European authorities added 14 crypto companies to the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework register in the second post-deadline update, signaling a slower licensing pace after an initial surge.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) updated its interim MiCA register on Thursday, bringing the total number of licensed crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to 294.

The new entries include Ripple Payments Europe, the European payments arm of blockchain company Ripple, as well as Portugal-based Bison Bank and Croatia’s state-owned bank, Hrvatska poštanska banka (HPB).

The update follows ESMA’s previous register expansion on July 3, when the regulator added 37 CASPs in the first major post-deadline update after MiCA’s transitional period ended.

Banks deepen MiCA presence

Several newly added companies highlight the continued entry of traditional financial institutions into Europe’s regulated crypto market.

In addition to Bison Bank and HPB, the MiCA register added two cooperative banks from Germany, namely Volksbank Schwarzwald-Donau-Neckar and Raiffeisenbank Auerbach-Freihung.

The update also included Liechtenstein-based Kaiser Partner Privatbank, expanding the presence of private banking groups offering regulated crypto services under MiCA.

14 newly approved CASPs in the MiCA register update on July 16, 2026. Source: ESMA

The register counts dozens of traditional finance institutions, including Spain’s BBVA and CaixaBank, Germany’s Commerzbank, France’s CACEIS Bank and Standard Chartered Luxembourg.

EMT and ART registers remain unchanged

ESMA reported no changes to its registers for electronic money tokens (EMTs), a category of crypto-assets designed to maintain a stable value against a single official currency, or asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), which are linked to multiple assets such as currencies or commodities.

As of the latest update, the EMT register counted 21 unique issuers, while the ART register continued to list no approved issuers.

Related: MiCA licensing only the beginning as crypto custodians face scrutiny

The regulator also added two entities to its non-compliant register following actions by Italy’s securities regulator, the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB).

The new additions were Reversal Investment Group and Kortex, bringing the total number of entries on the non-compliant list to 164, including crypto exchange MEXC.

Magazine: Will the crypto lobby’s $189M campaign get CLARITY over the line?

In one week of July 2025, the House passed three crypto bills. One is law. One is law by accident and the President will not sign it. The third has not had a Senate vote in 365 days, and it was supposed to be the important one.

Washington called it Crypto Week. In a handful of days in July 2025, the House of Representatives passed three digital asset bills in succession, and the industry treated the sequence as the moment its lobbying decade finally paid. The CLARITY Act cleared 294-134 on July 17. The GENIUS Act cleared 308-122 the same day and was signed into law on July 18. The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act squeaked through 219-217. Three bills, one week, one chamber, and a widespread assumption that the Senate was a formality. Today is the one-year anniversary of the first of those votes. Exactly one of the three arrived where it was supposed to. Tracking what happened to the other two explains more about how crypto legislation actually works than any amount of vote-counting on the bill still pending.

CASHCAT is a token named after a company name that was thrown away sixteen years ago. It reached a $156 million market cap, briefly outweighed every real asset on Robinhood’s blockchain, and its own website calls it fan fiction with a ticker.

In 2010, two Stanford graduates building a trading company had a name for it. The name was CashCat. They discarded it, called the company Robinhood instead, and the detail survived only in a New Yorker profile and in the memory of people who read startup lore for fun. Sixteen years later, Robinhood launched a blockchain designed to settle tokenized stocks for institutions, and within days the busiest thing on it was a token named after the name they threw away. CASHCAT reached a market capitalization near $156 million, out-massed every real asset the chain was built for, and made a handful of anonymous wallets millionaires. Its website describes it as fan fiction with a ticker. That is not a criticism. It is the project’s own self-assessment, and it is more honest than most.

The basics

CASHCAT is a memecoin native to Robinhood Chain, the Ethereum layer 2 that Robinhood launched on July 1, 2026. For readers new to the network, crypto.news has also explained the chain it launched on.

Its supply is fixed at one billion tokens, with no further issuance. Its contract address is 0x020bfC650A365f8BB26819deAAbF3E21291018b4, and verifying that string against a trusted source before any transaction is the single most useful thing in this article. It does not have its own blockchain or application. It is a fungible token deployed on someone else’s chain, which is what almost every memecoin is.

It has no product, no roadmap in any meaningful sense, and no utility. The project does not pretend otherwise. Asked what the utility is, the site answers that the utility is cat.

Most importantly, and against what a large number of buyers appear to believe: it is not a Robinhood product. It is not owned, endorsed, backed, listed, or affiliated with Robinhood Markets in any way, and the token’s own website disclaims any connection to the company or to Tenev personally.

Where the name comes from

The connection is entirely historical and it is worth getting right, because the ambiguity is the asset.

Before the company became Robinhood, Tenev and co-founder Baiju Bhatt called their venture CashCat. The detail appears in a New Yorker profile of the company and had circulated among people who follow startup history for years. When Robinhood Chain launched, someone recognized that a discarded corporate name attached to a live corporate blockchain was a nearly perfect memecoin: instantly legible to anyone who knew the story, plausible to anyone who did not, and impossible for the company to claim without endorsing it.

That is the entire link. A name the founders rejected in 2010, revived as a token in 2026 by people with no relationship to them. There is no corporate partnership, no licensing arrangement, and no shared ownership. What exists is a shared piece of trivia, and the token converted that trivia into a market capitalization.

There is a small extra layer that fueled it: Tenev himself had tweeted about CashCat back in April 2021, which meant the lore was not merely documented but personally acknowledged by the CEO years before the token existed. None of that constitutes affiliation. All of it makes affiliation feel more plausible than it is.

What happened

The timeline is short and steep.

Robinhood Chain went live on July 1. CASHCAT deployed shortly after. Within roughly 24 hours it had rallied more than 1,700%, and over its first week it climbed more than 2,100%, reaching an all-time high above $0.17 and a market capitalization near $156 million, with some measurements putting the peak higher.

At its peak day on July 8, the token generated roughly $98 million in 24-hour volume, which was about 17% of the entire chain’s decentralized exchange volume. Set that against what the chain was built for: tokenized real-world assets on Robinhood Chain totalled roughly $12.8 million. At its high, one joke token was worth approximately twelve times every real asset on the network combined.

It did not stay alone. Cash Dog in Hood, Little John, Hoodrat, and Arrow followed within days, none of which existed before July 1. Noxa, the launchpad feeding the wave, was averaging roughly 18,600 new token launches per day. On July 8, Pump.fun added Robinhood Chain support, opening the chain to Solana’s memecoin crowd without bridging. For more context, crypto.news has covered the full story of the takeover.

Then it turned. On July 11, at the precise moment CASHCAT was hitting peak trading volume, Noxa stopped accepting new token launches. Two days later it went dark, citing concerns about low-quality tokens flooding the platform, having generated an estimated $12 million in cumulative fees. CASHCAT fell more than 33% in 24 hours. One prominent trader who claims to have ridden the token from a $10,000 market cap to $230 million dismissed the selloff as noise.

The Tenev problem

The CEO’s involvement is the reason this token is confusing rather than merely amusing, and the sequence matters.

On July 2, the day after the chain went live, Tenev told CNBC that the future of crypto is in real-world assets, drawing a line between productive tokenized assets and speculative tokens without underlying utility. His framing was that an asset not tied to an underlying utility is not a productive asset. It was a clean statement of the thesis the entire chain was built to prove, and it was, in effect, a dismissal of exactly the category CASHCAT belongs to.

Six days later, as CASHCAT climbed, he posted on X that while the company is building Robinhood Chain to be the best chain for real-world assets, it works great for memes too. He then followed the token’s account.

Both readings of that reversal are defensible. The charitable one: a permissionless chain cannot control what deploys on it, refusing to acknowledge the most visible thing on your own network would look ridiculous, and a light-hearted post is not an endorsement. Robinhood’s crypto chief stayed rigorously on message throughout, saying the company remains focused on building a secure and scalable foundation for real-world assets.

The uncharitable one: the follow and the post told the market what the company actually values, which is volume, and a retail buyer who sees the CEO engaging with a token named after his own company is going to draw a conclusion the disclaimer will not undo. The distinction between acknowledging and endorsing is clear to a lawyer and invisible to someone who just downloaded a wallet.

Who made money, and from whom

This is the part that gets celebrated and should be read carefully, because every one of these numbers has a counterparty.

One early buyer spent $838 and received 15.04 million tokens. They sold roughly 13.5 million for about $917,600 and held a remainder worth around $133,700, producing a return in the region of 1,250 times. A second wallet turned $85 into 17.4 million tokens and realized about $687,700 while sitting on roughly $1.2 million more on paper. The five most profitable wallets banked close to $3.7 million between them.

Now the other side. That $3.7 million came from the opposite end of roughly 12,300 sell orders. Every dollar of realized profit in a memecoin is a dollar someone else paid at a higher price, because the token produces no revenue and holds no assets. There is no external cash flow funding those returns. The gains are transfers.

The liquidity structure makes it worse than the market cap suggests. CASHCAT’s trading pool has been worth far less than the token’s headline capitalization, which means a $156 million number sits on a pool that cannot absorb anything close to $156 million of selling. Large trades swing price hard in both directions. A market capitalization is a multiplication, not a promise that the money is there.

And the standard verification does not exist. Security audits of the CASHCAT contract were not possible because Robinhood Chain is too new for the tooling to have caught up. That is a chain-wide condition, not a CASHCAT-specific failure, but it removes the check that would ordinarily flag a malicious contract before a nine-figure market cap forms on top of it.

How a memecoin actually prices

Because CASHCAT is the first token most Robinhood users will look at closely, it is worth walking exactly how a number like $156 million comes to exist, since almost nobody who quotes it understands what it measures.

Market capitalization is a multiplication. Take the last traded price, multiply by circulating supply, print the result. CASHCAT has a fixed supply of one billion tokens, so at a price above $0.15 the arithmetic produces something in the region of $156 million. That is the whole calculation. It is not a valuation, not an appraisal, and not a statement that $156 million exists anywhere.

What makes the number misleading is where the price comes from. The last trade might have been for a few hundred dollars. In an automated market maker, price is set by the ratio of assets in a liquidity pool, and the pool behind CASHCAT has been worth far less than the token’s headline capitalization. So a relatively small purchase moves the ratio, moves the price, and instantly revalues all one billion tokens at the new level. That is why memecoins can add nine figures of notional value in a day: a thin pool is a lever, and modest buying at the margin repriced the entire supply.

The lever works identically in reverse, which is what July 13 showed. When Noxa exited and sentiment turned, sellers hit the same shallow pool and the price fell more than 33% in a day. Nothing about the token changed. Supply was still one billion. The contract was unaltered. The only thing that moved was the ratio in the pool, and the market cap followed it down mechanically.

This is why the comparison that ran through every headline, that CASHCAT was worth twelve times every real-world asset on the chain, is both true and slippery. It is true as arithmetic: $156 million against $12.8 million. It is slippery because the two numbers are not the same kind of thing. The tokenized asset figure represents real instruments with real backing that could be redeemed. The memecoin figure represents a price multiplied by a supply, sitting on a pool that could not absorb a fraction of it. One number is a balance. The other is an echo.

The practical implication for anyone holding: your position is worth the market cap right up until you try to sell, at which point it is worth whatever the pool gives you. In a token where five wallets extracted roughly $3.7 million against 12,300 sell orders, the people who found out first were the ones who tried. That is why thin liquidity moves price so hard.

What this token actually shows

Set the price action aside and CASHCAT is the cleanest available case study in how new chains actually bootstrap, which is why it is worth understanding even if you would never touch it.

The optimistic reading, which serious traders make: memecoins are the ignition sequence. A new chain needs transactions, wallets, and liquidity to look alive, and speculation delivers all three faster than tokenized Treasuries do. Solana grew through a memecoin cycle before producing serious infrastructure, and one veteran trader explicitly compared Robinhood Chain’s early ecosystem to Solana’s. The automated market makers, oracles, and routing built to service speculation are the same rails that tokenized equities will eventually need. In that reading CASHCAT is not a distraction from the strategy; it is the first stage of it. That in the category CASHCAT belongs to.

The pessimistic reading, which the timeline supports: memecoin traders are mercenary by construction, loyal to activity rather than to any chain, and the moment a flashier venue offers quicker returns the volume leaves and the $12.8 million of tokenized assets is what remains. The launchpad that produced the entire boom extracted $12 million in fees and exited within eleven days of the chain going live. That is not the profile of a bootstrapping sequence. It is the profile of an extraction cycle, and the 33% drop when the launchpad left is the evidence.

Which reading is right gets settled by a single number, and it is not CASHCAT’s price. It is whether tokenized real-world assets on Robinhood Chain grow well beyond roughly $13 million while the speculation fades. Robinhood’s second-quarter earnings on July 29 are the first real look. Until then, CASHCAT is a token named after a discarded company name, worth more than everything the chain was built to carry, running on an unaudited contract, on a network whose CEO spent one week explaining why assets like it do not last and the next week noting they work great anyway.

What to watch

If you are tracking this token instead of trading it, three things carry information.

Whether the ecosystem keeps spawning. STONKCAT opened a $SCAT presale on July 16, and a MemeToro presale is running alongside it, both borrowing Robinhood Chain’s branding and pitching future products. New entrants arriving weeks after the launchpad that started the wave exited tells you the branding gap is now a repeatable business, which is bearish for CASHCAT specifically: every new token competes for the same attention that is the only thing holding its price up. It also shows how launchpads mint tokens on demand.

Whether the chain’s real assets grow. Tokenized real-world assets on Robinhood Chain sit around $12.8 million against roughly $312 million in total value locked. That figure, not CASHCAT’s price, decides whether the memecoin wave was an ignition sequence or an extraction cycle. Robinhood’s second-quarter earnings on July 29 are the first look at Stock Token adoption from the company’s own books.

Whether liquidity deepens or thins. The pool behind CASHCAT has been worth far less than the token’s headline capitalization, which is the mechanism behind both the rise and the 33% single-day fall. A token whose pool deepens is a token that can absorb selling. A token whose pool thins as attention rotates is a token whose market cap becomes progressively more theoretical. Also relevant: Robinhood Chain’s 90-day gas subsidy has been making trading artificially cheap, and its expiry is a real test.

The broader point for anyone reading this as a lesson instead of a trade: CASHCAT did nothing unusual. It is a well-executed example of an entirely standard pattern, distinguished only by the quality of its joke and the fact that a public company’s CEO engaged with it. The pattern will repeat on the next chain, with a different name, and the mechanics will be identical. What makes this instance worth remembering is the setting. Most memecoins erupt on chains built by anonymous developers for exactly this kind of activity, where nobody claims to be surprised. CASHCAT erupted on a network built by a listed American brokerage, marketed to institutions, staffed with compliance officers, and launched with a keynote about the future of finance. It took six days for the joke to become the chain’s largest asset by market capitalization, and the company could do nothing about it, because permissionless means permissionless. That is the lesson worth carrying: a corporate chain cannot choose its users any more than a public square can. Robinhood built the venue and the crowd decided what it was for.

Frequently asked questions

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Memecoins are extremely speculative, frequently trade on thin liquidity, and most participants lose money. Contract addresses and project claims should be verified independently before any transaction. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy any token. Always do your own research. Figures are accurate as of July 17, 2026 and move rapidly.

Bitcoin Japan has secured plans to raise approximately 9.66 billion yen (approx $59.5 million), with 662 million yen (approx $4.08 million) earmarked for its first Bitcoin treasury allocation since adopting its new corporate identity.

Japanese crypto news outlet CoinPost reported that Tokyo Stock Exchange-listed Bitcoin Japan, formerly Horita Marusho, will issue 1.5 billion yen in unsecured convertible bonds with stock acquisition rights alongside a second series of stock acquisition rights through Cayman Islands-based investment fund EVO FUND. 

If the securities are fully exercised, the company expects net proceeds of about 9.657 billion yen.

Bitcoin receives 7% of planned fundraising

Company filings cited by CoinPost show that Bitcoin purchases will receive 662 million yen, or about 7% of the planned financing. The largest share, 3.756 billion yen, has been set aside for undisclosed private equity investments, followed by 3.503 billion yen for rare earth mining projects in South Africa and 1.446 billion yen for investments in a Robot-as-a-Service (RaaS) business. Another 290 million yen has been allocated for working capital.

Convertible bonds allow investors to exchange debt for company shares at a predetermined price. CoinPost noted that the structure can reduce immediate pressure on the share price by spreading conversions over time, although the company remains responsible for repayment if the bonds are not converted.

Bitcoin Japan changed its name from Horita Marusho in 2024 and announced plans to transition from a textile trading business into a digital asset treasury company centered on Bitcoin and AI infrastructure. Even so, the company has yet to acquire any Bitcoin.

The latest allocation follows an earlier fundraising effort that fell short of expectations. Company disclosures previously showed that Bitcoin Japan planned to raise as much as 5.715 billion yen in December 2025, including 988 million yen for a Bitcoin treasury strategy. Weak share price performance limited investor participation, reducing the total amount raised to 3.095 billion yen and leaving no funds available for Bitcoin purchases.

Current filings state that the newly allocated Bitcoin funds will be deployed selectively depending on market conditions. The company has not disclosed a purchase timeline, targeted Bitcoin holdings, or performance metrics, although it continues to describe Bitcoin as a long-term hedge against the erosion of fiat currency value.

Financing comes after technology investment push

The fundraising follows Bitcoin Japan’s recent expansion into technology investments beyond digital assets.

In May, the company disclosed an investment in SpaceX through its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, BTCJPN US LLC, using a U.S.-based private secondary market transaction. At the time, Bitcoin Japan said it was targeting sectors including AI compute infrastructure, satellite communications, digital assets, and next-generation technologies as part of its long-term investment strategy.

The latest financing could also substantially increase the company’s share count. According to documents cited by CoinPost, full conversion of the convertible bonds and exercise of all stock acquisition rights at the minimum price would result in dilution of up to 110%, or 115% on a voting rights basis.

Because the transaction qualifies as a large third-party allotment under Japanese rules, the company obtained an opinion from an independent committee consisting of outside legal experts, which concluded that the financing was necessary and reasonable.

Financial results released by the company showed consolidated revenue of 2.959 billion yen and an operating loss of 462 million yen for the fiscal year ending March 2026, extending its streak of operating losses to eight consecutive years. Against that backdrop, the planned Bitcoin allocation represents the company’s first funded step toward executing the treasury strategy it announced after its rebranding.

A macOS information-stealing malware can compromise Telegram Desktop sessions and, from there, target both software and hardware cryptocurrency wallets, according to blockchain security firm SlowMist. The report describes an attack chain that harvests credentials and wallet data from multiple macOS sources, then leverages that access to swap or drain funds through techniques that do not rely on breaking Telegram’s two-step verification in the usual way.

SlowMist says the malware extracts secrets from macOS Keychain, Safari cookies, Apple Notes, Telegram Desktop and database files tied to more than a dozen cryptocurrency wallets. After collecting passwords and authenticated session data, it copies Telegram Desktop session information along with wallet databases and browser wallet extension data, enabling follow-on account takeover attempts.

Key takeaways

• SlowMist reports malware can hijack existing Telegram Desktop sessions on macOS by reusing authenticated local data rather than forcing a new login.
• In addition to stealing passwords, the malware targets wallet databases and application data for both popular software wallets and hardware wallet managers.
• Telegram two-step verification may not block the attack because the malware avoids the need to pass verification challenges.
• SlowMist outlines two follow-up strategies: offline wallet database decryption using harvested passwords, or replacing wallet apps (e.g., Ledger/Trezor software) with decoys to capture recovery phrases.

How Telegram Desktop becomes the entry point

SlowMist’s core warning is that Telegram Desktop accounts on macOS may be compromised even when users have enabled two-step verification. The reason, the firm says, is architectural: instead of creating a fresh login that requires verification, the malware reuses an already authenticated local session stored on the device.

In its tests, SlowMist restored stolen Telegram Desktop session data on another Mac without requiring the user to enter a phone number, verification code, or two-step verification password. That distinction matters for users because two-step verification is designed to protect logins, while this method targets session material that can be carried over to a new environment.

The practical takeaway is that Telegram Desktop should be treated as a high-value target when credentials and session files are accessible to malware. If an attacker can move a session to another machine, subsequent steps—such as obtaining access to linked accounts, exchanging information, or guiding victims toward risky actions—can proceed without triggering the protections that apply to new authentication.

Wallet data theft spans software wallets, hardware managers, and node databases

SlowMist says the malware is not limited to Telegram. It also harvests wallet-related data from a wide range of sources, including wallet applications and full-node clients.

On the wallet side, SlowMist names software wallets such as Exodus, Atomic, Electrum, Wasabi and Monero. It also points to targeting hardware wallet software interfaces, including Ledger Live and Trezor Suite—software layers that manage hardware devices and frequently coordinate how users view balances and initiate transactions.

Beyond standalone wallets, the report says the malware searches for wallet data stored by full-node clients, listing Bitcoin Core, Litecoin Core, Dash Core and Dogecoin Core among those affected. For investors and traders, the implication is straightforward: wallet information does not only live in wallet apps. If malware can reach local storage associated with node software, it may uncover additional material that helps attackers attempt to access or reproduce wallet capabilities.

SlowMist also describes collecting data beyond wallet databases, including Safari cookies and Apple Notes. Those components can increase an attacker’s ability to persist access, understand user behavior, or extract sensitive information that is not stored in one dedicated wallet folder.

Offline cracking and fake recovery flows

After harvesting passwords and authenticated session data, SlowMist says attackers can attempt to decrypt stolen wallet databases offline. The attacker would use passwords taken from the infected device, reducing the need for repeated online attempts that might trigger rate limits or other defenses.

SlowMist also describes a second approach: replacing legitimate Ledger and Trezor applications with fake versions. In this scenario, victims could be tricked into entering recovery phrases into the counterfeit software—an especially dangerous outcome because recovery phrases are effectively “master keys” for accessing funds.

SlowMist states it reproduced the attack chain in an isolated environment, supporting its claim that the described steps can be executed together rather than as unrelated capabilities.

For users, the key risk is that wallet compromise can be multi-stage. Even if attackers initially acquire Telegram session access, the malware’s broader collection of wallet databases and application data can enable direct attempts to extract value or pivot to social engineering that captures recovery credentials.

Why Telegram’s usual protections may not be enough

SlowMist’s findings highlight a recurring theme in account takeover incidents: security features sometimes assume a specific threat model. Telegram two-step verification helps protect new logins, but the malware’s method—carrying over an authenticated local session—changes the conditions.

Instead of challenging the user during sign-in, the attacker operates with session data that the device has already established. That makes “I turned on 2FA” less reassuring when malware is already present and can read session-related files.

SlowMist also recommends immediate operational steps for anyone who suspects compromise. It urges users to terminate existing Telegram sessions, create a new trusted login, and update both the Telegram two-step verification password and the Telegram Desktop Passcode. Those steps aim to invalidate the hijacked session material and force Telegram to re-establish trust through a fresh authentication flow.

The firm further advises generating a new recovery phrase on a clean device and moving assets to new addresses. The goal is to break the link between the compromised wallet state and the assets that need protection. If wallet apps or recovery material were exposed, reusing the same recovery phrase after a compromise can leave funds vulnerable to attackers who already have enough information to regain access.

SlowMist’s report serves as a reminder that cryptocurrency security is not only about securing keys on paper or enabling 2FA on messaging apps. When malware can access both session data and wallet databases locally, protections must extend to device hygiene and rapid incident response. Users should watch closely for signs of compromise, verify which Telegram sessions remain active, and be prepared to move funds to fresh addresses after any suspected infection.