South Korea’s Broadcasting, Media and Communications Review Committee has opened a formal review process involving Polymarket, signaling that regulators are preparing to assess whether the prediction market platform violates local gambling rules. The committee said it will first hear Polymarket’s position before deciding on a corrective request tied to gambling-related concerns.

According to a machine-translated version of the committee’s statement, the regulator chose to “provide an opportunity for Polymarket to submit its opinion to thoroughly verify the legality of Polymarket and the way the service is operated.” The outcome could determine whether additional enforcement steps follow, depending on how regulators view the platform’s operating model under Korean law.

Key takeaways

• South Korea’s media and communications review body will hear Polymarket’s response before deciding on corrective action over alleged gambling concerns.
• The review reframes scrutiny from individual users to the platform’s legality and operating practices.
• South Korea’s National Gambling Control Commission Act gives authorities power to monitor and combat “illegal gaming businesses,” including certain online speculative gambling services.
• Polymarket reports geoblocking restrictions across 33 countries, including major markets such as the US, UK, and several EU states.

Regulators focus on how the platform operates

The committee’s decision to request Polymarket’s input marks a notable shift in how the issue is being handled. Earlier attention in South Korea centered on whether local users had engaged with Polymarket markets in ways that could be considered illegal gambling.

Instead, the committee’s current process targets the platform itself—specifically, whether its service and operations align with South Korean legal standards. That distinction matters for Polymarket and other prediction-market operators because a platform-focused action can affect access, compliance obligations, and how services are structured at a system level, not only how individual participants behave.

South Korea’s National Gambling Control Commission Act defines “illegal gaming business” broadly enough to cover online services that enable speculative gambling, granting regulators authority to monitor and take steps against such activity. In practice, that means regulators are likely to evaluate factors such as user access, the presentation of outcomes, and the nature of what participants can wager or trade.

What the law implies for prediction markets

South Korea’s legal framework distinguishes between individual gambling activity and operating gambling venues. Under the Criminal Act referenced in prior reporting, gambling can be punishable by a fine of up to 10 million won (about $6,500). More severe penalties can apply for habitual gambling, with punishment potentially including up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 20 million won.

Operating a gambling venue for profit carries even heavier penalties, including up to five years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won. While prediction markets aren’t automatically categorized the same way in every jurisdiction, regulators may still treat certain features—such as speculative participation tied to real-world outcomes—as overlapping with gambling definitions.

For platforms like Polymarket, this creates a compliance challenge: even if a service frames itself as a prediction market, regulators may examine whether the user experience functions like betting. As South Korea’s committee moves to verify “legality” and “the way the service is operated,” the practical question becomes how regulators interpret those features under existing statutes.

Background: earlier probe into local users

The review arrives after an earlier police investigation involving Polymarket users in South Korea. On June 5, the Gangwon Provincial Police launched what local reporting described as the country’s first illegal gambling probe into local Polymarket users, with the request reportedly coming from South Korea’s National Police Agency.

That user-focused investigation set the stage for broader scrutiny. Now, the committee’s plan to hear Polymarket indicates that regulators may seek to connect any alleged gambling concerns to the platform’s design and operating practices—an approach that could lead to corrective measures if the service is deemed noncompliant.

Polymarket says it already restricts access

Polymarket says its restrictions are designed to meet a range of compliance requirements, including sanctions-related rules, local financial regulations, gambling and prediction market laws, anti-money laundering obligations, and Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures.

The company also states that it applies geofencing not only at the country level but within some regions that would otherwise be accessible. Its documentation indicates that Polymarket’s platform is restricted in 33 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Brazil, Singapore, Japan, and Australia. Polymarket’s materials also list additional restricted areas within those accessible jurisdictions, such as parts of Canada and regions in Ukraine.

For investors and users, this matters because regulators often assess whether geoblocking and compliance controls are sufficient—and whether they are implemented consistently. If South Korea concludes that existing restrictions do not adequately prevent gambling-like participation or otherwise violate local rules, Polymarket may face pressure to adjust its service availability, verification steps, or market mechanics.

At the same time, the presence of geoblocking elsewhere does not guarantee freedom from enforcement in a specific country. The committee’s review suggests that South Korea intends to evaluate the legality of Polymarket on its own terms, regardless of how other jurisdictions approach similar platforms.

What to watch next in South Korea

With the committee set to review Polymarket’s response before issuing a final decision, the next key signal will be what arguments the platform presents and how the regulator frames any potential corrective request. Observers should also pay attention to how South Korea’s actions align with its earlier police probe—specifically whether enforcement shifts further toward platform-level restrictions or remains focused on individual compliance.

French authorities have uncovered a $1.8 million crypto fraud involving a fake real estate deal targeting a wealthy couple.

Authorities have also arrested a mother and her son in connection with the fraud after a year-long investigation.

Modus Operandi

According to the authorities, the suspects stole $1.8 million in cryptocurrency through an elaborate yet fraudulent real estate transaction. The mother and son duo were arrested at a rented property in southern France on June 25. Investigators said they targeted a wealthy couple who had listed a $10 million villa for sale in the spring of 2025.

The fraudsters claimed to represent an Italian billionaire and invited the seller to Milan for further negotiations. They made a substantially higher offer than the listed price but asked the seller to prove they owned sufficient crypto assets to cover the $1.8 million in transaction fees.

The suspects gained access to sensitive wallet information, account details, and private keys during a second meeting in Milan. According to the authorities, they requested access to the cryptocurrency wallet under the guise of verifying assets. Unbeknownst to the victim, the fraudsters used hidden cameras to record sensitive information, including the private keys. Once the private keys were compromised, the fraudsters quickly transferred the crypto assets from the wallet.

Prompt Action

The suspects used false identities and frequently moved across the country to throw authorities off their trail and complicate the investigation. They also have prior criminal records related to fraud. However, they denied all allegations against them during questioning. The suspects are scheduled to appear before the Draguignan Criminal Court on September 1 and will likely be charged with organized fraud and inability to account for the source of funds.

Attacks On Cryptocurrency Holders Rising

While this specific case has been classified as a “rip-off” scam rather than violent extortion, it highlights the growing risks faced by cryptocurrency holders and how fraudsters are using real estate fraud to target them. France’s Interior Ministry has recorded 77 crypto-related cases in 2026, including extortion, kidnapping, and unlawful detentions; this is a substantial increase from 45 recorded in 2025.

French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez called the cases “serious in nature” but reiterated that emergency security measures implemented over the past year are starting to show results. Nuñez added that law enforcement agencies have arrested 200 individuals, while over 724 industry figures have joined France’s immediate identity verification platform.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

As crypto adoption expands beyond early retail users and into institutional channels—and as agentic AI finance begins to introduce new expectations for “always-on” throughput—Layer-1 blockchains are likely to face a familiar trade-off: delivering more speed and capacity may tempt builders to centralize parts of their systems. Injective CEO Eric Chen warned that this pressure is coming, and that the industry will have to find scaling paths that do not undermine what makes a blockchain a blockchain.

Speaking on Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast, Chen framed the challenge as an effort to increase performance while protecting the core guarantees users associate with decentralized networks: resilience, credibility, and the absence of a single controller.

Key takeaways

• Scaling demands are increasing as institutional adoption and AI-driven finance push networks toward higher throughput and faster finality.
• Centralization can look like the simplest route to performance, but it also introduces single points of failure.
• Chen argues there are scaling opportunities that improve capacity without necessarily reducing block time.
• The blockchain trilemma remains a practical constraint: improving scalability too aggressively can come at the expense of decentralization or security.

Why speed and capacity could pull chains toward centralization

Chen said the market is effectively asking Layer-1 networks to provide “faster speeds” or “more block space” to support higher transaction volumes. That demand, he suggested, will test whether blockchains can scale in ways that preserve their foundational principles rather than trading them away for efficiency.

In his view, the goal is not to reject performance improvements, but to “find scaling opportunities” that do not compromise the “fundamental pillars” defining decentralized blockchains.

This tension matters because one of crypto’s original selling points was replacing trust in intermediaries with systems that can operate without a central party coordinating transactions. When throughput becomes the top priority, the temptation to consolidate control—whether operationally, infrastructurally, or at the protocol level—tends to rise.

The operational risks of “the easy way out”

Chen cautioned that centralized design is often the fastest engineering solution. He described scenarios in which all users rely on a shared data warehouse or where a small set of entities effectively determine network behavior.

The problem, according to Chen, is that such an architecture can create a single point of failure. If one critical server or decision-making component encounters a fault, it can cascade into broader service outages—potentially stopping the chain’s activity instead of allowing it to continue under independent validation.

For networks that market themselves on resilience and distributed control, that trade-off becomes especially consequential as usage grows and operational dependencies expand.

Injective’s framing: optimize the whole system, not just block time

Chen discussed Injective, which he described as an interoperable Layer-1 blockchain built for DeFi applications. For his team, the focus is on “figuring out ways to optimize the entire chain,” while exploring other scaling routes that do not necessarily require reducing block time.

One such approach he pointed to is what he called “scaling venues.” The basic idea is to create “dedicated zones” and use Layer-2 scaling to route or process high-demand transactions so the most active traffic can still get through without forcing the entire base layer into the most extreme performance configuration.

That distinction is important for investors and users evaluating roadmap narratives: if performance gains come primarily from architectural layering (and traffic management) rather than from concentrating control, the result can be a better match between throughput expectations and decentralization goals—though the actual implementation details determine how much decentralization is retained.

The blockchain trilemma still limits how much can be “optimized at once”

Chen’s comments also echoed the long-standing blockchain trilemma: the ideal network is expected to provide security, decentralization, and scalability, but maximizing all three simultaneously is difficult.

In the classic framing, decentralization means there is no single point of control and many independent parties validate the network. Security means the system is resistant to manipulation, fraud, and attacks. Scalability means the network can handle high transaction volumes quickly.

Chen warned that pushing too hard on scalability can force compromises elsewhere—particularly decentralization. In other words, if a blockchain’s design prioritizes throughput so aggressively that validation participation narrows, performance improvements may arrive alongside reduced network independence, even if the chain appears faster on the surface.

The takeaway is less about whether scalability is achievable and more about what form it takes. A network can increase capacity by adjusting how transactions are processed, how consensus is supported, and how load is managed. But each path tends to impose trade-offs that only become visible under real demand conditions.

Where the tension is heading next

Chen’s warning suggests that the next phase of Layer-1 competition may not be won solely by raw throughput metrics, but by how effectively teams scale while sustaining distributed validation and minimizing systemic dependencies. As institutional adoption and agentic AI finance intensify expectations for capacity, builders—and users—will likely watch closely for whether performance improvements come with a shift toward centralized control, or whether “scaling without compromise” can remain more than a slogan.

Layer-1 blockchains will come under increasing pressure to sacrifice decentralization for speed and efficiency as adoption of the technology grows, according to Injective CEO Eric Chen.

This pressure will come from the need to satisfy users’ desire for faster speeds or more block space for higher throughput, Chen told Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast on Monday. 

“In our mind, it’s essentially about finding scaling opportunities without compromising the fundamental pillars that define what a blockchain is,” he said. 

With blockchain adoption accelerating due to institutional adoption and agentic AI finance, this tension is about to be tested on a much larger scale. Part of crypto’s original pitch was to create a “trustless” financial system in which individuals could transact without relying on traditional intermediaries. 

Centralization comes with risks

Chen said centralizing is the easy way out — “it might be a very, very easy choice to move everyone in the same data warehouse, or literally have a leader validator that calls all the shots for everyone” — but warned this creates a single point of failure: “If that one server has a certain fault, the entire chain goes down.”

Related: DAOs may need to ditch decentralization to court institutions

Eric Chen chats with Ciaran Lyons on the Chain Reaction. Source: Cointelegraph 

Chen added that for Injective — an interoperable layer-1 blockchain designed for DeFi applications — it’s about “figuring out ways to optimize the entire chain,” and there are other opportunities to do this without reducing block time. 

One option he suggested was “scaling venues,” where there are “dedicated zones” and layer-2 scaling to ensure that all the high-demand transactions can make it through.

“It’s always a constant tug-of-war, and it’s about keeping the fundamental pillars and then kind of seeing where the space moves.”

The blockchain trilemma remains a challenge

It is said the perfect blockchain boasts three elements: security, decentralization and scalability. The principle of the blockchain trilemma is that it is only possible to fully optimize two of the three properties at once. 

Decentralization means no single point of control, with many independent participants validating the network. Security means resistance to attacks, fraud and manipulation. Scalability means the ability to handle high transaction volumes at speed.

Pushing too hard on any one, such as scalability, will result in sacrificing another, such as decentralization, Chen said. 

The blockchain trilemma. Source: OKX

Magazine: AI is banking the unbanked in Africa… faster than crypto

Binance has added spot trading for Strategy’s STRC perpetual preferred stock after the Bitcoin treasury firm sold 3,588 BTC for $216 million and increased its USD reserves to $2.55 billion.

According to an official announcement published on July 6, Binance Stocks has listed Strategy’s STRC perpetual preferred stock for spot trading, allowing users to trade the security through the exchange’s stock platform. The listing extends Binance’s lineup of tokenized stock offerings and follows the recent launch of perpetual futures linked to the same security.

The exchange said fully paid securities lending (FPSL) will become available once stock trades are fully settled. Binance stated that the addition is intended to offer users more trading choices on Binance Stocks.

Alongside STRC, the platform also listed Adapti Inc. (ADTI), Antalpha Platform Holding Co. (ANTA), Astronics Corp Class B (ATROB), Cerebras Systems (CBRS), Tema Memory ETF (DISK), Tuttle Capital Pure Play Photonics ETF (FOTO), PLUS Korea Defense Industry Index ETF (KDEF), Kurv Memory Select ETF (KMEM), and Quantinuum Inc. (QNT).

Strategy continues raising capital for its Bitcoin treasury

The listing comes as Strategy continues using its preferred securities to finance its Bitcoin acquisition strategy. According to a Strategy press release issued on July 6, the company sold 3,588 Bitcoin for $216 million to fund dividend payments tied to its Digital Credit securities rather than to reduce its long-term Bitcoin exposure.

Executive Chairman Michael Saylor said on X that Strategy now holds 843,775 BTC alongside $2.55 billion in U.S. dollar reserves following the transaction. The company described the sale as part of its funding plan for dividend obligations linked to its credit products.

Earlier this year, Strategy also sold 32 BTC to support preferred stock distributions. As previously reported by crypto.news, that transaction was relatively small but attracted attention because the company has consistently promoted a long-term Bitcoin accumulation strategy. The latest sale is considerably larger, making it more closely watched by market participants given Strategy’s position as the world’s largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder.

STRC and MSTR extend gains before the opening bell

Trading activity has remained positive for Strategy’s securities despite the recent Bitcoin sale. STRC closed 0.47% higher at $87.87 in the previous session after climbing nearly 22% last week. Premarket data on Monday showed the preferred stock rising almost 2% to $89.57, although it continued trading below its $100 par value.

The recent strength follows Strategy’s decision to raise its USD reserve balance to $2.55 billion, announce a buyback program for MSTR shares, and increase the annual dividend on STRC to 12%, developments cited by the original market report as supporting investor demand.

Meanwhile, MSTR shares gained more than 3% in premarket trading to $104.35 after advancing 21% over the previous week.

In the crypto market, Bitcoin gave back part of its earlier rally as traders booked profits following the recent rebound. The cryptocurrency was trading near $62,900 at the time of the report, while 24-hour trading volume had increased by 23%, indicating higher market activity as investors monitored both Strategy’s capital actions and the company’s continued use of preferred securities to fund its Bitcoin treasury.

SpaceX has been scheduled to enter the Nasdaq-100 Index on July 7, a move that JPMorgan estimates could generate about $4.3 billion in automatic buying from passive investment funds.

According to a Nasdaq announcement, SpaceX will join the Nasdaq-100 before the market opens on July 7 after becoming eligible under updated index rules that allow some of the largest newly listed companies to qualify after just 15 trading days.

The accelerated inclusion follows the company’s June 12 public market debut and places it among the benchmark’s constituents with an index weighting expected to remain below 1%.

Passive index funds are expected to drive billions in demand

JPMorgan estimates that exchange-traded funds and index funds tracking the Nasdaq-100 will need to purchase roughly $4.3 billion worth of SpaceX shares once the company joins the index.

The largest of those vehicles, including the Invesco QQQ Trust, must rebalance their portfolios to match the updated benchmark regardless of their view on the company’s valuation or future earnings.

Most of that buying activity is expected to take place around the July 6 market close and the July 7 opening as index-tracking portfolios complete their scheduled rebalancing. The purchases are mechanical rather than discretionary because passive funds are required to mirror the index composition.

The planned addition drew attention across financial and crypto markets after DogeDesigner highlighted the inclusion on X while citing JPMorgan’s estimate of approximately $4.3 billion in passive inflows. Nasdaq separately confirmed the upcoming index change in its official release.

SpaceX’s inclusion follows changes to Nasdaq’s eligibility framework that allow certain top-ranked companies to qualify more quickly after listing. The revision enabled the aerospace company to bypass the longer waiting period that many newly public firms previously faced.

Bitcoin exposure adds another layer to investor interest

Trading in SpaceX shares has remained volatile since the IPO. After retreating by more than 18% from earlier highs, the stock has recovered to around $158 in recent sessions as investors continue to assess its valuation following the public debut.

Buying activity from institutional investors has also attracted attention. Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest has accumulated tens of thousands of SpaceX shares while simultaneously adding to positions in crypto-related companies including Coinbase, Circle, and Robinhood. The purchases suggest ARK has continued to treat the post-IPO weakness as a buying opportunity despite elevated volatility.

Not all developments have been viewed positively. Market participants have closely watched SpaceX’s recent $25 billion bond offering, with some analysts warning that large debt sales can temporarily pressure equity sentiment even when the underlying business remains financially strong.

Another factor distinguishing SpaceX from most Nasdaq-100 constituents is its digital asset treasury. The company reportedly holds 18,712 Bitcoin on its balance sheet, making it one of the few index members with direct exposure to the cryptocurrency. Some equity analysts have cited that Bitcoin position as one factor supporting a $190 price target on the stock ahead of its Nasdaq-100 debut.

For crypto investors, the upcoming index inclusion could also increase institutional exposure to companies holding Bitcoin as a treasury asset. Market observers have compared the dynamic to previous index additions involving companies with large Bitcoin reserves, where passive fund inflows increased the visibility of corporate crypto holdings even though the purchases were tied to index rebalancing rather than direct investment in digital assets.

Robinhood shares have climbed more than 2% after the Trump administration officially launched the Trump Accounts savings program, even as the broader crypto market turned lower.

The White House officially launched the Trump Accounts initiative on Monday with a ceremony attended by President Donald Trump, who rang the opening bells at both the Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange. The program has also gone live on Robinhood’s platform, with the brokerage and BNY Mellon serving as the U.S. Treasury’s official partners for the rollout.

Robinhood traded near $114 following the announcement, gaining over 2% on the day and extending its five-day advance to more than 13%, according to data from Yahoo Finance. The move stood out against weakness across digital assets, with Bitcoin slipping below $62,000 during the same session.

Wall Street keeps raising expectations for Robinhood

The Trump Accounts launch arrives as Wall Street analysts continue to grow more optimistic about Robinhood’s long-term outlook despite the stock’s recent rally.

As previously reported by crypto.news, Piper Sandler reaffirmed its Buy rating on Robinhood and maintained a $135 price target, indicating the firm believes additional upside remains. BTIG also reiterated its Buy rating while keeping a $125 target price.

Meanwhile, Mizuho increased its price target to $130 from $115 while maintaining a Buy rating, making it one of the latest brokerages to lift expectations for the online trading platform.

The Trump Accounts program provides a federally funded $1,000 starting contribution for eligible children born between 2025 and 2028. Families can make additional contributions over time, creating long-term investment accounts designed to grow alongside the beneficiaries.

Speaking during the White House ceremony, Michael Dell said that he and Susan Dell are contributing $6.25 billion for 25 eligible American children through the initiative. The launch also coincides with celebrations surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States.

Bitcoin remains outside the program despite crypto support

Although President Trump has repeatedly expressed support for digital assets, cryptocurrencies are not currently included in the Trump Accounts program.

During the launch event, Trump indicated that future changes remain possible. Asked whether Bitcoin could eventually become part of the accounts, the president replied, “Something could happen.” He also reiterated that he is a supporter of cryptocurrencies and repeated his goal of making the United States the global crypto capital.

Not everyone welcomed the program. Economist and longtime Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff argued in a post on X that the government-funded contributions are financed through additional federal borrowing rather than new revenue.

According to Schiff, each $1,000 contribution effectively comes with additional public debt, meaning the same children receiving the benefit will also inherit part of that debt burden in the future. He added that reducing government spending would be a better policy than expanding borrowing to finance the initiative.

The criticism follows Schiff’s recent comments on Strategy’s reported $216 million Bitcoin sale, where he argued the company exited part of its holdings at a loss. While the Trump Accounts program currently focuses on traditional investment savings, Trump’s latest remarks suggest the administration has not ruled out adding digital assets at a later stage if policy develops in that direction.

As Ethereum and Cardano face steep declines, investors are increasingly exploring AI-focused blockchain projects such as Stargate LLM.

Ethereum spent 2025 in the room with the majors, trading near $5,000 and trading places with Bitcoin as the asset every altcoin measured itself against. It’s now sitting at $1,700, down 66% in less than a year, still searching for a floor. 

Cardano’s story is quieter but just as brutal: a 40% drop in June alone dragged it to territory it hasn’t traded at since 2020, even as whales keep buying the exact dip that’s scaring everyone else out. Neither of these declines happened because the technology broke. They happened because capital moved somewhere else, and it’s worth asking where.

The honest answer this year is AI, a sector on track to more than double into a $1.2 trillion market by 2030, pulling in investment on a scale crypto’s current downturn simply isn’t matching. Stargate LLM is where that rotation is actually landing: a presale still in its early batches, priced at $0.0005 against a $0.025 launch target, a 50X gap that ETH and ADA buyers would need years of recovery to even approach.

Stargate LLM: Positioned for the AI capital rotation

While ADA and ETH search for support levels, Stargate LLM is running a presale built around the opposite dynamic: escalating price batches designed to reward early entry rather than punish it. The presale runs across ten batches, starting at $0.0005 and climbing through $0.0015, $0.002, $0.0025, $0.003, $0.003, $0.0035, $0.0045, and $0.007, before reaching $0.0125 in the final batch, building toward a $0.025 launch price target. That structure puts Batch 1 participants at a 50x price ratio to the launch target, a stark contrast to buying ETH or ADA today and hoping for a bounce back toward levels they’ve already visited before.

This is why Stargate keeps surfacing on lists of the best crypto to buy now: it isn’t asking investors to bet on a recovery. It’s offering ground-floor pricing into a sector, AI, that’s growing independently of the broader crypto market’s current weakness. Of the fixed 150 billion coin supply, 96% is allocated to community, ecosystem, and presale participants, with staking rewards, governance votes, and Proof of Usage rewards built into the coin’s utility from day one.

For anyone scanning the market for the best crypto to buy now while ETH and ADA remain stuck in drawdowns, Stargate’s presale batches represent a structurally different kind of entry point, priced for early participation rather than recovery speculation. 

Ethereum price: Stuck below $1,900 support

The Ethereum Price picture through early July remains bearish across nearly every timeframe. ETH is trading near $1,700, roughly 66% below its August 2025 all-time high of $4,951.66, and sits below its 20-day, 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day exponential moving averages, a technical setup showing sustained weakness rather than a temporary dip. The 14-day RSI near 29 places Ethereum close to oversold territory, and while some analysts point to ETH spot ETF inflows and continued protocol development as longer-term positives, near-term price action tells a story of consolidation, not recovery. Vitalik Buterin’s own sale of ETH holdings earlier in 2026 added further pressure during the slide. Ethereum’s fundamentals as a smart contract platform remain intact, but the immediate technical structure offers little for investors looking for near-term upside.

Cardano News: Whale buying meets falling activity

The biggest Cardano News this week is a split between accumulation and decline. ADA closed June at $0.1453, down nearly 40% for the month, even as wallets holding 10 million to 100 million ADA grew their share of supply from 37.66% to 38.13%, signaling whale conviction despite the drop. But on-chain activity tells a weaker story: daily transactions fell to around 17,400, a 45-day low, and smart contract transactions dropped sharply from a June 5 peak near 26,000. 

A separate exploit drained roughly $2.4 million in ADA from 374 addresses in late June, though EMURGO has confirmed a recovery path for affected wallets. Support sits near $0.1435, with resistance at $0.1596, leaving ADA in a fragile technical position heading into July.

The bottom line

For more information, visit the official website, buy Stargare, X, and Telegram.

The Trump administration’s plan to create a US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR) is reportedly running into an unexpected hurdle: an internal dispute over the reserve’s legal structure and which federal agency should hold primary oversight of the Bitcoin assets. The disagreement centers on how the reserve would be organized and managed, according to reporting from Bloomberg and people familiar with the matter.

While US President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order envisioned housing the SBR within the Treasury Department—with other agencies supporting tasks tied to asset seizures—questions have emerged about whether Treasury has the legal authority to manage Bitcoin holdings. Bloomberg reported Monday that these issues are part of the reason the plan has not moved forward as smoothly as originally outlined.

Key takeaways

• Bloomberg reports a roadblock in the SBR effort due to disagreements among the Commerce and Treasury departments over structure and oversight.
• Legal concerns have been raised about whether Treasury can manage Bitcoin directly, given the asset’s volatility and the scope of its authority.
• Commerce has reportedly emerged as a potential alternative for primary oversight, with the Justice Department also assessing legally available options.
• Congress is pursuing parallel legislation—such as the BITCOIN Act and ARMA Act—that aims to establish a Bitcoin accumulation plan over five years.
• Industry advocates view the SBR concept as creating a new “capital allocation” category, even as execution details remain unsettled.

Treasury vs. Commerce: the dispute behind the reserve

Trump’s executive order calls for a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve housed in the Treasury Department, with other agencies playing supporting roles in building the reserve through asset seizure mechanisms. However, Bloomberg’s Monday report indicates that the departments are now at odds over how the reserve should be structured and which agency should have primary oversight of the holdings.

Central to the reported problem is a question of authority. Bloomberg cited concerns about whether Treasury has the legal power to manage the Bitcoin assets themselves, pointing to the asset’s volatility as part of the legal and regulatory complexity. The report also says Commerce may be positioned as an alternative lead agency, while the Department of Justice is working alongside relevant departments to identify options that are legally available.

For investors and market participants, the significance is not just bureaucratic. If the reserve’s governance framework ends up different than originally proposed, it could affect how assets are safeguarded, how decisions about holding or selling are made, and what kinds of legal constraints apply over time.

Why the SBR concept matters for US policy

The SBR proposal is designed to reposition Bitcoin within government financial planning. Rather than treating Bitcoin primarily as an asset to be seized and liquidated under court processes, the administration’s approach—at least in intent—would treat it as a strategic reserve asset. The White House has framed this as a shift toward making the United States a more central “crypto capital” by formalizing Bitcoin’s role.

In comments to Cointelegraph, a White House spokesperson, Liz Huston, said the administration continues to evaluate “the best structure for a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and US Digital Asset Stockpile,” emphasizing that the effort is still underway. That statement is consistent with the reported internal review described by Bloomberg, which suggests the plan is still in a formative stage.

Bitcoin held by the US already exists in practice. The US currently holds 328,372 Bitcoin, valued at $21.1 billion, making it the largest known nation-state Bitcoin position. Over the years, the government has sold portions through court-ordered actions, underscoring that the operational reality of state-held Bitcoin is shaped by ongoing legal processes—not only by policy ambitions.

Congress moves in parallel: BITCOIN Act and ARMA Act

While the executive branch works through interagency questions, lawmakers are also attempting to codify the reserve through legislation. Efforts referenced in Cointelegraph’s coverage include the BITCOIN Act and the ARMA Act, introduced in May, both aimed at acquiring a total of 1 million Bitcoin over five years using budget-neutral strategies.

ARMA is described as a step that builds on prior proposals. One of the White House’s top crypto advisers, Patrick Witt, characterized ARMA as “Version 2” of the BITCOIN Act and said the White House had spent significant time examining the legal implications of establishing a Bitcoin reserve. In the same context, Witt said it was a “breakthrough” for putting the program on a legally sound footing and ensuring safeguards for the assets.

Under ARMA, Bitcoin would be held for at least 20 years unless sold to reduce America’s national debt, which is near $40 trillion. That framework highlights a key tension investors may watch: the policy aims to create durability and strategic value over the long term, yet it also provides a pathway for eventual use in debt reduction. How such sell-down authority is implemented could be influenced by the same legal and oversight questions now reportedly complicating the executive branch’s structure.

Industry reaction: “validation” rather than just accumulation

Even with reported disagreements inside government, industry observers continue to see the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve as potentially bullish for Bitcoin’s broader role. Advocates argue that formalizing Bitcoin as a strategic reserve could reinforce its legitimacy as an investment and policy asset—moving it closer to how traditional institutions treat reserve categories.

Tim Kotzman, host of the Bitcoin Treasuries Podcast, commented that the SBR is not only supportive of Bitcoin, but “validates an entirely new category of capital allocation.” He added a comparison between earlier adoption by public companies and the idea that nation-states are now moving in the same direction.

That perspective aligns with the existing landscape of state-level Bitcoin holdings. Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage noted that 15 nation-states hold Bitcoin, but El Salvador is singled out as the only country that has formally established a Bitcoin reserve and makes routine purchases.

For readers, the practical takeaway is that the debate now appears to be shifting from whether the reserve should exist to how it should be governed—particularly which agency leads, what legal authority applies, and how long-term safeguards and eventual liquidity mechanisms would work.

What to watch next is whether the interagency review resolves the legal authority questions quickly, and whether Congress’s ARMA framework—and its long-hold rules tied to debt reduction—moves toward becoming a binding structure that can reduce uncertainty around who controls the reserve in practice.