Crypto World
Ethics, DeFi, and $1.35B in yield
The most consequential crypto bill in American history missed its July 4 signing target and sits on the Senate calendar with no floor vote scheduled. The reason is not procedure. It is three specific, unresolved fights: the President’s $1.4 billion in crypto income, a developer shield that police groups call a criminal loophole, and a stablecoin-yield question worth $1.35 billion a year to Coinbase alone. The Senate returns July 13 with three weeks to settle all three. Here is each fight, both sides, and the math.
Summary
- Three unresolved disputes over ethics, DeFi developer protections, and stablecoin rewards continue to hold up the Senate vote on the CLARITY Act.
- The Senate has roughly three weeks before the August recess to secure enough bipartisan support and clear several procedural hurdles for the bill.
- The outcome could shape crypto regulation in the United States while influencing institutional adoption, DeFi rules, and stablecoin business models.
America’s 250th birthday came and went without the signing ceremony the White House had informally penciled in. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the bill that would finally decide which American regulator governs which crypto asset, spent July 4 exactly where it has sat since June 1: at Calendar No. 423 on the Senate Legislative Calendar, eligible for a floor vote that nobody has scheduled, with no cloture motion filed and prediction markets pricing its 2026 passage in the low-to-mid 40s, down from 82% in February and 74% barely a month ago.
The bill is not dead, and the arithmetic explaining its paralysis is brutally simple. Republicans hold 53 seats; Senators Josh Hawley and Rand Paul are expected to vote no; passage requires 60. That means roughly seven to nine Democrats must cross over, and the two Democrats who voted for the bill in committee, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, have both said publicly that their committee votes do not guarantee floor votes. The missing Democratic votes exist in principle. They are being withheld in practice, over three specific and interlocking disputes, and last week, the negotiations over the first two fractured into stalemate, with Senate leaders reportedly planning emergency meetings when the chamber returns on July 13.
Roughly three usable Senate weeks remain before the August recess, the window that analysts from Galaxy to the bill’s own sponsors treat as the last realistic gate before midterm politics consumes the calendar, and Senator Cynthia Lummis has warned that failure now could push the next opening toward the end of the decade. This piece takes the three fights one at a time: what each dispute actually is, the strongest version of each side’s argument, what compromise would look like, and how each interacts with the unforgiving calendar. The bill’s 257 pages have been mapped in detail before; what follows is the narrower story of the three pages’ worth of disagreements deciding whether any of it becomes law.
Fight one: the President’s $1.4 billion
The first fight became concrete on July 1, when the Office of Government Ethics released President Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure for 2025. The filing showed approximately $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency-related income during the first year of his second term: $635 million in royalties from $TRUMP memecoin licensing, more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial token sales, and additional equity and stablecoin proceeds, the largest personal crypto-income disclosure in American presidential history.
For Democrats who had spent months demanding conflict-of-interest language in the bill, the disclosure converted an abstract principle into a billion-dollar fact. Their argument runs as follows: the CLARITY Act will decide the legal classification, and therefore the value, of the exact asset class from which the President’s family draws its largest income stream, and passing it without enforceable ethics provisions amounts to Congress legislating a benefit to the signer. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, among the chamber’s most crypto-friendly Democrats and a co-author of earlier market-structure frameworks, has said plainly that enforceable language covering government officials’ crypto holdings is a prerequisite for her floor support, and she is the bellwether: if the bill cannot hold its friendliest Democrats, it cannot find seven.
The Republican counter-argument is constitutional and practical. Existing ethics law already prohibits members of Congress and senior executive officials from issuing digital commodities in office, the bill’s own text says so, and provisions singling out the sitting President’s personal holdings are, in the White House’s view, a poison pill dressed as principle, designed to force a veto confrontation, not to govern. The negotiating record shows both sides maneuvering around that accusation: an ethics amendment from Senator Chris Van Hollen failed 11-13 in committee; a tentative bipartisan framework reached in May collapsed last week when Republicans withdrew support for a state-attorneys-general enforcement mechanism and offered enforcement through the US Attorney General instead, an offer Democrats rejected as circular, since the Attorney General serves at the President’s pleasure; Republicans then floated impeachment as the constitutional remedy for presidential ethics violations, which Democrats declined to treat as an answer.
The shape of a landable compromise is visible in the wreckage: enforcement housed somewhere neither side controls, disclosure obligations rather than divestiture mandates, and effective dates that decouple the provisions from the current occupant. Whether it lands is another matter. The ethics fight is the only one of the three that is genuinely about the bill’s political meaning rather than its text, which is why it has attached to this bill after sparing the stablecoin law a year earlier: a market-structure act that classifies the assets a President holds cannot be framed as neutral plumbing, and everyone negotiating knows it.
Fight two: Section 604 and the developer shield
The second fight is over Section 604, which incorporates the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and shields non-custodial software developers, people who write and publish code but never take custody of user funds, from money-transmitter registration and Bank Secrecy Act obligations. To the DeFi industry, it is the bill’s philosophical core; to a significant bloc of American law enforcement, it is a criminal loophole, and the split inside law enforcement itself, which this publication examined at length, has become one of the strangest subplots in crypto’s legislative history.
The opposition case is carried by the National Sheriffs’ Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National District Attorneys’ Association, which told Senate leadership that Section 604 would materially impair criminal investigations involving cryptocurrency. Their argument: exempting DeFi software from the registration and record-keeping duties that apply to every other financial intermediary creates a compliance-free lane that launderers, sanctions evaders, and fraud networks will route through, and prosecutors will confront protocols with no registered entity to subpoena. The prosecutors’ version is the sharpest, because subpoenas are their daily tool and Section 604 is, from their desk, a list of doors the bill would weld shut.
The defense case is that the provision protects publishers, not criminals. Under the enforcement-era status quo, open-source developers faced personal liability when third parties used their code unlawfully, a standard that would be unthinkable applied to any other form of publishing, and the shield applies only where a decentralized system has no intermediary exercising control, while every custodial actor, exchange, broker, dealer, remains fully covered. The bill’s sponsors point to the sixteen-plus illicit-finance safeguards elsewhere in the text: Section 201 applying Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering duties across registered crypto intermediaries, Section 303’s new sanctions authorities aimed at Iran, Section 305’s freeze powers for dirty funds, plus $150 million in dedicated funding for crypto fraud investigations, which Lummis has framed as money to track down scammers and bad actors. The White House Crypto Council has worked the issue directly, convening the objecting groups and producing, in the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the bill’s first major law-enforcement endorsement, its executive director citing exactly those AML, sanctions, and forfeiture provisions.
The core dispute entered the recess unresolved because it is genuinely hard: it is the same tension between publishing code and operating a financial service that runs through a decade of American crypto enforcement, now compressed into one section’s drafting. The compromise space involves narrowing the shield’s definitions, adding sunset-and-study provisions, and expanding the investigative funding, and unlike the ethics fight, this one is tractable, because both sides ultimately want the same headline, a bill that is tough on crime, and are arguing over mechanism rather than meaning.
Fight three: the $1.35 billion yield question
The third fight is the quietest and involves the most measurable money. It concerns whether digital-asset platforms can keep paying customers rewards on stablecoin holdings, a question the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin law enacted a year ago, answered incompletely: it prohibited issuers from paying interest on payment stablecoins but left open whether platforms distributing those stablecoins can pass through yield.
Coinbase earns approximately $1.35 billion annually in USDC rewards revenue through exactly that arrangement, and whether the arrangement survives depends on drafting choices inside CLARITY.
The banking industry’s argument, pressed by the American Bankers Association and voiced most bluntly by JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, who said banks will fight the bill, is that the pass-through is a loophole that lets crypto platforms offer interest-bearing, deposit-like products without the capital, insurance, and anti-money-laundering obligations that make bank deposits safe, and that at scale it becomes a deposit-drain from the regulated banking system, the same systemic worry that shaped the trillion-dollar stablecoin fight this spring.
The crypto industry’s counter is that rewards programs are marketing expenditure paid from a distributor’s own revenue, not issuer interest; that Congress already drew the line at issuers in GENIUS and re-litigating it through CLARITY is the banking lobby’s second bite; and that killing pass-through yield would simply push American stablecoin users toward offshore products that answer to no US regulator at all.
The January Senate Banking draft tried to split the difference, prohibiting yield for merely holding balances while permitting activity-linked rewards, and the final text’s placement of that line is worth, to a single company, more than a billion dollars a year, which guarantees the lobbying around it will continue to the last markup.
The gauntlet in detail: how three weeks actually get spent
The phrase floor vote compresses a procedural sequence that deserves unpacking, because the calendar risk is not one deadline but a chain of them, and each link consumes days the bill does not have to spare.
Start with what calendar placement did and did not do. Being reported to the Senate Legislative Calendar as No. 423 on June 1 made the bill eligible for floor consideration; it scheduled nothing. Majority Leader John Thune controls the floor, and his queue when the chamber returns on July 13 begins with the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual must-pass defense bill that reliably devours a week or more, alongside a FISA Section 702 reauthorization with its own hard deadline.
Only after leadership commits floor time does CLARITY’s own sequence begin: a cloture motion on the motion to proceed, an intervening day, a sixty-vote cloture roll call, up to thirty hours of post-cloture debate, then the same cycle again on the bill itself, with an amendment process in between whose scope is itself a negotiation. Run cleanly and consensually, the sequence takes the better part of a week; run under objection, it can take two, and the recess begins in roughly three.
Then come the gates the headlines forget. The Banking Committee text that sits on the calendar must be reconciled with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s companion measure, the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, because the CFTC falls under Agriculture’s jurisdiction and both committees claim pieces of the framework; that merger has been negotiated in parallel but is not complete. Whatever passes the Senate must then be squared with the House-passed version from July 2025, either through a formal conference or through the House swallowing the Senate text whole, and House Financial Services has its own scheduled activity on July 17 that signals it does not regard itself as a rubber stamp.
The GENIUS Act’s own rulemaking deadline of July 18, one year from signature, lands in the same week the Senate resumes, crowding the agencies and the committee staff who service both laws. Every one of these steps is routine in isolation; stacked inside three weeks against two competing must-pass bills, they are the reason seasoned handicappers quote coin-flip odds for a bill with majority support.
The paradox of the moment is that the deadline is also the bill’s best friend, and its sponsors know it. Lummis has been explicit about moving in July, negotiators circulated final compromise text for review around the recess, and the a16z argument, that nothing concentrates Senate minds like a closing window, has real precedent in how the stablecoin law crossed its own finish line a year ago. Both dynamics are true at once: the calendar makes passage physically difficult, and the calendar is the only force capable of converting fourteen months of almost-agreements into signatures.
The next three weeks will show which effect is stronger, and observers who want to track it in real time need exactly four tells: whether Thune files cloture in the week of July 13, whether Gillibrand’s public posture on the ethics language shifts, whether the White House Crypto Council produces a Section 604 accommodation the sheriffs accept, and whether the Agriculture merger text appears. Any three of the four pointing the same direction will settle the question before the roll is ever called.
What each outcome is worth, asset by asset
The three fights are Washington stories, and the reason markets refresh the Senate calendar is that each outcome carries a price map that analysts have, unusually, been willing to publish in advance.
The passage scenario has explicit numbers attached. Citi’s Bitcoin target of $143,000 and Standard Chartered’s $150,000 are both conditioned on the bill becoming law, with regulatory certainty cited as the unlock for the next institutional wave into spot ETFs and corporate treasuries. Ethereum’s conditional upside is structural: commodity classification supplies the legal foundation for the staking ETF products allocators have drafted but not filed, behind Standard Chartered’s conditional $7,500 end-of-year target.
XRP carries the most direct exposure of any major asset, because the SEC-CFTC joint classification of it as a digital commodity in March 2026 is an interpretive ruling a future administration could reverse, and CLARITY would convert it into statute; JPMorgan and Standard Chartered have each projected $4 to $8.4 billion of first-year XRP ETF inflows under passage, roughly five times the products’ entire cumulative haul to date, arriving into a tradable float already at seven-year lows. The May 14 committee vote provided a small-scale preview, lifting the majors within hours on nothing more than procedural progress.
The failure scenario is not symmetrical, and that asymmetry is underpriced in casual commentary. A stall past the August recess does not merely delay the upside; it re-exposes every interpretive gain of the past two years to reversal risk, keeps the pension funds and sovereign allocators that legally cannot touch unclassified assets on the sidelines indefinitely, and, per Lummis’s warning, potentially pushes the next legislative window toward 2030 as midterms and a new Congress reshuffle every committee.
It would also leave the DeFi developer question exactly where the enforcement era left it, with builders facing liability standards no other publishing industry tolerates, and hand the competitive initiative back to the jurisdictions that already have live rulebooks, the MiCA-led regimes whose contrast with the American approach has defined the global regulatory race. Failure, in short, is not the status quo; it is the status quo minus the assumption of imminent rescue that has supported valuations all year.
Between the binary outcomes sits the muddled middle the market currently prices: passage in the fall, or passage in 2027, or a slimmed bill that resolves two fights by amputating the third. Each middle path has its own distributional consequences. An ethics compromise that survives conference likely costs nothing to asset prices and buys the signatures; a Section 604 narrowed to appease the sheriffs shifts value from DeFi-adjacent tokens toward the centralized incumbents the bill would license; a yield provision drawn the banks’ way removes a billion-dollar revenue line from the largest American exchange and, by extension, from the equity that trades on it.
The bill is routinely described as crypto versus Washington, and the truer description is that it is a set of allocations among crypto’s own factions, which is exactly why the industry coalition holding together through fourteen months of markups has been the quiet achievement underneath everything else.
Three weeks, three fights, one calendar
What makes the three fights decisive is not their difficulty individually but their interaction with a calendar that has no slack. When the Senate returns July 13, floor time must first accommodate the National Defense Authorization Act and a FISA Section 702 reauthorization, and each cloture sequence on CLARITY, one on the motion to proceed, one on the bill, can consume most of a week. Behind Senate passage wait two more gates the headlines forget: reconciling the Banking Committee text with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s companion measure, and squaring the result with the House-passed version, before any signature. Galaxy Research puts 2026 passage near a coin flip; Polymarket has drifted through the 40s; the bill’s supporters, from SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce’s summer-passage expectation to a16z’s argument that the tight window itself forces compromise, are betting that deadline pressure does what fourteen months of negotiation has not.
The honest reading of the moment is that the CLARITY Act has already survived everything except its final and most political mile. It passed the House 294-134 with 78 Democrats, cleared committee 15-9, and carries an industry coalition that has held together through every markup, achievements no market-structure bill has matched. The three fights blocking it are not procedural noise; each is a real dispute about who bears risk in the new system, the public against a President’s conflicts, investigators against anonymous code, banks against their own depositors’ yield-seeking.
Whichever way each resolves, the resolutions will be read as precedent for a decade of digital-asset law. Three weeks is enough time to settle three fights, and it is also enough time to settle none of them, and as of the morning the Senate returns, the smart money is split almost exactly down the middle.
It is worth naming, finally, what the three fights have in common, because the pattern explains why this bill has been harder than its stablecoin predecessor and why its resolution will echo past crypto. Each fight is a dispute about whether the new legal order will contain an exemption, for a President’s holdings from ethics enforcement, for published code from intermediary regulation, for platform rewards from banking rules, and exemptions are where legislation does its real distributional work.
The stablecoin law passed easily because it created obligations nearly everyone could live with; CLARITY has stalled because it creates carve-outs that someone powerful, in each case, cannot. That is not a sign the bill is badly drafted. It is a sign the bill matters, that it touches money and power at the joints where they actually connect, and the fourteen months of grinding negotiation are the ordinary price of legislation that does.
The Senate’s three weeks will be covered as drama, and most of the drama will be noise; the four tells listed above, cloture filed, Gillibrand moved, the sheriffs accommodated, the Agriculture merger published, are the signal, and readers who track those four and ignore the rest will know the outcome before the vote count does.
Whatever happens by August 10, the American crypto industry will exit this window with something it has never had before: a precise, public record of exactly which three questions its legal future turned on, and exactly who answered them.
A brief word on how to consume the next three weeks of coverage. Legislative endgames generate a distinctive noise signature: anonymous optimism from offices with bills to sell, anonymous pessimism from offices with amendments to extract, and daily prediction-market swings that mostly recycle both. The durable information will arrive in exactly four formats, a cloture filing on the Senate calendar, a named senator changing a stated position on the record, published compromise text, and committee-merger documents, and each is a public artifact that cannot be spun. Everything else, including the confident threads that will flood social feeds every evening the Senate is in session, is atmosphere. The bill’s fate is a matter of four documents and seven signatures, and the discipline of watching only those is the closest thing this story offers to an edge.
One historical footnote gives the moment its proper weight. No comprehensive American market-structure law for a new asset class has passed on its first serious Senate attempt; the securities acts of the 1930s, the commodity-futures framework, and the derivatives titles of the post-crisis reforms each required a failed run or a crisis, usually both, before enactment. CLARITY arriving at the floor with a House supermajority behind it, an industry coalition intact, and no crisis forcing anyone’s hand is already outside the historical pattern, which is one reason experienced hands hold their forecasts loosely in both directions. If it passes, it will have beaten the base rate for laws of its kind. If it fails, the two-year record it leaves, votes counted, compromises drafted, objections named, becomes the starting text of the next attempt, which is more than any previous crypto Congress has left behind.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment or legal advice. Legislative details are current as of July 8, 2026, and are changing rapidly; verify the current status before relying on any timeline described here.
Grayscale, a leading digital asset investment firm, highlighted 8 crypto with the most important narratives shaping the market today. Each asset carries a distinct story driving adoption, developer activity, and investor interest.
Here is a closer look at each narrative, its current price, and how far it sits from its all-time high.
What the 8 Grayscale Crypto Narratives Actually Mean
Each crypto carries a distinct narrative, from Bitcoin’s digital money to Ethereum’s world computer, driving adoption and investor interest across the market.
Bitcoin (BTC) – Digital Money
Bitcoin remains the original narrative of decentralized digital money and a hedge against fiat debasement. Its fixed supply and growing institutional adoption through ETFs and corporate treasuries reinforce its role as a store of value.
Furthermore, it anchors the entire crypto market as the reserve asset. BTC trades around $62,000, roughly 51% below its all-time high near $126,000, yet long-term conviction stays strong.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens.
Ethereum (ETH) – The World Computer
Ethereum powers smart contracts and decentralized applications, earning it the title of the programmable world computer. Its dominant DeFi and NFT ecosystems, combined with staking and Layer-2 scaling, sustain relevance despite fierce competition.
Moreover, ongoing upgrades and institutional flows continue to support the network. ETH trades near $1,732, about 65% below its all-time high close to 4,878 dollars from the 2025 cycle.
XRP – Global Payments
Ripple’s XRP focuses on fast, low-cost cross-border payments for financial institutions. Regulatory clarity in the United States has meaningfully boosted its utility and adoption potential.
As a result, banks and payment providers increasingly view it as a viable settlement infrastructure. Trading around $1.09, XRP sits roughly 72% below its all-time high near $3.84, with upside tied to expanding payment adoption.
Solana (SOL) – High Performance
Solana stands out for its high-throughput blockchain, enabling fast, cheap transactions ideal for memecoins, DeFi, and consumer apps. Despite past network outages, its ecosystem continues to expand through new projects and institutional interest.
Furthermore, ETF launches and treasury strategies have added fresh demand. SOL trades near $77, about 74% below its all-time high of $293, yet developer activity remains consistently strong.
Hyperliquid (HYPE) – Onchain Trading 24/7
Hyperliquid powers a high-performance Layer-1 optimized for decentralized perpetual futures and spot trading. It has captured a major share of the on-chain derivatives market while generating substantial real revenue.
Moreover, consistent fee buybacks remove tokens from circulation, increasing scarcity and supporting the price. HYPE trades near $67, only about 13% below its all-time high of $76.70, showing remarkable resilience versus peers.
Chainlink (LINK) – Tokenization and Oracles
Chainlink provides essential oracle services, connecting blockchains to real-world data and powering the tokenization of assets. As real-world asset tokenization gains traction across finance, its role in infrastructure becomes increasingly critical.
Furthermore, partnerships with major banks strengthen its long-term positioning. LINK trades near $7.59, roughly 85% below its all-time high close to $53, but is positioned for RWA-driven growth.
Sui (SUI) – Next-Generation Infrastructure
Sui offers a high-speed, object-centric blockchain designed for scalability in gaming, DeFi, and next-generation applications. Its performant architecture has attracted meaningful developer interest as an alternative to older networks.
Moreover, its technical foundations remain strong despite recent price weakness. SUI trades near $0.70, about 87% below its all-time high of around $5.35, reflecting the broader altcoin correction.
Avalanche (AVAX) – Mass Customization
Avalanche enables custom subnets for tailored blockchain solutions, appealing to enterprises and specialized use cases. This flexibility supports mass adoption across gaming, finance, and institutional sectors seeking dedicated infrastructure.
Furthermore, subnet-driven growth offers a distinct path toward real-world deployment. AVAX trades around $6.42, roughly 95% below its all-time high near $146, with recovery tied to institutional adoption.
Grayscale’s emphasis comes as the crypto market transitions toward fundamentals such as usage, revenue, and regulatory clarity. Most assets fell sharply from their 2025 peaks. However, their distinct value propositions position them for potential recovery, provided execution follows the narrative.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.
The post Grayscale Names 8 Crypto With Key Narratives Right Now appeared first on BeInCrypto.
AI Financial, formerly known as Alt5 Sigma, is in talks to sell its core payments business to Tokyo-based blockchain firm Perpetuals.com. The Wall Street Journal reported that the deal could be worth up to $15 million.
Summary
- AI Financial may sell Alt5 Sigma Canada after WLFI losses wiped out most shareholder value.
- The possible deal remains non-binding, with Perpetuals.com still reviewing terms and due diligence.
- Trump-linked World Liberty remains under scrutiny as crypto.news reports rising political and ethics questions.
The possible sale would cover Alt5 Sigma Canada, a payments subsidiary owned by AI Financial. Perpetuals.com said in a July 7 filing that it had signed a non-binding term sheet to explore the acquisition.
The filing said, “No decisions have been made,” while Perpetuals.com reviews the business. The company also said it is carrying out due diligence before any final agreement.The talks mark a sharp turn for AI Financial. Less than a year ago, the company became tied to World Liberty Financial, the Trump-linked crypto project behind the WLFI token and USD1 stablecoin.
WLFI deal weighs on AI Financial shares
AI Financial’s earlier deal with World Liberty made WLFI a central part of its balance sheet. crypto.news reported in August 2025 that World Liberty Financial invested 7.5% of the total WLFI token supply in ALT5 Sigma’s $1.5 billion capital raise.
The company later raised about $750 million to buy more WLFI tokens. After the transaction, WLFI fell about 70%, according to the WSJ report cited by Wu Blockchain.
AI Financial’s shares also dropped more than 90%, leaving the company with a market value near $80 million. The decline placed pressure on a company that had promoted its World Liberty link as part of a wider crypto payments plan.
The WSJ report said AI Financial also faced losses tied to the fall in WLFI holdings. The proposed sale would remove one of the company’s main operating businesses if the parties reach a final deal.
Trump-linked proceeds face renewed attention
World Liberty Financial remains closely tied to the Trump family. crypto.news reported that the project issues the WLFI governance token and the USD1 stablecoin, and that it made up a large share of Trump’s reported crypto income in 2025.
The WSJ report said the Trump family is entitled to 75% of proceeds from WLFI token sales. It also said AI Financial’s WLFI purchases generated about $540 million in cash for Trump-related entities.
crypto.news also reported that Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure showed more than $1.4 billion in crypto-related income. The report said crypto earnings outpaced income from real estate, golf and resort businesses that year.
The White House has denied conflict claims in earlier coverage. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers and public interest groups, have called for tighter rules around officeholders and crypto-linked businesses.
Perpetuals.com review keeps deal uncertain
Perpetuals.com has not agreed to a final purchase. The company said the term sheet is exploratory and that due diligence is still underway.
Its filing identified Alt5 Sigma Canada as a profitable AI Financial subsidiary. Perpetuals.com said the possible deal could fit its product roadmap, which includes AI-powered trading products and prediction markets.
Earlier report in June indicated that World Liberty was nearing possible OCC trust bank approval while facing conflict concerns. That report also noted public disclosures showing that 75% of WLFI token sale proceeds go to DT Marks DEFI LLC, an entity controlled by Trump.
For AI Financial, the sale talks place new focus on what remains of its business after the WLFI bet. Any final outcome will depend on price, due diligence, board approval and whether both companies sign binding terms.
Nexo launched the Nexo Card in Argentina, giving eligible users a way to spend digital assets or borrow against them through one product. The card supports debit mode for direct spending and credit mode for borrowing against crypto collateral without selling holdings.
- Nexo’s dual-mode card lets eligible Argentine users spend crypto or borrow against holdings without selling.
- Buenos Aires now anchors Nexo’s Latin America strategy after Buenbit acquisition and Argentina football partnership.
- Andres Ondarra’s appointment gives Nexo a local lead with finance, fintech and crypto experience depth.
The company said users can switch between both modes inside one interface. Nexo also said the card supports purchases in Argentine pesos and U.S. dollars, with cashback on eligible spending and interest on idle in-app balances.
Nexo said the product is available through its app and website for eligible clients in Argentina. The launch gives the company a local payments tool in a market where crypto use remains tied to saving, payments and access to dollar-linked assets.
Incoming Argentina general manager Andres Ondarra said, “Argentine clients have spent a decade making digital assets part of how they manage wealth.” He added that the card lets users spend, borrow and earn “without having to sell.”
Ondarra takes over Argentina operations
The card launch came with Nexo’s appointment of Andres Ondarra as General Manager of Nexo Argentina. Ondarra will oversee local operations from Aug. 1, according to the company.
Ondarra has more than 25 years of experience across traditional finance, fintech and crypto in Latin America. Nexo said he will focus on client trust and the company’s growth in the country.He succeeds Federico Ogue, who led Nexo’s Argentina expansion and is moving to a new venture. Ogue had also been tied to Buenbit, the Argentine crypto platform acquired by Nexo.
crypto.news reported in April that Nexo became the official regional digital asset partner of Argentina’s national football team across South America. That report also said Nexo was building its local presence after the Buenbit deal.
Buenos Aires becomes Nexo’s Latin America hub
Nexo said Buenos Aires now serves as its regional hub for Latin America. The company plans to use the city as a base for client support, partnerships and local infrastructure.
Argentina has become a key market for crypto firms because many users already hold digital assets. Nexo said the country processed about $93.9 billion in digital-asset transactions over three years, ranking behind Brazil in Latin America.
The card fits that market by turning crypto balances into a spending and borrowing tool. Users do not need to sell assets before using credit mode, though access may depend on eligibility and account terms.
Nexo also says the card offers fee-free ATM withdrawals up to $1,000 and fee-free foreign-currency spending up to $2,000 each month. These features target users who want to connect crypto balances with daily spending.
Crypto cards gain ground in high-inflation markets
The launch comes as more companies test crypto-linked cards in Latin America and other inflation-hit markets. crypto.news reported that Western Union plans a stablecoin-backed prepaid card for countries facing currency pressure.
crypto.news also reported that Nubank wants to test stablecoin use within its credit card system. That plan shows how large fintech firms are looking at dollar-linked digital assets as a payment and settlement tool.
For Nexo, Argentina gives the company a market where crypto already has strong use among retail users. The Nexo Card adds a local product that connects payments, borrowing and yield features in one app.
The rollout may also test how users respond to hybrid crypto cards. Nexo’s next stage in Argentina will depend on user demand, local rules and how well the product works for everyday payments.
Bitcoin held above $62,000 on Thursday while the assets that are supposed to absorb a war premium moved in opposite directions.
Brent crude climbed 1% to $78.80 a barrel, a third consecutive session of gains, after the U.S. military completed another round of strikes against Iran and both sides raised the prospect of closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Gold extended its slide to a fourth day at around $4,060 an ounce. Government bonds in Japan, Australia and New Zealand fell, extending Wednesday’s global selloff, with two-year Treasury yields pushing toward their 2026 high.
Bitcoin traded at $62,009, down 1.2% over 24 hours and up 1.6% on the week. Ether was at $1,730, also off 1.2% on the day but up 5.7% over seven sessions. Solana was the laggard at $77.25, shedding 1.8% and 1.7% on the week. XRP slipped 0.7% to $1.09, TRON added 4% over seven days, and hyperliquid’s HYPE gained 5.9% on the week despite a 1.2% daily dip.
The escalation reignited inflation concerns and pulled forward rate expectations.
Federal Reserve officials were divided last month on whether to raise interest rates or keep them steady, as meeting minutes released Wednesday pointed to accelerating demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure as a factor sustaining inflation.
The minutes cover the first Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting under Chair Kevin Warsh and highlight how strong AI-driven spending may keep prices elevated for certain technology inputs—especially chips—and for electricity used to power data centers.
Key takeaways
- FOMC meeting minutes cited “ongoing strong demand for AI infrastructure” as likely to sustain upward pressure on prices for technology products and electricity.
- Officials expected inflation to stay “elevated in the near term,” with risks still “tilted to the upside.”
- Projections implied a hawkish path: the “dot plot” showed hikes, not cuts, with many members expecting at least one increase before the end of 2026.
- The Fed’s year-end PCE inflation projection rose, reinforcing the view that policy may remain restrictive for longer.
AI demand enters the Fed’s inflation discussion
According to the minutes, many participants argued that demand for AI infrastructure is acting as an inflation support rather than a one-time impulse. They specifically noted that continued demand for technology products and electricity could keep price pressures from fading quickly.
In practice, the minutes’ logic points to the economics of AI buildouts: higher demand for semiconductors used by data centers, combined with competition for energy, can lift consumer prices across a wide range of electronic goods, devices, and power-related costs. This process is often described in policy and financial circles as “chipflation.”
For crypto and other risk-sensitive assets, the implication is straightforward: higher inflation tends to reduce liquidity and spending power while supporting higher interest rates—conditions that can weigh on speculative exposure.
Near-term inflation expected to remain sticky
Fed participants anticipated inflation would remain “elevated in the near term.” They also discussed the possibility that disinflation could improve if the Middle East conflict eases, but they judged that the overall balance of risks to inflation was still skewed upward.
AI played a dual role in these deliberations. The minutes state that strong AI-related investment can lift growth above potential output, which can in turn contribute to more persistent inflationary pressure—essentially keeping demand strong while costs remain elevated for critical inputs.
“Most participants remarked that growth in economic activity that exceeded that of potential output, owing in part to strong AI business investment, could contribute to more persistent inflationary pressures.”
Dot plot and projections reinforce “higher for longer”
While the minutes reflect a split among officials, the broader policy signal leaned hawkish. The Fed’s dot plot, as cited in the report, suggested rate increases rather than cuts. Nine of 18 voting members projected at least one rate hike before the end of 2026, while six expected two 25-basis-point increases.
Inflation expectations also moved in the minutes’ framing: the central bank’s PCE inflation projection for year-end increased from 2.7% to 3.6%. Together, those changes point to an outlook where the Fed may need to tolerate a longer period of restrictive policy to bring inflation back toward target.
At the Fed’s June meeting, rates were held steady at 3.5% to 3.75%. In parallel, CME futures markets indicated a roughly 70% probability that rates would remain unchanged at the next meeting scheduled for July 29, according to the CME FedWatch tool.
Why AI infrastructure may complicate monetary policy
One notable theme in the discussion was how AI infrastructure buildout can produce near-term inflation pressure even while promising longer-term productivity improvements. Nick Ruck, director of LVRG Research, told Cointelegraph that the Fed’s recent meeting underscores this tension: massive AI infrastructure expansion can lift inflation through surging demand for semiconductors, energy, and data centers, even as it sets the stage for productivity gains over time.
That mix matters because it challenges a common policy assumption that technological investment uniformly improves efficiency quickly enough to ease inflation. If the cost of deploying AI systems remains concentrated in specific supply chains and energy systems, the benefit to productivity may arrive later than the price pressure created by demand for the underlying infrastructure.
Ruck’s comments also framed the issue as one that may require solutions beyond traditional monetary tools—particularly approaches that improve how resources are allocated and reduce bottlenecks in the digital economy. While the minutes focused on conventional price dynamics, the investor takeaway is that AI-driven inflation can interact with monetary policy in ways that are harder to neutralize quickly.
What it could mean for crypto market conditions
In general, elevated inflation and restrictive rate expectations tend to tighten financial conditions, which can reduce risk appetite and liquidity. The minutes’ emphasis on technology and electricity price pressures strengthens the case that inflation may not fall as quickly as some investors might hope, especially if AI-related capex continues expanding.
At the same time, investors are also watching for how the Fed’s approach could evolve if inflation pressures prove to be structural rather than transitory. That question is likely to remain central for markets, including crypto, where broader liquidity conditions often play an outsized role in determining price behavior.
Readers should watch the next phase of Fed communication for signs that officials see AI-related inflation as temporary supply bottlenecks or as a more persistent feature of the pricing environment—because that distinction could shape how long “higher for longer” expectations last and, by extension, how supportive macro conditions remain for risk assets.
Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder said fees from Robinhood Chain and other Arbitrum Layer 2 networks will send 10% of net protocol revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem. He said the split sends 8% to the tokenholder-controlled Arbitrum DAO treasury and 2% to development funding.
Summary
- Robinhood Chain gives Arbitrum a direct revenue stream as enterprise L2 adoption expands quickly.
- The split sends 8% to tokenholder treasury and 2% to developer funding inside the ecosystem.
- Robinhood Wallet support adds bridges and swaps, widening access to the Arbitrum-built network for users.
Goldfeder said, “as enterprise adoption accelerates, Arbitrum is ready to capture revenue.” He also said 100% of fees collected on Arbitrum One will go to the Arbitrum treasury. The update gives Arbitrum a clear revenue route from external chains that use its technology stack.
The Arbitrum DAO factsheet describes the fee base as protocol net revenue. That wording shows the model focuses on revenue after network costs, rather than a simple share of every user payment. The split applies to chains deployed outside Arbitrum One under the Arbitrum Expansion Program. Such reporting may also help the DAO compare revenue across partner chains.
Robinhood Chain goes live in Wallet
Robinhood Chain is now live in Robinhood Wallet, according to the update shared by Wu Blockchain. Users can bridge assets from Solana, Ethereum, Arbitrum and other networks to Robinhood Chain, then make swaps inside the app.
The rollout follows Robinhood’s public mainnet launch earlier this month. crypto.news reported that Robinhood Chain is an Ethereum Layer 2 network built with Arbitrum technology and designed for tokenized stocks, real-world assets and DeFi tools.
The network moved from testnet to mainnet after months of development. crypto.news previously reported that the first testnet week processed more than 4 million transactions, as developers tested tokenized stock assets and finance tools before the public rollout.
Tokenized stocks anchor the new network
Robinhood has made tokenized stocks a central product on its new chain. The company said eligible users in more than 120 countries can trade tokenized equities through Robinhood Wallet and supported decentralized exchanges.
crypto.news reported that Robinhood also launched perpetual futures tied to commodities, ETFs and currencies for eligible European users. The same rollout included Stock Tokens, Robinhood Earn and plans for AI-linked trading accounts.
Those products give Robinhood Chain early activity across trading, lending and liquidity venues. Uniswap supports a dedicated automated market maker, while other infrastructure partners support data, custody and on-chain routing.
Revenue model may shape Arbitrum’s next phase
The Arbitrum DAO factsheet said Robinhood Chain went live on July 1 as a dedicated Arbitrum chain that settles to Ethereum. It said the chain returns 10% of protocol net revenue under the Arbitrum Expansion Program license.
The same factsheet said 8% flows to the Arbitrum DAO treasury and 2% goes to the Arbitrum Developer Guild. That structure gives tokenholders and builders a share of fees from chains built outside Arbitrum One.
Crypto.new reported that Robinhood Chain forms part of a wider corporate chain trend, alongside Base and other branded networks. The report said Robinhood uses its own tokenized equity business as the anchor for the chain.
For Arbitrum, the fee plan links enterprise adoption to ecosystem funding. The next test will be real usage. If Robinhood Chain handles steady trading, swaps and lending activity, the Arbitrum treasury and developer funds may receive a recurring revenue stream from the network.
• Volume during that move reached 688,000 XRP, about 120% above the session average, before momentum faded.
• Earlier selling took XRP to a session low near $1.0742 after volume rose to 80.2 million, about 83% above the 24-hour average.
Technical Analysis
• The key development is that XRP continues to defend the $1.00-$1.05 support zone, which analysts say aligns with longer-term moving average and trendline support.
• The near-term chart remains weak despite the small bounce. Lower highs at $1.1133, $1.0993 and $1.0932 show sellers are still capping recovery attempts.
• XRP needs to hold above $1.088-$1.091 to build a cleaner move toward $1.093-$1.095.
• The larger setup remains a compression trade rather than a breakout. Monthly wedge and channel patterns may point to higher targets, but confirmation requires a sustained move above nearer resistance first.
• Relative weakness against bitcoin remains a risk, with the XRPBTC pair testing support near 1,700 sats.
What traders should watch
• $1.00-$1.05 remains the key support zone. Losing it would put $0.90 and then $0.80 back in focus.
• $1.088-$1.091 is the immediate resistance area after capping the latest breakout attempt.
• $1.20-$1.25 is the next major zone, where candle resistance and the 100-day moving average sit.
• A move above $1.40 would be the first stronger sign that XRP is breaking out of its broader compression.
Investors pulled $8.9 billion from gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in June, with North American products accounting for $5.5 billion of the withdrawals as bullion’s price slide deepened.
The monthly retreat came as gold recorded its fourth straight losing month. The metal fell 11.7% as a hawkish Federal Reserve and Middle East tensions steered investors away from the metal.
Gold ETF Outflows Accelerated in June
According to the World Gold Council report, total assets under management fell 13% to $526 billion in the month. In addition, holdings dropped 74 tonnes to 4,047 tonnes. The selling followed a sharp price pullback that reset investor allocations.
During the month, New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh signaled a hawkish stance, and the US-Iran conflict lifted inflation fears. Together, they raised expectations of higher rates ahead. Rising real yields and a stronger dollar increased the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding gold.
North American funds recorded $7.7 billion in outflows across the first half, the region’s weakest start to a year since 2013. European funds lost $818 million in June after the European Central Bank hiked rates 25 basis points, its first increase since September 2023.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Markets outside the big three regions also turned negative. Combined outflows totaled $262 million in June, bringing their 2026 net buying to $106 million. Australia accounted for most of that drop at $197 million, and South Africa gave up $36 million.
“Looking ahead, regional gold ETF flows could stabilise…Meanwhile, uncertainties surrounding geopolitics, economic growth and financial markets linger. This backdrop may continue to support investor demand for portfolio protection and sustain interest in gold ETFs as a strategic safe-haven allocation,” the report read.
A Positive First Half Despite the June Drop
Nonetheless, global flows were still positive at $8 billion over the first half of 2026. Asia led with $12 billion in additions, its strongest first half on record. That came despite a $2.3 billion June outflow, the region’s worst month ever, driven mainly by Chinese funds.
India bucked the trend, drawing inflows as local investors treated the price dip as an entry point. Collective global holdings rose 18 tonnes across the half, though assets under management fell 6% on the lower price.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Gold ETFs Lose $8.9 Billion in June as Global Outflows Accelerate appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Bitcoin remains in deep value territory after trading below two major on-chain cost-basis levels for about five months, according to Glassnode. The firm said BTC is still below the True Market Mean near $76,600 and the short-term holder cost basis near $72,200.
Summary
- Bitcoin trades below key cost-basis levels, keeping deep value conditions active but still technically unconfirmed.
- ETF outflows have slowed, yet weak volumes show institutional demand has not fully returned.
- Long-term holder losses remain elevated, leaving sell-side pressure as Bitcoin’s main recovery barrier.
These levels matter because they track the average price paid by active investors and recent buyers. When Bitcoin trades below both, many market participants hold coins at a loss. Glassnode said this phase can support long-term accumulation, but it has not yet confirmed a market bottom.
Bitcoin recently bounced from about $58,300 to $64,400. The move showed short-term strength, but it did not bring BTC back above the main recovery levels. Glassnode said, “The evidence suggests this process is approaching its later stages,” but it also warned that the realized price near $53,000 cannot be ruled out.
The setup keeps the focus on whether Bitcoin price can reclaim the $72,200 and $76,600 areas. Until then, BTC remains exposed to selling pressure and weak risk appetite.
Long-term holders are still realizing losses
Glassnode data shows that long-term holder loss realization has increased sharply since February. The share of total realized value from long-term holder losses rose from 15% in early February to 43%.
This group includes investors who bought near cycle highs and held through months of drawdown. Some are now exiting as the bear market lasts longer than expected. Glassnode said these sellers have become a major force stopping Bitcoin from reclaiming higher levels.
Daily long-term holder realized losses recently reached about $280 million. That was the highest level since December 2022. The firm said this pressure has not yet cooled enough to confirm that sellers are exhausted.
The next few weeks may be key for this metric. A steady drop in realized losses would show that long-term holders are selling less. Without that change, Bitcoin’s recovery may remain limited.
ETF outflows keep institutional demand weak
Bitcoin ETF flows remain another weak point. Glassnode said the 30-day average of spot Bitcoin ETF netflows has improved from about $193 million in daily outflows to $88.9 million. Still, flows remain negative.
crypto.news reported that U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded about $4.5 billion in net outflows in June. The same report said June became the worst month for the products since their January 2024 launch.
There has been some relief since then. crypto.news reported that spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $221.7 million in net inflows on July 2, ending a 10-day outflow streak. That followed nearly $2.7 billion in withdrawals during the prior 10 trading sessions.
However, Glassnode said ETF trading volume remains weak. Daily ETF trading volume sits between $650 million and $950 million, about 80% below the October 2025 peak. This shows that institutional demand has not fully stabilized.
Options data shows caution despite reduced shorts
Derivatives data gives a mixed picture. Glassnode said the options open-interest put/call ratio has dropped to 0.56, its lowest level of 2026. This means traders are holding far fewer puts than calls.
That shift suggests short demand has eased. It also shows that traders have reduced some defensive positions after Bitcoin’s recent bounce. Still, the options market continues to price demand for downside protection.
crypto.news reported that BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF flow drought recently eased while Bitcoin flashed a fresh rally signal. The update added to signs that parts of the market are trying to stabilize after heavy selling.
Glassnode said Bitcoin may be in the later stage of a bear-market bottoming process. But it said confirmation still needs three conditions: lower long-term holder selling, stable ETF flows, and a recovery above key cost-basis levels. Until those signals appear together, Bitcoin’s bottom remains unconfirmed.
Kraken leads MiCA-regulated crypto exchanges in liquidity, according to DefiLlama’s MiCA exchange dashboard. The data cited by Wu Blockchain showed Kraken with $399.71 million in spot liquidity and $206.90 million in perpetual liquidity, placing it first in both categories.
Summary
- Kraken leads MiCA exchanges in liquidity, giving larger traders deeper order books across regulated European markets.
- Coinbase remains the closest rival, but DefiLlama data shows Kraken ahead across core liquidity metrics.
- MiCA licensing has changed Europe’s exchange race, making liquidity and market coverage key user factors.
DefiLlama’s live MiCA-regulated exchanges dashboard later showed Kraken still ahead, with more than $400 million in spot liquidity and more than $220 million in perpetual liquidity. The live figures may change because liquidity data moves with market depth, prices and exchange activity.
Coinbase ranked second in the figures cited by Wu Blockchain, with $305.23 million in spot liquidity and $167.39 million in perpetual liquidity. DefiLlama’s live page still placed Coinbase among the top regulated venues, but behind Kraken in the main liquidity table.
The gap matters for traders who need deeper order books. Higher liquidity can help reduce slippage when users place larger orders. It can also make an exchange more useful for active traders, market makers and institutional clients.
Coinbase and Crypto.com remain close rivals
Coinbase remains Kraken’s closest large rival among MiCA-regulated exchanges. The exchange has built its European base in Luxembourg, where it uses a MiCA license to serve users across the bloc.
crypto.news reported that Coinbase opened its Luxembourg MiCA hub as the EU deadline approached. The exchange said Luxembourg became its MiCA home for all 27 EU member states.
Crypto.com also ranked among the larger MiCA exchange venues by spot liquidity. Wu Blockchain cited $130.84 million in spot liquidity for Crypto.com, while DefiLlama’s live dashboard showed a similar range.
Bitstamp, Bybit, OKX, Gate and Backpack showed smaller liquidity pools. Bitstamp and Bybit stood near $50 million in spot liquidity in the cited data. OKX, Gate and Backpack were lower in spot liquidity, though Backpack and OKX had recorded perpetual liquidity.
Market coverage gives Kraken another lead
Kraken also leads the listed exchanges in market coverage. Wu Blockchain cited 1,704 markets for Kraken, followed by Coinbase with 1,074 markets and Crypto.com with 883 markets.
Market coverage shows how many trading pairs and products a platform supports. It does not guarantee better prices by itself, but it gives users more routes to trade assets under one regulated platform.
Gate, Bitstamp, Bybit, Backpack and OKX showed smaller market counts. The cited data listed Gate at 303 markets, Bitstamp at 298, Bybit at 133, Backpack at 125 and OKX at 65.
For European users, the mix of liquidity and market coverage may shape where activity moves after MiCA. Exchanges with deeper liquidity and more markets may attract users who left platforms without full authorization.
MiCA changes Europe’s exchange race
MiCA has changed how crypto exchanges operate in Europe. The framework requires crypto asset service providers to hold approval if they want to serve users under the bloc’s unified rules.
crypto.news reported that Kraken secured its MiCA license from the Central Bank of Ireland in June 2025. The license allows Kraken to offer regulated services across the European Economic Area.
Other exchanges also moved before the July 1 deadline. crypto.news reported that OKX expanded services across 28 EEA markets after securing MiCA approval through Malta.
The new data shows that licensing alone does not decide the race. Liquidity, trading products and market coverage now separate regulated exchanges from each other. Kraken currently leads those metrics among the listed MiCA platforms, while Coinbase, Crypto.com and other venues continue to compete for European users.
Sizewell B nuclear power plant to operate for another 20 years
Grayscale Names 8 Crypto With Key Narratives Right Now
‘I Am Old, I Can Barely Walk’: Internet Decodes MS Dhoni’s Gesture During 3rd India vs England T20I
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: High Hopes
-
NewsBeat4 days agoTaylor Swift and Travis Kelce wedding staffer hilariously struggles to keep her cool while checking in megastars
-
Fashion3 days agoOpen Thread: What Great Books Have You Read Recently?
-
Politics6 days agoThe House | “Reframing the debate from a binary discussion of winners and losers”: Yuan Yang reviews ‘We Are Not Machines’
-
Crypto World6 days agoStandard Chartered Secures MiCA License as ESMA Adds 37 New Crypto Firms
-
News Videos2 days agoWhats Hidden Inside This Cash Register? #treasure #reselling #money
-
Tech2 days agoAnthropic’s new “J-lens” reveals a silent workspace inside Claude that mirrors a leading theory of consciousness
-
Business2 days agoAXT Shares Jump Nearly 14% as Semiconductor Materials Maker Rebounds on AI-Linked Indium Phosphide Demand
-
Sports2 days agoJoshua Pacio ‘more complete’ ahead of ONE rematch vs Malachiev
-
Crypto World5 days agoESMA Expands Crypto Register by 37 Firms Following MiCA Transition Period
-
Crypto World2 days ago
SK hynix (000660.KS) Stock Dips as $28B Nasdaq ADR Offering Drives AI Memory Expansion
-
Crypto World4 days agoSouth Africa proposes crypto tax guidance under existing rules
-
News Videos3 days agoBest Time to Enter Small Caps Right Now? Another Bull Run? | Financially Free
-
Tech4 days agoLenovo laptops are now shipping with YMTC SSDs, a sign of Chinese NAND entering the mainstream
-
NewsBeat7 days agoNew exhibition reflects five decades of movement between island of Ireland and GB
-
Business6 days agoWhat a 10 Percent Drop Means for Buyers, Sellers and Renters
-
Sports2 days ago
We have punished the disrespect
-
Crypto World6 days agoBinance Re-Enters Philippines As EU MiCA Rules Restrict Access
-
News Videos3 days agoAvoid entering in FOMO #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #trading #scalping
-
Crypto World6 days agoAlibaba bans Claude Code over alleged backdoor security concerns
You must be logged in to post a comment Login