In recent days, there have been signs of a reevaluation.

The Roundhill Memory ETF has fallen roughly 25% from its June 22 record high, while VanEck Semiconductor ETF has dropped 12%. Bitcoin, which dipped below $58,000 on July 1, is back trading above $61,000.

The AI-related selling pressure accelerated on Wednesday after Bloomberg reported that Meta Platforms (META) is creating a business unit called Meta Compute, which will sell excess GPU (graphic processing unit) computing capacity to third parties.

The news rattled companies that have benefited from the AI compute boom, particularly “neocloud” providers that lease GPU infrastructure to AI developers. That includes former bitcoin miners that have pivoted their computing resources to support the emerging industry with high-performance computing (HPC) and GPU hosting services. IREN (IREN), Cipher Digital (CIFR) and TerraWulf (WULF) have each fallen at least 20% from their all-time highs.

It is too early to call the move a sustained rotation, but after months of capital flowing into AI infrastructure at the expense of crypto, the recent pullback in semiconductor leaders alongside bitcoin’s rebound could be the first indication that investors are beginning to rebalance risk back towards digital assets.

India’s central bank is weighing a policy approach aimed at containing crypto activity—particularly by limiting how banks and regulated financial institutions interact with digital assets and privately issued stablecoins—according to a report by The Economic Times. The stance is expected to feed into a broader review of the country’s digital asset framework as lawmakers prepare a report.

In a background note reviewed by a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, RBI officials presented what the publication describes as a renewed emphasis on preventing crypto from being used in payments and settlements, while keeping the banking sector’s exposure controlled. The same materials reportedly argue that simply applying “traditional” regulation to crypto could inadvertently legitimize speculative assets and create a misleading sense of safety for users, though the RBI also urged policymakers to differentiate crypto from tokenized instruments that are already regulated.

Key takeaways

• The RBI’s reported position favors “containment” of crypto—especially by limiting banking-sector involvement—rather than a blanket ban on ownership.
• Officials reportedly reiterated support for prohibiting crypto use in payments and settlements to reduce systemic exposure to digital assets and private stablecoins.
• The RBI cautioned that treating crypto like conventional regulated products could confer unwarranted legitimacy to speculative tokens.
• At the same time, the RBI urged regulators not to conflate crypto with tokenized government securities or corporate bonds.
• India’s crypto adoption profile remains a point of contention, with Chainalysis placing India first in its 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index while the RBI reportedly challenged the methodology.

Containment strategy and the RBI’s policy logic

According to The Economic Times, RBI Deputy Governor Rohit Jain and Executive Director P. Vasudevan shared the central bank’s views with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on Thursday. The submission reportedly lays out a policy framework in which outright prohibition remains “a recognized policy option,” but the operational thrust is to restrict crypto’s role in core financial functions—namely payments and settlements.

The RBI’s reported concern is that banks and other institutions could become conduits for risk if they are allowed to directly facilitate crypto transactions or hold exposure to privately issued stablecoins. In the background note, the central bank reportedly recommended policies that prevent crypto usage in payments and settlements while limiting the degree to which the banking system is exposed to digital asset activities.

That position also includes a caution about regulatory design. The RBI reportedly warned that applying established regulatory approaches meant for conventional financial instruments to crypto assets could end up legitimizing speculative tokens. The central bank’s argument, as described in the report, is that such an approach could create a “false perception of safety” among users.

Still, the RBI reportedly made an important distinction: policymakers should separate crypto from tokenized government securities, corporate bonds, and other regulated financial products. The practical implication is that the RBI appears to support tokenization where the underlying instrument is already within a regulated perimeter—while treating “crypto” broadly and its speculative use cases as a different category of risk.

How this echoes the RBI’s 2018 playbook

The reported containment push aligns with an approach the RBI used in 2018. At that time, the central bank directed regulated financial institutions to stop dealing in crypto or providing services to people and entities involved in crypto, effectively severing many crypto exchanges from India’s banking rails without banning individuals from holding or trading crypto.

That policy path was challenged and ultimately overturned. India’s Supreme Court overturned the circular in March 2020. In doing so, the court recognized the RBI’s authority to take preventive measures but concluded that the approach did not meet the “proportionality” standard—specifically noting the RBI had not demonstrated the harm experienced by the regulated entities affected by the measure.

In May 2021, the RBI clarified that banks could not cite the invalidated circular when advising customers against crypto transactions. However, the RBI also indicated that regulated institutions could continue applying know-your-customer (KYC), anti-money laundering (AML), and foreign-exchange compliance requirements, preserving compliance practices even as the earlier, more direct restriction was removed.

The key difference suggested by the latest reported submissions is framing: the RBI appears to be arguing for a policy model that limits crypto’s access to payments and settlement functions and constrains banking exposure, rather than relying purely on an exchange-banking cutoff. Whether Parliament and regulators can craft such a framework without running into the same proportionality objections that surfaced in 2020 is likely to be one of the central questions as the policy debate progresses.

Tokenization vs. “speculative” crypto

One of the more consequential aspects of the RBI’s reported position is its insistence on separation. The central bank reportedly warned against regulating crypto in a way that treats it as if it were equivalent to established financial instruments. At the same time, it urged policymakers to distinguish crypto assets from tokenized government securities and corporate bonds—categories that, in principle, sit closer to regulated capital markets.

For investors and market participants, this distinction matters because tokenization is often viewed as a potential bridge between traditional finance and distributed ledger technology. If regulators accept the argument that tokenized regulated instruments should not be blocked simply because they use similar technical formats, tokenization could evolve within a more familiar compliance environment. Conversely, if policymakers adopt a broad-brush approach, the same infrastructure could face tighter constraints even when the underlying asset is regulated.

In practical terms, what changes from this position is the emphasis on “use” and “function.” Rather than focusing only on who owns or trades tokens, the RBI’s reported approach appears more concerned with where crypto can be used (payments and settlements) and how much it can permeate the banking system—areas that policymakers can target without necessarily prohibiting market participation outright.

Adoption metrics under scrutiny

The RBI’s stance also intersects with discussions about India’s crypto adoption level. The report notes that India was ranked first in Chainalysis’ 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index, though the RBI reportedly challenged the methodology behind private-sector adoption rankings.

This disagreement signals that, even as adoption becomes a key input into policy arguments, there is still no shared view of how adoption should be measured or interpreted. For lawmakers considering regulation, the takeaway is that adoption numbers may not settle the debate by themselves; policymakers will likely scrutinize both metric design and what those metrics truly indicate about user protection, financial stability risks, and the degree of institutional involvement.

With India’s regulatory framework still under review, readers should watch closely for how policymakers translate the RBI’s reported containment ideas into concrete rules—particularly around payments and settlement use cases, banking-sector permissible activities, and how regulators draw boundaries between tokenized regulated instruments and broader “crypto” categories.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) reportedly backed a containment strategy for digital assets to shield banks and other financial institutions from exposure to crypto and privately issued stablecoins, as lawmakers prepare a report on the country’s digital asset policy. 

According to a report by The Economic Times, RBI Deputy Governor Rohit Jain and Executive Director P. Vasudevan presented the central bank’s position to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on Thursday.

In a background note submitted to the panel, the RBI reportedly said prohibition remained a recognized policy option and recommended preventing the use of crypto in payments and settlements while restricting banking-sector exposure.

The central bank reportedly warned that applying traditional regulation to crypto could legitimize speculative assets and create a false perception of safety among users. However, it urged policymakers to distinguish crypto from tokenized government securities, corporate bonds and other regulated financial instruments so that restrictions would not hinder tokenization. 

Chainalysis’ 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index. Source: Chainalysis

India ranked first in Chainalysis’ 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index, although the RBI reportedly challenged the methodology behind private-sector adoption rankings.

RBI renews push to isolate crypto from banking

The RBI’s latest reported proposal echoes an approach it took in 2018, when the central bank directed regulated financial institutions to stop dealing in crypto or providing services to individuals and businesses involved in them.

The approach effectively cut off crypto exchanges from India’s banking system without prohibiting individuals from owning or trading crypto.

India’s Supreme Court overturned the circular in March 2020, following a challenge brought by exchanges and the Internet Mobile Association of India. The court recognized the RBI’s authority to take preventive action but found that the measure failed the test of proportionality, noting that the central bank had not shown harm suffered by entities it regulated. 

Related: India arrests Darwin Labs co-founder in GainBitcoin scam probe

In May 2021, the RBI clarified that banks could no longer cite the invalidated circular when cautioning customers against crypto transactions. However, it said regulated institutions could continue applying know-your-customer, anti-money laundering and foreign-exchange compliance requirements. 

Magazine: Bitcoin decouples from tech stocks, Ether eyes ‘selling wave’: Market Moves 

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

RBI has reportedly renewed its call to keep banks and payment systems insulated from cryptocurrencies and privately issued stablecoins as India reviews its digital asset policy.

As first reported by The Economic Times, Reserve Bank of India Deputy Governor Rohit Jain and Executive Director P. Vasudevan presented the central bank’s position before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on Thursday, accompanied by a background note outlining its recommendations.

According to the report, the RBI said prohibition remains a recognized policy option and recommended preventing cryptocurrencies from being used in payments and settlements while limiting the banking sector’s exposure to digital assets and privately issued stablecoins.

The central bank also argued that regulating cryptocurrencies under conventional financial rules could give speculative assets an appearance of legitimacy and create a misleading sense of safety for users, the report said. 

At the same time, it reportedly urged policymakers to distinguish cryptocurrencies from tokenized government securities, corporate bonds and other regulated financial assets so that tokenization initiatives are not affected by crypto-related restrictions.

The RBI also questioned the methodology used in private-sector crypto adoption rankings, despite India placing first in Chainalysis’ 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index.

RBI revives long-standing banking concerns

The latest recommendations closely resemble the central bank’s position from 2018, when it directed regulated financial institutions to stop offering services to businesses and individuals dealing in cryptocurrencies. Although the move did not ban crypto ownership or trading, it effectively cut exchanges off from India’s banking system.

India’s Supreme Court struck down that circular in March 2020 after exchanges and the Internet and Mobile Association of India challenged the restriction. While the court accepted that the RBI had authority to take preventive measures, it ruled the banking ban was disproportionate because the central bank had not demonstrated harm to the institutions it supervised.

A year later, the RBI clarified that banks could no longer rely on the invalidated circular when warning customers about crypto transactions. However, regulated entities were instructed to continue complying with know-your-customer, anti-money laundering, and foreign exchange rules.

Crypto oversight expands across multiple fronts

The RBI’s reported recommendations come as Indian authorities continue tightening oversight of the crypto sector through other regulatory channels.

Last month, India’s Financial Intelligence Unit asked several major crypto exchanges to preserve records of over-the-counter crypto transactions exceeding $10,000 from January 2026 onward, with compliance checks focusing on beneficial ownership, source of funds and destination wallets. The request followed earlier FIU guidance that strengthened customer verification requirements through measures such as live selfie checks, geolocation, IP tracking and periodic KYC updates.

Regulatory attention has also extended to stablecoin activity. Earlier this week, The Economic Times reported that enforcement action against crypto remittance firms disrupted domestic USDT supply, pushing the stablecoin’s premium in India above 8.5%. 

The same report noted that lawmakers were scheduled to discuss the country’s approach to virtual digital assets with the RBI and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, while the central bank has continued warning about risks linked to cryptocurrencies and privately issued stablecoins.

Victoria, Seychelles, July 3, 2026 – MEXC, a pioneer in 0-fee digital asset trading, announced key highlights for June 2026. The platform recorded $437 billion in monthly trading volume and expanded user investment options through the launch of the “RealStocks” product. The new product gives users real ownership of over 7,000 U.S.-listed stocks and ETFs—complete with dividend eligibility—breaking down traditional market barriers and connecting users to global assets, all within their existing MEXC account.

In June, MEXC continued to expand access to emerging assets, listing 153 new tokens across spot and futures markets and driving $1.03 billion in new listing trading volume. Through its 0-fee trading policy, MEXC saved users a cumulative $145 million in trading fees across 927 trading pairs spanning spot, futures, and other markets. The platform also provided $38 million in futures position airdrops for users during the month.

MEXC remains committed to safeguarding user assets through robust protection mechanisms and transparent practices. The Guardian Fund stood at $101 million in June, providing users with an added layer of security. MEXC has committed to expanding the Guardian Fund from $100 million to $500 million over the next two years. MEXC’s June Proof of Reserves report, independently audited by Hacken, confirmed reserve ratios above the industry safety benchmark of 100% across major assets, with USDT at 114%, USDC at 125%, BTC at 269%, and ETH at 118%.

Additionally, MEXC’s customer support team processed 57,348 online inquiries in June, maintaining an average response time of 63.03 seconds. The platform issued 21,548 loss coverage vouchers to users during the month.

June’s highlights reflect MEXC’s continued efforts to support users through 0-fee trading, product innovation, and asset protection. As a one-stop trading platform, MEXC will continue to expand its asset offerings, strengthen user protection, and enhance service quality, giving users broader, safer, and more accessible ways to participate in global markets.

About MEXC

MEXC is the world’s fastest-growing cryptocurrency exchange, trusted by more than 40 million users across 170+ markets. Built on a user-first philosophy, MEXC offers industry-leading 0-fee trading and access to over 3,000 digital assets. As the Gateway to Infinite Opportunities, MEXC provides a single platform where users can easily trade cryptocurrencies alongside tokenized assets, including stocks, ETFs, commodities, and precious metals.

MEXC Official Website｜ X ｜ Telegram ｜How to Sign Up on MEXC

For media inquiries, please contact MEXC PR team: media@mexc.com

Risk Disclaimer:

This content does not constitute investment advice. Given the highly volatile nature of the cryptocurrency market, investors are encouraged to carefully assess market fluctuations, project fundamentals, and potential financial risks before making any trading decisions.

Source

---

Disclaimer: This is a Press Release provided by a third party who is responsible for the content. Please conduct your own research before taking any action based on the content.

A teenager suspected of helping the “Scattered Spider” hacking group has been extradited to the United States to face charges tied to an alleged cryptocurrency ransom scheme worth $8 million. The case highlights how ransomware crews increasingly lean on social engineering, stolen credentials, and fast escalation from initial access to extortion demands.

The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday that Peter Stokes, 19, a dual U.S.-Estonian national, was arrested in Finland in April after an Interpol Red Notice and was extradited to the United States last week. He is expected to appear in federal court in Chicago on Tuesday.

Key takeaways

• U.S. authorities allege Stokes helped breach a luxury jewelry retailer’s systems in May 2025 and demand an $8 million crypto ransom.
• The DOJ says phishing calls to a help desk were used to obtain password resets and compromise employee and IT-admin accounts quickly.
• The retailer allegedly evicted the attackers and refused to pay, but still faced $2 million in disruption damages.
• The Justice Department links Stokes to Scattered Spider (also known as Octo Tempest and other aliases), a group authorities say has conducted more than 100 network intrusions.
• Ransomware payments reportedly fell last year even as attacks rose, underscoring that victim refusal and operational disruption do not eliminate extortion risk.

Extradition follows an alleged $8 million crypto extortion

The indictment and unsealed criminal complaint, as described by the DOJ, accuse Stokes and others of breaching a luxury jewelry retailer’s computer system in May 2025. Prosecutors allege the intrusion involved stealing data and issuing a demand for an $8 million ransom paid in cryptocurrency.

According to the complaint, the retailer managed to remove the attackers from its network and did not pay the ransom. Even so, the DOJ states the company incurred approximately $2 million in disruption damages, reflecting the cost of incident response, operational downtime, and the business impact that can follow an intrusion—regardless of whether attackers receive payment.

The DOJ also framed Stokes as one of the limited number of arrests it has directly connected to Scattered Spider, a group commonly associated with ransomware and crypto-based extortion.

Phishing calls and credential resets as the first move

Prosecutors allege the attack chain began with phishing calls to the retailer’s technology help desk. Stokes and others reportedly posed as employees to request resets of login credentials, a common tactic that turns administrative workflows—designed to restore access for legitimate users—into a shortcut for attackers.

In the complaint, authorities state the hackers compromised three employee accounts in as little as two hours. Two of those accounts belonged to IT administrators, giving the intruders access to higher-privilege systems. Prosecutors further allege those higher-privilege accounts were themselves breached and used to reach deeper into the retailer’s environment.

Within days, the complaint says the attackers sent a ransom note from a compromised company email account, demanding funds or threatening to publish credit card and payment information. The retailer, according to the complaint, resisted the intrusion and later experienced separate outreach from the attackers repeating the $8 million demand.

For defenders, the alleged sequence underscores why help desk and identity processes are a frequent focal point in real-world intrusions: once a reset request is accepted, the attack can progress quickly to privilege escalation and broader system access.

Alleged role in Scattered Spider intrusions and extortion

The complaint characterizes Stokes as a member of Scattered Spider who allegedly engaged in “numerous intrusions, or assisted in them” across multiple companies that prosecutors did not name in the filing. According to the DOJ, an examination of a storage device attributed to Stokes contained downloads from a virtual private server that Microsoft had identified as being used to carry out intrusions.

The complaint also alleges the device held “exfiltrated records from multiple victim-companies,” suggesting the attacker infrastructure was used not only to gain access, but also to extract data—an essential ingredient for ransomware-style pressure campaigns, including data-leak threats.

Authorities further pointed to Stokes’ social media activity as circumstantial evidence of involvement. The complaint claims his Snapchat account showed signs of substantial wealth for a person his age, and that he reportedly boasted about international travel and wealth. Prosecutors also allege he shared media related to apprehended Scattered Spider members.

The Justice Department said Scattered Spider—also described by multiple aliases, including “Octo Tempest,” “UNC3944,” and “0ktapus”—has been involved in more than 100 network intrusions. The DOJ estimates those intrusions resulted in over $100 million in ransom payments and millions of dollars in damages.

Stokes faces six counts tied to alleged hacking, cyber extortion, fraud, and conspiracy.

Ransom payments down, attacks up: what this case suggests

While this matter involves a claimed $8 million demand, it lands in a broader ransomware pattern that authorities and analysts have reported: total payments may be declining even as attacks increase.

According to figures cited by the DOJ, ransomware actors received more than $820 million in payments last year, an 8% decline compared with 2024. At the same time, attacks rose by 50%, as referenced in coverage linked to Chainalysis data. Taken together, the numbers suggest that victims are not necessarily paying as often or as much, but ransomware groups remain active and effective at reaching targets.

The filing’s allegations about the retailer evicting the attackers and refusing the ransom illustrate why: even when payments fail, attackers may still profit indirectly through disruption costs, data theft, reputational harm, and follow-on damages. For organizations, the practical takeaway is that “no payment” does not mean “no impact”—it often signals more urgent remediation work and financial exposure after incident response.

Readers should watch how the case develops in Chicago federal court, particularly whether the defense challenges the alleged linkage between Stokes and the intrusions described in the complaint. Equally important is what prosecutors emphasize next about the help-desk phishing phase and the role of stolen credentials, since that early foothold remains a central vulnerability for many companies targeted by ransomware crews.

Ireland’s Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) has confirmed the seizure of an additional 500 Bitcoin, worth roughly €27 million (about $30.9 million), in cooperation with Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre. The agency said the latest action brings CAB’s total Bitcoin seizures for 2026 to 1,500 BTC, valued at approximately $92.4 million.

In its update posted Thursday, CAB said Europol provided operational coordination, technical expertise, and decryption support during the investigation. The bureau did not name the wallet owner or provide further details about how the access was obtained.

Key takeaways

• CAB confirmed a new 500 BTC seizure in cooperation with Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre.
• Total CAB Bitcoin seizures in 2026 now stand at 1,500 BTC, valued around $92.4 million.
• Authorities have not publicly linked this latest wallet action to any specific criminal case.
• Separately, public tracking suggests a wallet address associated with Clifton Collins moved 500 BTC on Thursday.

New seizure brings 2026 total to 1,500 BTC

The bureau’s announcement is the latest in a run of Bitcoin-related enforcement activity. CAB said the seized 500 BTC are currently worth about €27 million and emphasized the cross-border support from Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre, particularly around technical work and decryption.

For investors and users, the key operational signal is not only the size of the seizure but the pattern of international cooperation—CAB’s reference to Europol support underscores how ongoing cryptocurrency investigations increasingly depend on specialized technical capabilities rather than traditional evidence-gathering alone.

Cab also did not offer any additional comment beyond the confirmation, leaving open questions about the nature of the underlying investigation and whether the seized funds come from the same larger case previously discussed in Irish media.

Earlier wallet access set the stage for another 500 BTC

Months earlier, CAB said it had gained access to and seized a cryptocurrency wallet containing 500 Bitcoin. That earlier wallet was reported by Irish media to have been connected to Clifton Collins, a convicted drug dealer.

According to The Irish Times, the March wallet authorities accessed was one of twelve wallets believed to have held about 6,000 BTC once owned by Collins. The paper containing the private keys was reportedly lost, adding a layer of difficulty to how investigators were able to unlock and move the funds.

While CAB did not confirm a connection between Thursday’s seizure and Collins, the timing matters. Public blockchain observers linked to Collins have pointed to movement from an address associated with him around the same day as CAB’s announcement.

Public tracking: Collins-linked address moved 500 BTC

In coverage tied to the earlier Collins-linked wallet, blockchain explorers and analysts have monitored the remaining balances attributed to those holdings. The article notes that an address associated with Collins reportedly moved 500 Bitcoin to an unknown address on Thursday.

As of Friday, wallets still associated with Collins were reported to hold 4,500 BTC, valued at about $277 million. The figure is based on public tracking rather than an official CAB statement, so readers should treat it as observational data rather than confirmed custody or law-enforcement control.

Still, the sequence is notable: the combination of CAB’s 500 BTC seizure announcement and independent reporting of movement from Collins-associated addresses suggests the criminal wallet landscape remains actively contested long after the first tranche of recovered funds.

What authorities previously said about how Collins stored keys

Collins was arrested in 2017 after police searched his car and found cannabis, according to The Guardian. Prosecutors said he used proceeds from his drug operation to purchase about 6,000 Bitcoin in late 2011 and early 2012, spreading the holdings across twelve wallets.

Authorities and reporting described a key-management strategy that relied on a single physical backup: Collins stored the wallet keys on a sheet of A4 paper, hidden inside the aluminum cap of a fishing rod case at his rental home. After his arrest, the landlord allegedly discarded Collins’ belongings. Collins claimed the fishing rod case had been stolen before the landlord entered the property.

That dispute—and the reported loss of the keys—help explain why access to some of the holdings could have taken time. It also highlights a broader lesson for the ecosystem: even when large balances are held securely on-chain, off-chain key handling and physical storage failures can ultimately determine whether funds remain reachable.

With CAB now confirming another 500 BTC seizure in 2026, the open question for the market is how quickly investigators can continue collapsing the gap between wallets once considered “lost” and the funds that ultimately get moved and frozen. Readers should watch for whether CAB’s next updates clarify the relationship—if any—between Thursday’s seizure and the remaining Collins-associated holdings, as well as how Europol’s technical role evolves in future operations.