allegedly used a paid account at an unnamed blockchain data provider to query source addresses and perform related activity.