Danmarks Nationalbank has warned that a sharp increase in stablecoin use could eventually affect Denmark’s payments, financial system and monetary policy transmission, despite their limited use in the country today.

Danmarks Nationalbank said in a Sept. 9 analysis that stablecoins have expanded globally in recent years, with activity rising sharply toward the end of 2025, while adoption in Denmark remains very low. The central bank said no Danish krone-denominated stablecoin currently exists.

The assessment comes as stablecoin services are becoming easier to access across Europe, including through banks, fintech companies and regulated payment infrastructure. The Danish central bank expects greater availability through financial companies and new payment applications could eventually lead to higher domestic use.

One recent example has already reached Denmark. Revolut began rolling out EURR to selected customers in Denmark, Poland and Portugal on Aug. 26, with expansion into other European Economic Area markets planned later in 2026. The euro-pegged token is issued by Stripe-owned Bridge Building and is designed to maintain a value of €1 under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets rules.

The launch gives Danish users access to a regulated euro stablecoin through a large financial platform even though Denmark does not have a stablecoin tied to its own currency.

Stablecoin risks remain limited in Denmark

Danmarks Nationalbank said stablecoins currently have no implications for Denmark’s financial system because their domestic use remains small. Risks could change if adoption increases substantially, particularly if foreign currency-denominated tokens become common.

Dollar-denominated stablecoins were singled out as one possible channel for external financial shocks. Turmoil involving such tokens could reach Denmark through spillovers from the U.S. financial system and international financial markets, according to the central bank.

The issue is tied to the scale and currency composition of the global market. Dollar-pegged tokens continue to dominate stablecoin capitalization, while euro-denominated alternatives account for only a small portion of the sector.

Euro stablecoins have nonetheless expanded under MiCA. Decta data published in July showed that the market capitalization of eight MiCA-compliant euro stablecoins increased 128% over the year through June 28, rising from $295.6 million to $673.9 million. Trading volume across the group increased 43.1% to $67.3 million.

At the time, the eight euro tokens were still worth less than 1% of the global stablecoin market, while dollar-denominated USDT and USDC accounted for a much larger share.

Danmarks Nationalbank said increased stablecoin use could eventually affect more than payments. Its analysis identified possible effects on financial markets, banks and the way monetary policy passes through the economy.

Banks could increase stablecoin access

European financial institutions have been developing stablecoin products and infrastructure as MiCA establishes rules for crypto assets across the bloc.

A banking consortium behind Qivalis expanded to 37 institutions in May after adding 25 banks from 15 European countries, including ABN AMRO, Rabobank, Nordea and Intesa Sanpaolo. The consortium has been preparing a regulated euro stablecoin, with its launch planned for the second half of 2026.

The project includes banks such as ING, UniCredit, CaixaBank and BBVA and is intended to support regulated onchain payments and settlement. Its membership gives the project a distribution network across several European banking markets.

Payment infrastructure providers have been building similar services. OpenPayd secured MiCA authorization in June, giving it crypto-asset service provider status and allowing it to offer fiat-to-stablecoin conversions, custody, wallet infrastructure and stablecoin transfers across the EEA.

crypto.news previously reported that corporate treasury teams have become a source of stablecoin demand in Europe, with businesses examining the tokens for settlement, international payments and moving funds outside normal banking hours.

Data cited by Paybis showed USDC volume in the European Union increased roughly 109% between October 2025 and March 2026, while its share of stablecoin activity on the platform rose from around 13% to 32%.

The development of bank and fintech distribution channels fits one of the routes identified by Danmarks Nationalbank through which stablecoin use could increase in Denmark. The central bank said greater availability through banks and other financial companies, together with new payment applications, may lead to more use over time.

Central bank money should remain the settlement base

Danmarks Nationalbank took a different position on stablecoins as a settlement asset between financial institutions.

While describing its approach to new forms of digital money as technology-neutral, the central bank said central bank money should remain the common foundation for trust and stability in the monetary system and the primary settlement asset between banks.

The position is similar to one taken by the European Central Bank as financial institutions develop tokenized securities, deposits and payment systems. ECB Executive Board member Piero Cipollone said in March that tokenized financial markets require a settlement anchor in central bank money, including when stablecoins and tokenized commercial bank deposits are used.

The Eurosystem has been developing infrastructure intended to provide that connection. Pontes is designed to link distributed ledger technology platforms with TARGET Services, allowing tokenized transactions to settle using central bank money.

Danmarks Nationalbank said it is working with the ECB to make sure banks can retain access to central bank money in a tokenized financial system. Under its assessment, new technology can change how financial assets and payments operate without replacing central bank money as the settlement layer between banks.

The central bank said stablecoins remain part of the development of new digital money and payment solutions driven by technology and international companies. Its analysis identified resilient payment systems, trust in money and a functioning monetary system as considerations if their use in Denmark increases.

NFT sales reached approximately $46.78 million over the seven days ending Sep. 12, up 6.8% from the previous seven-day period, according to CryptoSlam data. Ethereum led blockchain sales, while a small number of high-value Bitcoin transactions accounted for much of the week’s activity.

According to data from CryptoSlam, the increase in dollar sales came alongside a steep drop in the addresses recorded as buyers and sellers. Buyer addresses fell 84.67% to 41,959, while seller addresses declined 85.13% to 43,247. The dashboard recorded 917,549 transactions, up 48.75%.

Those counts describe addresses, not confirmed individual buyers or sellers. They also show why the higher sales total needs context: more transactions took place despite far fewer addresses appearing in the buyer and seller figures.

Ethereum leads NFT sales with $16.83 million

Ethereum remained the largest blockchain for NFT sales at $16.83 million, although its total fell 6.36% from the prior period. CryptoSlam recorded 8,271 buyer addresses on Ethereum, down 79.37%, and $794,730 in wash-trading volume. The dashboard lists wash volume separately from sales; the two figures should not be added together.

Bitcoin ranked second with $9.44 million in sales, a 50.12% increase. Its buyer-address count fell 82.79% to 2,255, while listed wash volume was $74,767. Bitcoin’s gain was much stronger than Ethereum’s, but its collection and individual-sale rankings show that a handful of transactions carried a large share of that volume.

Polygon followed with $7.71 million in sales, up 7.73%, and 13,888 buyer addresses, down 85.34%. CryptoSlam separately displayed $17.11 million in Polygon wash volume. Because that figure is larger than the chain’s listed sales, it should not be read as additional collectible purchases.

BNB Chain ranked fourth at $4.02 million, up 25.99%, followed by Base at $2.48 million, down 35.34%, and Solana at $2.30 million, up 32.91%. Buyer-address counts fell on all six of the leading chains shown in the dashboard, including a 90% decline on BNB Chain and an 86.97% drop on Base.

The six networks together accounted for approximately $42.78 million of the $46.78 million global sales total. Smaller networks supplied the remainder. For U.S. readers following NFT activity across chains, the split matters: Ethereum led in dollar volume, while Bitcoin posted the largest weekly sales gain among the top six.

Courtyard tops weekly NFT collection sales

Courtyard led collections with $6.67 million in sales on Polygon, up 8.46%. It recorded 104,404 transactions, 16,253 buyer addresses and 14,268 seller addresses. Transactions rose 9.98%, although buyer addresses fell 14.60%.

Courtyard’s NFTs represent ownership of physical collectibles held through its platform, according to Polygon’s description of the project. Its high transaction count therefore sits in a different category of activity from the week’s largest Bitcoin BRC-20 NFT transfers.

Ethereum-based Argonauts ranked second with $4.36 million in sales, up 109.04%. The collection recorded 2,331 transactions and 656 buyer addresses. Despite the increase in sales value, its transaction count fell 25.14% and buyer addresses dropped 21.72%.

The Bitcoin-based $X@AI BRC-20 NFTs collection placed third with $2.90 million, up 217.88%, but reached that total through just nine transactions involving seven buyer addresses. Its largest displayed sale, at $2.10 million, represented about 72% of the collection’s weekly volume. CryptoSlam classified the transfers as NFT sales; the dashboard alone does not establish that they reflect broad demand for conventional digital collectibles.

Another Bitcoin collection, $X@AGI BRC-20 NFTs, ranked fourth at $1.72 million across three transactions. CryptoSlam showed a 7,762.30% weekly increase, a percentage shaped by the small number of sales. Its largest displayed transaction was worth $1.14 million, or roughly two-thirds of the collection’s weekly total.

CryptoPunks followed at $1.13 million across 15 transactions, down 41.84%. BNB Chain’s OI NFT recorded $1.00 million across 2,001 transactions, with 2,001 buyer addresses and two seller addresses. Guild of Guardians Heroes placed seventh at $952,128, down 2.27%, ahead of Bitcoin-based $ATMC BRC-20 NFTs at $920,976, up 80.47%.

Bitcoin BRC-20 NFTs dominate the largest sales

The five largest individual sales displayed by CryptoSlam were all Bitcoin BRC-20 NFTs. The top-ranked $X@AI BRC-20 NFT sold for $2,095,886.72, or 26.2326 BTC, approximately five days before the Sep. 12 screenshot.

A $X@AGI BRC-20 NFT followed at $1,140,988.93, or 14.3755 BTC, approximately three days before the screenshot. Another $X@AGI item sold for $574,078.04, or 7.1817 BTC, roughly six days before it.

Fourth was a $X@AI BRC-20 NFT at $401,684.92, settled for 5.0818 BTC, approximately five days before the screenshot. A further $X@AI item completed the top five at $395,775.82, or 5 BTC, roughly three days before it. Together, those five listed trades were worth about $4.61 million, close to half of Bitcoin’s weekly NFT sales total.

Crypto companies announced $151 million in disclosed financing across five deals from Sep. 5–11, 2026. The largest was Nasdaq Ventures’ agreement to invest $100 million in Kraken parent Payward; Latitude’s $35 million Series A ranked second.

The total includes Nasdaq’s announced investment agreement, which the companies did not describe as a completed payment. It excludes funding rounds with undisclosed amounts, company valuations, and acquisitions.

The deal inventory draws on CryptoRank’s funding database and Crypto Fundraising’s deal records, with transaction details checked against company, investor and other reporting sources. The disclosed total counts each of the five dated financings once.

Payward secures Nasdaq’s $100 million investment agreement

Nasdaq said on Sep. 10 that its venture arm had agreed to invest $100 million in Payward, the parent company of Kraken. The announcement described an agreement to invest, so the $100 million is included in the week’s announced financing total rather than presented as cash already received.

The transaction builds on work between Nasdaq and Payward on tokenized equities. Nasdaq said the companies plan to connect its proposed Nasdaq Equity Tokens design with Payward’s xStocks infrastructure. Payward will also adopt Nasdaq’s market surveillance technology across its trading venues.

Nasdaq expects to launch its equity-token design in the second quarter of 2027. That is a company target, not a completed launch. The U.S. market link is direct: Nasdaq operates American securities-market infrastructure, while the proposed design concerns the ownership and trading of tokenized shares.

The Payward agreement accounted for about 66% of the week’s $151 million disclosed total. Its size made it the clear leader, although its transaction status differs from the rounds the companies said they had already raised.

Latitude raises $35 million for stablecoin payments

Oak HC/FT said it led Latitude’s $35 million Series A on Sep. 9. The company builds infrastructure that uses stablecoins for settlement while delivering payments to recipients through local banking and payment systems.

Oak described Latitude’s product as a single interface for businesses sending money across markets. Its investment case focused on the work needed to turn stablecoin transfers into usable local-currency payments, including banking connections, liquidity and compliance.

The investor said Latitude had secured money-transmitter licenses or approvals across 45 U.S. markets. That gives the financing a practical U.S. angle: the company is building a regulated route for businesses that originate payments in the United States and need to pay recipients abroad.

The $35 million figure refers to the new Series A. Crypto Fundraising also lists an earlier $8 million Latitude financing in March, which is outside this roundup and is not included in the weekly total. Latitude and Payward together made up $135 million, or roughly 89% of the five deals’ disclosed value.

Antarctic Exchange announces a $7 million financing

Antarctic Exchange announced a $7 million round on Sep. 7 for its decentralized perpetual-futures platform. The company-supplied announcement, published by Crypto Fundraising, named Valisa Capital Markets and Lucidity Capital among its backers and said Republic Crypto structured the transaction’s token component.

The announcement described the financing as a SAFE-plus-token deal and gave a $70 million company valuation. The valuation measures the stated price of the business in the transaction; it is separate from the $7 million raised and is not added to the weekly funding total.

Antarctic said it is developing trading tools for retail derivatives users. Its claims about platform standing and product performance come from the company announcement and should be treated as company claims, rather than independently established results.

The round was smaller than the two payments and market-infrastructure deals above it, but it was the week’s largest disclosed financing for a decentralized trading platform.

Projects below $7 million

• RealGo reported a $6 million strategic financing involving UZ Capital, Greenwood Global Capital, and Infinite Alliance. According to the report, the Web3 gaming company plans to spend the money on product development, team expansion, and AI research. The figure is the newly reported round, separate from earlier RealGo funding.
• TINA announced a $3 million financing for its geospatial data network, according to ChainCatcher. The report named THINKWARE, Gemhead Capital, Archer Capital, Astra Capital, Mayer Venture, and Tidal Capital as investors. TINA said the funding would support the expansion of its location-data project and dashcam ecosystem. The report did not establish a lead investor, so the backers are listed without assigning one.

Undisclosed investments remain outside the total

TRM Labs announced a Series C expansion on Sep. 9. The San Francisco company said Blockchain Capital led the investment and that its valuation reached $2 billion, double the valuation attached to its February Series C. TRM did not disclose the new capital raised. The $2 billion figure is a valuation, not funding received.

Robinhood also said it would hold equity stakes in Crypto.com and OG.com through a prediction-markets partnership announced Sep. 8. The companies did not disclose an investment amount. OG.com said Robinhood would route some event-contract volume through its U.S. derivatives infrastructure; the equity arrangements are counted as two disclosed-stake transactions, but neither adds a dollar figure to the $151 million total.

Acquisitions appearing in funding databases, including Circle’s Tazapay transaction, are excluded because an acquisition price is not fresh financing raised by the acquired company.

India has issued ₹1,025 crore, approximately $116 million, in tokenized corporate bonds through three transactions settled with the Reserve Bank of India’s wholesale digital rupee.

SEBI said on Sept. 10 that the Demat 2.0 pilot connects a distributed ledger owned by India’s statutory depositories with the RBI’s Unified Market Interface. The system moves the bond and its payment together through atomic settlement.

REC Limited completed the first issuance on Sept. 7, raising ₹500 crore from 18 investors. Larsen & Toubro followed on Sept. 9 with a ₹500 crore bond purchased by four investors. IIFL issued ₹25 crore to one investor on the same day.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India and the RBI announced the pilot during the Global Fintech Fest in Mumbai. SEBI Chairman Tuhin Kanta Pandey and RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra presented the project jointly.

India’s tokenized bonds remain conventional securities

Demat 2.0 changes how ownership, settlement and bond servicing are recorded. It does not create a new category of security or alter the issuer’s repayment obligations.

Each tokenized bond retains its fixed interest rate, maturity date and legal rights. Existing requirements covering credit ratings, debenture trustees, exchange listings and company disclosures continue to apply.

Ownership records sit on a distributed ledger maintained by India’s regulated depositories. Investors hold the securities through their existing demat accounts, meaning participants do not need a separate securities account or a new identity check.

Participation still requires an investor to activate Demat 2.0 with the relevant depository. Investors must hold a wholesale digital rupee wallet with a participating bank because payments settle in the RBI-issued currency.

SEBI described the structure as India’s first native distributed-ledger issuance of corporate bonds in which statutory depositories maintain ownership records and central bank digital currency settles the cash leg. Similar projects in other markets have often used platforms created for individual issuers.

India’s National Institute of Securities Markets valued the country’s corporate bond market at ₹53.64 lakh crore, or approximately $627 billion, in September 2025. The figure supports the reported $620 billion market estimate, but it does not represent the value entering the pilot.

Only ₹1,025 crore has been issued through Demat 2.0 so far. SEBI has not set a target for the amount of bonds that will move onto the system.

Digital rupee settlement joins both sides of each trade

Demat 2.0 connects the bond ledger to the RBI’s wholesale central bank digital currency through the Unified Market Interface. Atomic settlement means delivery of the tokenized security and payment in digital rupees occur as one transaction.

Conventional bond issuance can involve separate systems for allocating securities and transferring money. SEBI said issuers generally received funds two to three days after bidding under the previous process. The pilot allows an issuer to receive payment on the bidding day.

The regulator said atomic settlement removes the risk of one part of a transaction completing while the other fails. Its statement described the settlement-risk benefit as a feature of the pilot, not a finding from an independent performance review.

Corporate actions can run through smart contracts on the depository ledger. Interest payments and bond redemptions are programmed for delivery to investors’ wholesale digital rupee wallets on their due dates.

Existing servicing requires an issuer or registrar to obtain a list of bondholders, calculate each payment and send funds through banking channels. In the pilot, authorized institutions share access to the ownership record, while programmed instructions trigger the payment.

SEBI expects the structure to reduce manual file sharing, reconciliation and validation work. The regulator has not released audited figures measuring operating-cost reductions or error rates from the first three issuances.

India’s use of central bank money differs from crypto-based tokenized securities that trade against privately issued stablecoins or other digital assets. As crypto.news reported, Uniswap v4 held $59.1 million in tokenized stock deposits as of Sept. 6, according to Token Terminal. Those deposits sit within decentralized finance applications, while Demat 2.0 operates through regulated depositories and participating banks.

Three issuers have tested the Demat 2.0 system

State-owned REC opened the pilot with a ₹500 crore transaction on Sept. 7. Separate information released around the issuance described a 7.30% coupon and a maturity of one year and nine months.

REC initially offered ₹100 crore with a ₹400 crore greenshoe option. Investors submitted ₹796 crore in bids, according to the company’s reported transaction details, exceeding the final amount issued.

Larsen & Toubro completed the pilot’s second transaction two days later. Four investors purchased its ₹500 crore bond. SEBI did not disclose their identities, investment allocations or the bond’s coupon in its pilot announcement.

IIFL carried out the third transaction on Sept. 9, issuing ₹25 crore to a single investor. The regulator did not identify the buyer or explain why the deal involved only one participant.

Combined participation across the three deals reached 23 investors, assuming no investor appeared in more than one transaction. SEBI did not publish a list that would allow overlap to be checked.

No verified market reaction accompanied the announcement. SEBI did not provide secondary-market prices, trading yields or data showing changes in the issuers’ listed shares following the transactions.

Later phases will introduce trading and retail access

The first phase remains focused on corporate bond issuance. SEBI said new offerings are continuing, but the regulator did not identify the next companies, transaction sizes or launch dates.

A later phase will connect tokenized bonds to India’s existing request-for-quote platforms. The planned change would let eligible investors buy and sell the securities after issuance while keeping trading within the current regulated market structure.

SEBI said secondary-market sellers could receive digital-rupee funds immediately, compared with a previous settlement period of two to three days. The regulator has not announced when this trading phase will begin.

Retail participation is planned for a subsequent stage. Individual investors would use existing demat accounts, though they would need activated Demat 2.0 access and a compatible digital rupee wallet.

The RBI has previously used its wholesale digital rupee for controlled financial-market transactions. In related coverage, U.S. Bank tested a proprietary digital dollar on Stellar, but that pilot involved a bank-issued token rather than central bank currency.

India’s system remains separate from public cryptocurrency markets. Private tokens do not settle the bond transactions, and the securities do not trade through decentralized exchanges.

SEBI said experience collected during the issuance, secondary-trading and retail phases will guide any expansion. It has not committed to a full rollout or published deadlines for deciding whether Demat 2.0 will move beyond pilot status.

XRP Healthcare has begun closing its normal operations after a Sept. 3 wallet incident reportedly affected 4,011 accounts and caused losses estimated at approximately $452,000.

XRP Healthcare said on Sept. 10 that the incident increased financial and operational pressure after three years of spending on development, infrastructure and product delivery. The company cited a prolonged bear market and the cost of an unsuccessful public-listing process among the factors behind its decision.

The company is coordinating the removal of XRPH and XRPHAI from trading platforms. Each exchange will set its own trading closure, deposit suspension and withdrawal deadlines, leaving holders responsible for checking notices issued by the venue where their tokens remain.

No bankruptcy filing, liquidation petition or court-supervised insolvency process accompanied the announcement. XRP Healthcare described the action as an “operational wind-down,” which does not by itself establish the company’s legal status or how creditor claims would be handled.

XRP Healthcare is ending normal operations

The wind-down covers the company’s regular business activities but does not close its response to the wallet incident. XRP Healthcare said it would continue pursuing available recovery routes for the affected assets.

Its team plans to cooperate with exchanges, online platforms, authorities and other parties involved in tracing or recovering the funds. Technical records and transaction data connected to the incident will be preserved, according to the statement.

XRP Healthcare did not identify the authorities contacted, the jurisdictions involved or the exchanges assisting with the investigation. No police report, court filing or official enforcement announcement had been published with the wind-down notice.

The company said its intellectual property and international trademark portfolio would remain under separate management. It did not explain which legal entity would hold those assets, whether they could be sold or how any proceeds might be treated during the closure.

After operating for close to three years, XRP Healthcare said continuing its regular business was “no longer sustainable.” The statement did not publish its assets, liabilities, cash position, employee count or outstanding obligations to customers and contractors.

Costs from a planned public listing contributed to the financial strain, the company said. XRP Healthcare did not name the proposed exchange, disclose how much the process cost or identify the advisers involved.

Wallet incident reportedly reached 4,011 accounts

Unauthorized transactions began on Sept. 3, according to information previously released by XRP Healthcare. The company later reported that 4,011 XRPH Wallet accounts were affected and estimated the missing assets at nearly $452,000.

As crypto.news reported, the incident involved 267,664 XRP and native project tokens. The estimate came from XRP Healthcare and should not be treated as an independently audited loss figure.

The company has not published a complete list of affected addresses, transaction hashes or recovered balances. Without that information, outside researchers cannot fully reproduce the total or determine whether every transfer formed part of the same incident.

XRP Healthcare took its wallet applications offline after detecting the unauthorized activity. Its website currently says digital services remain unavailable while security and recovery work continues.

The latest notice confirms that the XRPH Wallet applications will stay offline during the wind-down. Users should not assume that an application carrying similar branding is an authorized replacement unless the company identifies it through an official channel.

No restoration date was provided. The company has not announced a migration tool, replacement wallet or formal claims portal for users reporting losses.

Technical claims point to the wallet application

Independent developers cited by U.Today attributed the compromise to how the XRPH Wallet generated and handled recovery phrases. Their claims focused on application code and did not identify a flaw in the XRP Ledger consensus protocol.

One allegation stated that the wallet used insufficient randomness when creating seed phrases. Low entropy can reduce the number of possible recovery phrases, allowing an attacker to search the remaining combinations offline and derive private keys.

A separate claim based on decompiled application code said the software transmitted users’ seed phrases over a network connection. XRP Healthcare said it learned of the alleged transmission only after the incident and had trusted the developers hired to build the application.

Neither XRP Healthcare nor the cited researchers have released a complete public forensic report with reproducible code analysis. The reported cause therefore remains a technical claim, although the company has not disputed that a defect in the wallet software exposed users.

Former Ripple developer Matt Hamilton and XRP Ledger community contributors Vet and Hazard Cookie said they had raised concerns about the project before the September incident. Vet stated that he rejected grant requests tied to the project because its documents contained what he described as inaccurate partnership claims.

Past criticism of the project does not independently prove the cause of the wallet losses. The security findings require separate assessment from earlier disputes involving XRP Healthcare’s business model, documentation or token structure.

The available evidence does not indicate that the XRP Ledger itself was compromised. Transactions authorized with exposed private keys can remain valid under a blockchain’s rules even when the keys were obtained through defective wallet software.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported how a Liquid Network cache flaw enabled unbacked Bitcoin withdrawals. The XRP Healthcare incident differs technically because published accounts point toward compromised wallet credentials instead of a consensus or bridge-accounting failure.

Exchanges will determine XRPH withdrawal deadlines

XRP Healthcare said XRPH and XRPHAI would be removed through an orderly process coordinated with exchange partners. The company told holders to rely on notices from each exchange for the applicable dates and procedures.

At the time of the wind-down statement, XRP Healthcare had not published a consolidated list of participating exchanges or deadlines. Searchable reports from Bitget and KuCoin described the closure, but exchange-specific withdrawal schedules were not clearly available in the cited notices.

XRPHAI began trading on BitMart in July 2026, according to the project’s launch announcement. Holders with tokens on BitMart must wait for or locate a notice from the exchange before relying on any withdrawal date attributed to the project.

A token delisting normally ends trading on one venue but does not automatically destroy tokens held in private wallets. Continued transferability depends on the underlying network, available liquidity and whether other services keep supporting the asset.

XRP Healthcare has not promised compensation for affected wallet users. Its commitment covers recovery efforts, cooperation and material incident updates, without specifying a reimbursement amount or timetable.

No verified recovery total has been disclosed. The company has not identified frozen exchange deposits, returned funds or arrests connected to the unauthorized transactions.

Canada’s banking regulator has clarified that tokenized deposits are not legally different from traditional deposits, giving federally regulated financial institutions a clearer path to develop deposit products using blockchain and other digital technology.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions said financial institutions and their third-party providers have been developing new financial products as digital finance advances, including tokenized and other digitally represented deposits. OSFI said its latest statement was intended to clarify how existing federal financial institution laws apply when banks use new technology to offer such products.

Under the regulator’s technology-neutral approach, the technology used to build or deliver a financial product does not determine its legal nature. OSFI said it looks at what a product or service is instead of the technology behind it.

“Tokenized deposits are, for example, not legally distinct from traditional deposits,” the regulator said.

The position means a deposit does not become a separate type of financial product simply because it is represented digitally or uses blockchain infrastructure. The institution offering the product remains responsible for meeting the laws and regulatory requirements that apply to the underlying banking activity.

OSFI treats tokenized deposits as existing bank deposits

OSFI’s clarification places the legal focus on the underlying financial claim, leaving banks free to use different technical systems as long as the product remains within their permitted activities.

Financial institutions must ensure that products built with new technology comply with applicable laws and regulations, including when outside companies perform parts of the service on their behalf. OSFI specifically pointed banks to its B-13 guideline covering technology and cyber risk management and B-10 guideline for third-party risk management.

Banks considering novel products or services are expected to contact their OSFI lead supervisors before launch. The regulator encouraged institutions to seek legal advice where appropriate.

The approach separates the technology used to represent a deposit from its legal status, a distinction that has become more relevant as banks experiment with blockchain-based settlement systems.

A tokenized deposit remains a commercial bank deposit represented on digital ledger infrastructure and issued by the bank holding the underlying funds. The money remains a liability of the commercial bank instead of becoming a separate reserve-backed token issued outside the bank.

Stablecoins can use similar blockchain infrastructure but are structured differently. Their legal treatment depends on the issuer and the framework governing the asset, while OSFI’s latest clarification specifically concerns deposits issued by federally regulated financial institutions.

Tokenized bank deposits move into live payment tests

Banks outside Canada have moved beyond early experiments with tokenized deposits during 2026, with several projects testing how existing commercial bank money can move through blockchain infrastructure.

In July, Swift launched a blockchain ledger with 17 banks across six continents preparing to test tokenized deposit payments for round-the-clock cross-border settlements, as crypto.news previously reported. Participating institutions included HSBC, Citi, BNP Paribas, UBS, Standard Chartered, ANZ and DBS.

The system was developed over nine months and was designed to coordinate payments involving bank-issued digital deposits while retaining the compliance, risk and control processes used by financial institutions.

That work moved into a live transaction in August when HSBC and Standard Chartered connected their independently operated tokenized deposit platforms through Swift’s shared ledger.

HSBC recorded its payment obligation through its Tokenised Deposit Service, while Standard Chartered used its own infrastructure. Swift’s ledger matched and netted the obligations before settlement took place through existing banking systems.

The transaction did not require both banks to issue deposits on the same tokenization platform. Instead, the shared ledger coordinated instructions between their separate systems, providing a model for interoperability between bank-operated digital deposit networks.

Swift has not disclosed a deadline for moving the system from its controlled rollout into production-scale use. Its participating banks are expected to test more institutions, currencies and operating conditions as the project develops.

Banks are testing different tokenized deposit structures

Other banking projects have taken different approaches to putting commercial bank deposits on blockchain networks.

In June, Custodia Bank and Vantage Bank unveiled a dual-purpose token designed to function as a bank deposit while held inside their Hazel banking network and become a stablecoin when transferred outside the consortium.

The Ethereum-based system had been operating since March and was being tested by participating banks ahead of a planned fourth-quarter 2026 launch. The companies designed Hazel to work alongside existing core banking software, payment systems and ledgers instead of requiring participating institutions to replace their current infrastructure.

Another model has focused on moving commercial bank money across public blockchain networks. LayerZero and Keeta announced a system in July intended to make tokenized commercial bank deposits transferable across Ethereum, Solana, Base and the Keeta Network.

The planned service covers nine currencies, including the Canadian dollar, U.S. dollar, euro, British pound, Japanese yen and Hong Kong dollar. Commercial bank deposits held through Bivo and its partner-bank network back the tokens, while issuers retain control over contracts, transfers and compliance requirements.

Canada is developing separate rules for stablecoins

Canada’s treatment of tokenized deposits is developing alongside a separate regulatory process for fiat-backed stablecoins.

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said in December 2025 that stablecoins should be pegged one-to-one to central bank currency and backed by liquid government assets so users can redeem them for cash at par. He said issuers should provide clear information about redemption terms, fees and timing while maintaining sufficient operational resilience.

Canada’s 2025 federal budget included provisions for a new stablecoin regulatory framework, with the Bank of Canada expected to receive C$10 million over two years beginning in 2026 to administer the regime.

The planned legislation would amend the Retail Payment Activities Act to cover payment service providers handling stablecoin transactions and include national security safeguards for fiat-backed tokens.

Canadian-dollar digital assets are already being developed under existing regulatory structures. Tetra Digital Group’s CADD gained institutional custody support from Anchorage Digital in May after being structured as a Canadian-dollar stablecoin backed one-to-one by Canadian dollars held at a licensed Canadian trust company.

OSFI’s latest statement deals specifically with deposits offered by federally regulated financial institutions. Banks developing novel products remain expected to consult their lead supervisors before launch and comply with the regulator’s existing technology, cyber and third-party risk requirements.

Russia has made taxpayer identification numbers a mandatory part of opening digital depository accounts used to record cryptocurrencies and digital rights as authorities tighten identity checks across the country’s newly regulated crypto market.

Russia’s Federal Financial Monitoring Service, known as Rosfinmonitoring, said clients will have to provide their individual taxpayer number, or INN, when opening an account with a Russian digital depository, according to comments from adviser to the agency’s director Vlada Gracheva on Sept. 9.

The requirement makes the tax number a compulsory identifier for crypto accounts, even though Russian banks do not generally require an INN when a customer opens an ordinary bank account.

“For the anti-money laundering system, the client’s INN becomes a new mandatory, specifically mandatory, identifier,” Gracheva said. “This is to ensure the transparency of transactions carried out with cryptocurrency.”

An INN assigned to an individual contains 12 digits and remains with the taxpayer even if their address, surname or other passport information changes. The number is commonly used for tax and employment purposes in Russia.

Tax IDs become mandatory for Russian crypto accounts

Gracheva said the requirement forms part of the anti-money laundering controls being applied to cryptocurrency activity, placing the tax identifier directly into the customer identification process for digital depositories.

The measure comes just days after Russia’s regulated crypto market formally opened on Sept. 1 under the country’s first comprehensive framework for cryptocurrency trading, custody and cross-border settlements, as crypto.news previously reported.

Digital depositories form a key part of that system because they maintain records of clients’ cryptocurrency and digital rights. The Bank of Russia had already proposed detailed rules for depositories and exchanges in July, including requirements governing digital currency accounts, capital and registration.

Russia’s updated anti-money laundering law prohibits digital depositories and operators of information systems that issue digital financial assets from opening digital accounts for anonymous clients or people using fictitious names.

For transactions exceeding 60,000 rubles, the rules require covered entities to collect and transmit more detailed information about the parties involved. For an individual payer, the required information can include the person’s full name, digital account number or wallet identifier, residential or registered address, date of birth and taxpayer identification number where applicable.

Information required for an individual recipient can include their full name, digital account or address identifier, country and city of residence and INN where available. Legal entities face separate identification requirements covering their names, digital account or address identifiers, locations and taxpayer numbers.

Transactions of 60,000 rubles or less remain subject to a smaller set of information requirements, including the names of individuals and their digital account numbers or address identifiers. If a covered institution suspects that a smaller transaction involves money laundering or terrorist financing, the more extensive identification requirements apply.

Russia expands crypto oversight under new market law

The identification rules form part of the regulatory system introduced after President Vladimir Putin signed Russia’s crypto law on Aug. 4.

Core provisions took effect on Sept. 1, bringing crypto exchanges, brokers, digital depositories and other intermediaries into a supervised domestic market.

Non-qualified investors must pass a knowledge test and can purchase up to 300,000 rubles of eligible cryptocurrencies per year through each intermediary. Qualified investors must undergo testing as well but do not face the same annual purchase ceiling.

The Bank of Russia has proposed Bitcoin, Ether and USDT as assets that can qualify for organized trading based on criteria covering market capitalization, liquidity and foreign trading history.

Cryptocurrency remains prohibited as a payment method for ordinary goods and services inside Russia, while the new legal framework permits its use for certain cross-border settlements.

Companies already operating crypto exchange services have been given a transition period to comply with the new regime, with existing providers required to complete registration by July 1, 2027.

Large financial institutions are preparing their own services under the framework. Sberbank plans to introduce crypto trading, custody and settlement infrastructure and launch a digital depository by Dec. 1, though it has yet to disclose the assets, customer eligibility rules, fees or withdrawal conditions for the service.

Bank accounts could be linked to INNs as well

The mandatory INN requirement for digital depositories comes as Russian authorities work on a separate plan to connect taxpayer numbers with bank accounts.

The Bank of Russia has been developing the mechanism as part of preparations for its Antidrop platform, which is scheduled to launch in 2027. The system is intended to help identify accounts used by so-called money mules, or individuals who allow their banking details to be used to receive or transfer illicit funds.

For conventional banking services, an INN has not traditionally been a mandatory identifier in the same way. Customers can generally open bank and brokerage accounts or obtain credit without providing the number.

Crypto depositories will operate under stricter identification rules as Rosfinmonitoring receives new oversight powers covering cryptocurrency transactions.

Federal Law No. 283-FZ, signed on Aug. 4, amended Russia’s anti-money laundering legislation to introduce specific duties for digital depositories and other entities handling digital currencies and digital rights.

The law requires covered institutions to maintain and transfer prescribed information during crypto transactions and bars them from servicing anonymous digital accounts. Its crypto-related anti-money laundering provisions took effect on Sept. 1 alongside the main regulated trading framework.

Russia has been building the supporting infrastructure while the rules enter force. The Bank of Russia will maintain official registers of approved market participants, while banks, brokers, asset managers, exchanges and digital depositories will operate under requirements applicable to their roles in the market.

SberCIB Investment Research estimated in late August that Russia’s regulated crypto market could process between 3.5 trillion and 4 trillion rubles in trading during its first year. Sberbank Deputy Chairman Anatoly Popov said annual volume could reach around 7.5 trillion rubles by 2029.

Existing crypto service providers have until July 2027 to complete registration, while later provisions governing certain transfer restrictions and nonresident digital depositories are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2027.