Crypto ETF options let traders buy calls and puts on Bitcoin and Ethereum exchange-traded funds. This guide explains how they work, why they matter, and what strategies traders actually use.

Options on cryptocurrency exchange-traded funds arrived in the United States in late 2024 and immediately changed how institutional and retail traders interact with the crypto market. Before these products existed, traders who wanted leveraged or hedged exposure to Bitcoin or Ethereum had two choices: trade perpetual futures on offshore exchanges or use the limited options contracts available on platforms like Deribit. Both paths carried counterparty risk, regulatory ambiguity, and operational complexity that kept most traditional finance participants on the sidelines.

The approval of options on spot Bitcoin ETFs changed that equation. For the first time, a trader with a standard brokerage account at Fidelity, Schwab, or Interactive Brokers could buy a call option on Bitcoin exposure using the same interface, the same clearing infrastructure, and the same regulatory protections that apply to options on the S&P 500.

This guide explains what crypto ETF options are, how they are priced, what strategies traders use, and where the risks hide.

How options work at the most basic level

An option is a contract that gives the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset at a specific price on or before a specific date. The buyer pays a premium for this right. The seller (also called the writer) collects the premium and takes on the obligation.

There are two types of options. A call option gives the buyer the right to buy the underlying asset at the strike price. A put option gives the buyer the right to sell the underlying asset at the strike price. Every option contract specifies four things: the underlying asset (in this case, shares of a crypto ETF), the strike price, the expiration date, and whether it is a call or a put.

When a trader buys a call option on IBIT (BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF) with a strike price of $50 and an expiration date 30 days away, they are paying a premium today for the right to buy 100 shares of IBIT at $50 per share at any point in the next 30 days. If IBIT rises to $60, the option is worth at least $10 per share, or $1,000 per contract. If IBIT stays below $50, the option expires worthless and the trader loses only the premium paid.

Put options work in the opposite direction. A trader who buys a put option on IBIT with a $50 strike profits when IBIT falls below $50. The put gives them the right to sell at $50 even if the market price drops to $40, $30, or lower.

Which crypto ETF options are available

As of mid 2026, options are available on several spot cryptocurrency ETFs listed in the United States. The most actively traded include options on IBIT (BlackRock iShares Bitcoin Trust), FBTC (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund), and ETHA (BlackRock iShares Ethereum Trust). The Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) clears all of these contracts, providing the same counterparty guarantee that backs every listed option in the US market.

The approval process was not instant. The SEC approved spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024 but did not approve options on those ETFs until October 2024. The delay reflected concerns about market manipulation, position limits, and the interaction between spot crypto markets (which trade 24/7) and options markets (which trade during US exchange hours). The SEC ultimately set position limits of 25,000 contracts for Bitcoin ETF options, later expanded as liquidity grew.

Ethereum ETF options followed a similar path. Spot Ethereum ETFs launched in July 2024, and options approval came in 2025 after the SEC reviewed trading data from the initial months of spot ETF trading.

The volume numbers tell the adoption story. IBIT options regularly rank among the top 10 most actively traded option contracts in the entire US market, alongside options on SPY, QQQ, and AAPL. On peak days, IBIT options volume has exceeded 1.5 million contracts, representing notional exposure to billions of dollars in Bitcoin.

How crypto ETF options are priced

Options pricing follows the Black-Scholes framework, modified for the specific characteristics of crypto ETFs. The five primary inputs are the current price of the underlying ETF, the strike price, the time to expiration, the risk-free interest rate, and the implied volatility of the underlying asset.

Implied volatility is where crypto ETF options diverge most dramatically from traditional equity options. The implied volatility of Bitcoin ETF options typically ranges from 50% to 90% annualized, compared to 15% to 25% for S&P 500 options. This higher volatility means crypto ETF options are significantly more expensive in absolute terms than options on traditional equity ETFs.

The volatility smile, a pattern where out-of-the-money options trade at higher implied volatilities than at-the-money options, is particularly pronounced in crypto ETF options. Put options on Bitcoin ETFs tend to trade at elevated implied volatilities because the market prices in the possibility of sharp drawdowns. Call options far above the current price also carry premium because Bitcoin has historically produced large upside moves that would be considered extreme outliers in equity markets.

Time decay, measured by the Greek letter theta, erodes option value as expiration approaches. This effect is especially important for crypto ETF options because the high implied volatility means the absolute dollar amount of daily time decay is larger than for comparable equity options. A 30-day at-the-money call option on IBIT might lose $0.15 to $0.25 per day in time value, while a similar option on SPY might lose $0.05 to $0.10.

Delta measures how much the option price changes for a $1 move in the underlying ETF. An at-the-money call has a delta near 0.50, meaning it moves roughly $0.50 for every $1 move in the ETF. Deep in-the-money options have deltas approaching 1.0 and behave almost like the underlying shares. Far out-of-the-money options have low deltas and are essentially leveraged bets on large price moves.

Strategies traders actually use

The strategies applied to crypto ETF options range from simple directional bets to complex multi-leg structures. The most common fall into four categories: directional, income, hedging, and volatility.

Long calls and long puts are the simplest directional strategies. A trader who expects Bitcoin to rise buys calls. A trader who expects Bitcoin to fall buys puts. The maximum loss is limited to the premium paid, while the potential profit is theoretically unlimited for calls and substantial for puts (down to zero on the underlying). The appeal of long options is defined risk: a trader knows exactly how much they can lose before entering the trade.

Covered calls are the most popular income strategy. A trader who holds shares of IBIT sells call options against those shares, collecting the premium as income. If IBIT stays below the strike price, the calls expire worthless and the trader keeps both the shares and the premium. If IBIT rises above the strike, the shares are called away at the strike price, capping the upside. Covered call strategies on Bitcoin ETFs can generate annualized yields of 20% to 40% because of the high implied volatility, far above the 5% to 10% typical for equity covered calls.

Protective puts serve as portfolio insurance. A trader who holds IBIT and wants to protect against a drawdown buys put options at a strike price below the current market. If Bitcoin drops sharply, the put gains value and offsets losses on the underlying position. The cost of this insurance is the put premium, which can be significant given crypto’s high implied volatility.

Vertical spreads reduce the cost of directional bets by combining a long option with a short option at a different strike. A bull call spread involves buying a call at a lower strike and selling a call at a higher strike. The sold call reduces the net premium paid but caps the maximum profit. Bear put spreads work the same way in reverse. Spreads are popular among traders who have a directional view but want to reduce their cost basis and define their maximum risk.

Straddles and strangles are volatility strategies that profit from large moves in either direction. A straddle involves buying both a call and a put at the same strike price. A strangle involves buying a call and a put at different strike prices, with the call strike above and the put strike below the current price. These strategies are commonly used around major events such as Federal Reserve meetings, Bitcoin halving events, or regulatory announcements that could move the market sharply in either direction.

Calendar spreads exploit differences in time decay between near-term and longer-term options. A trader sells a short-dated option and buys a longer-dated option at the same strike price. The trade profits when the near-term option decays faster than the longer-term option, which typically occurs when the underlying price stays near the strike. Calendar spreads are particularly attractive on crypto ETFs because the high implied volatility produces larger absolute differences in time decay between expirations, creating wider profit zones than the same structure would offer on a traditional equity ETF.

Why the options market matters for crypto prices

The growth of the crypto ETF options market has introduced a feedback mechanism that did not previously exist in cryptocurrency markets. Market makers who sell options must continuously hedge their exposure by buying or selling the underlying ETF shares. This hedging activity, known as delta hedging, can amplify or dampen price moves depending on the aggregate positioning of the options market.

When market makers are net short gamma (meaning they have sold more options than they have bought), their hedging activity amplifies price moves. They must buy more shares as prices rise and sell more shares as prices fall, creating a positive feedback loop. When market makers are net long gamma, the opposite occurs: their hedging activity dampens price moves by requiring them to sell into rallies and buy during dips.

The concept of a “max pain” price, the price at which the most options expire worthless and option sellers retain the most premium, has become a closely watched metric in crypto markets. As expiration approaches, the hedging flows of market makers tend to push the price of the underlying ETF toward the max pain level, creating a gravitational effect that did not exist when crypto traded without a listed options market.

Open interest data from crypto ETF options provides a transparent view of market positioning that was previously available only through offshore derivatives exchanges. Analysts can see where large concentrations of calls and puts are positioned, which strike prices act as support or resistance, and how the market’s expectations for future volatility compare to realized volatility.

Risks specific to crypto ETF options

Crypto ETF options carry all the standard risks of options trading plus several risks unique to the crypto market.

Volatility risk cuts both ways. High implied volatility makes options expensive to buy. A trader who buys a call option may be correct about the direction of Bitcoin but still lose money if implied volatility drops (a phenomenon called “vol crush”). This commonly occurs after anticipated events when uncertainty resolves and implied volatility collapses.

Weekend and after-hours risk exists because Bitcoin trades 24/7 but ETF options trade only during US market hours. A significant price move over the weekend is fully reflected in the ETF price at Monday’s open, which can cause large gaps in option values. A trader who sold puts on Friday afternoon may face substantial losses on Monday morning if Bitcoin dropped 15% over the weekend.

Liquidity risk varies significantly across strikes and expirations. At-the-money options on IBIT are extremely liquid, with tight bid-ask spreads of $0.01 to $0.03. But far out-of-the-money options or options with distant expirations can have spreads of $0.10 to $0.30, which materially affects the cost of entering and exiting positions.

Correlation risk affects traders who use crypto ETF options to hedge positions in actual cryptocurrency. The ETF price tracks the spot price of Bitcoin closely but not perfectly. Tracking error, fund fees, and the mismatch between 24/7 crypto markets and traditional market hours can cause the ETF to diverge from spot Bitcoin at exactly the moment a hedge is needed most.

Assignment risk applies to sellers of American-style options, which can be exercised at any time before expiration. A trader who has sold in-the-money call options may be assigned at an inconvenient time, forcing them to deliver shares they may not hold.

What this does not cover

This guide does not cover the tax treatment of options trading, which varies by jurisdiction and can be complex when options expire, are exercised, or are closed before expiration. It does not cover the specific margin requirements set by individual brokers, which can differ from the minimum requirements set by the OCC. It does not cover options strategies involving more than two legs, such as iron condors, butterflies, or ratio spreads, which require a deeper understanding of options Greeks and risk management. It does not cover options on crypto futures ETFs, which existed before spot ETFs and have different pricing dynamics due to the futures roll cost embedded in the underlying product.

Practical checks for evaluating a crypto ETF options trade

Check the implied volatility rank. Compare the current implied volatility to its range over the past 30, 60, and 90 days. If implied volatility is in the top quartile of its recent range, options are relatively expensive, which favors selling strategies. If implied volatility is in the bottom quartile, options are relatively cheap, which favors buying strategies.

Check the bid-ask spread. Divide the spread by the midpoint price to get the spread as a percentage of the option value. If this number exceeds 5%, the transaction costs will significantly erode returns, particularly for strategies that require multiple legs.

Check the event calendar. Identify any upcoming events (FOMC meetings, ETF flow reports, Bitcoin network upgrades, regulatory deadlines) that could cause a volatility spike or collapse. Buying options before a volatility event and selling them after is a common mistake that results in losses even when the directional call is correct.

Check the Greeks. Know your delta exposure (directional risk), gamma exposure (how delta will change), theta (daily time decay cost), and vega (sensitivity to implied volatility changes). For multi-leg strategies, calculate the net Greeks of the entire position, not just the individual legs.

Check the position size. Options provide leverage, which means losses can accumulate quickly. A common guideline is to risk no more than 1% to 3% of total portfolio value on any single options trade. For crypto ETF options, where the underlying asset can move 10% or more in a single day, conservative position sizing is especially important.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk, and you should conduct your own research before making any investment decisions. Information is accurate as of August 6, 2026.

Rarible has launched its NFT marketplace on Solana after months of development, naming Claynosaurz as its first featured collection.

Rarible expands its marketplace to Solana

Rarible announced the launch on Thursday, marking its latest expansion beyond the blockchain networks already supported by its NFT marketplace.

Claynosaurz, a Solana-based entertainment and NFT brand built around animated dinosaur characters, will serve as the first featured collection. Rarible said it would onboard additional projects from across the network over the coming days and weeks.

“We’ve actually been working on Solana for months,” the company said. “Today, we’re incredibly excited to finally say it: Rarible is now live on Solana.”

The company did not disclose how many collections would be added during the initial rollout or provide a fixed schedule for future integrations.

Rarible said its team spent several months developing and testing the Solana marketplace. It also consulted NFT communities to understand how individual projects approach their identities, cultures, and collector bases.

According to the company, feedback from those discussions shaped some of its product decisions. Rarible said it wants to create collection-specific experiences instead of merely listing assets on a standard marketplace interface.

Gacha Station previewed Rarible’s Solana plans

Rarible described its earlier Gacha Station release on Solana as an initial look at the broader integration rather than a standalone product.

Gacha Station lets users purchase randomized digital collectibles, borrowing its format from capsule-toy and loot-box systems. Its rollout gave Rarible an early way to test products and user activity on Solana before launching the wider marketplace.

The company characterized the current marketplace as a foundation for a larger expansion. Planned updates include additional collections, new features, improvements to the trading experience, editorial content and community campaigns.

Rarible did not provide transaction-volume targets or details about how it plans to compete with established Solana NFT platforms. Marketplace adoption will depend partly on the collections it secures and whether it can attract collectors already active elsewhere in the ecosystem.

Why Solana matters for Rarible

Solana offers relatively low transaction fees and faster settlement than several older blockchain networks, making it a common venue for frequent NFT trading and lower-priced digital collectibles.

Adding the network allows Rarible to reach Solana-native creators and collectors without requiring them to move assets to another blockchain. It also gives projects another marketplace through which they can present and trade their collections.

The launch comes as NFT marketplaces face pressure to distinguish themselves through creator tools, community features and collection-specific products. Trading fees have also fallen across the sector as competing platforms seek to attract liquidity.

For U.S. users, Rarible’s announcement did not identify any new geographic restrictions or changes to marketplace access. NFT regulatory treatment in the United States can depend on how a collection is marketed and structured, rather than the blockchain on which it trades.

EU lawmakers seek a review of NFT rules

Rarible’s Solana expansion also arrives as European policymakers consider whether NFTs should fall more clearly within the bloc’s crypto regulations.

In July, the European Parliament adopted a policy report calling on the European Commission to examine decentralized finance, staking, crypto lending, borrowing and NFTs following the full rollout of the Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation.

The report did not change MiCA or create immediate obligations for NFT marketplaces. However, it established Parliament’s position that areas outside the existing framework may require further review.

MiCA’s transition period ended on July 1, requiring covered crypto-asset service providers to secure EU-wide or national authorization to continue operating across the bloc. Whether future rules extend more explicitly to NFT services could affect marketplaces such as Rarible as they add networks, collections and users.

For now, Rarible plans to continue expanding its Solana marketplace gradually, with its next phase centered on onboarding projects and refining the platform using feedback from the network’s communities.

Canaan has authorized management to sell part of its Bitcoin and Ethereum holdings to finance share repurchases under an existing $30 million program.

Canaan opens crypto treasury to fund buybacks

Nasdaq-listed Bitcoin miner Canaan has authorized management to monetize part of its digital asset treasury and use the proceeds to repurchase its American depositary shares.

The purchases will fall under an existing program that allows Canaan to buy back up to $30 million of its ADSs or Class A ordinary shares during the 12 months beginning Dec. 12, 2025, according to the company’s Aug. 4 announcement.

Canaan did not disclose how much cryptocurrency it intends to sell or when any sales will occur. The company also did not commit to using the entire remaining authorization.

Canaan did not disclose how much cryptocurrency it intends to sell or when any sales will occur. The company also did not commit to using the entire remaining authorization.

Further transactions will depend on Canaan’s share price, broader market conditions, working capital requirements, and board approval. Repurchases may take place through open-market transactions, block trades, or privately negotiated deals.

As of May 19, Canaan had spent approximately $2 million to repurchase 2.8 million ADSs. This left a nominal $28 million under the authorization at the time, although the company has not disclosed whether it completed additional purchases before the latest announcement.

Crypto holdings reached $130 million

Canaan held 1,915 BTC and 3,952 ETH at the end of June. The company valued the combined portfolio at approximately $130 million using market prices from Aug. 3.

Its Bitcoin balance increased by 49 BTC in June after accounting for operating costs and BTC received as payment for mining-machine sales. Canaan mined 64 BTC during the month.

Chairman and CEO Nangeng Zhang said the company’s mining operations provide a continuing source of Bitcoin that can be used as capital.

“At current trading levels, we believe Canaan’s market value does not fully reflect the value of our digital asset holdings, cash position, and the strength of our underlying business.”

Canaan said it was trading below the combined value of its cryptocurrency holdings and the cash and cash equivalents reported at the end of March. However, the comparison does not account for the company’s liabilities or restrictions affecting parts of its treasury.

At the end of March, Canaan held $43.5 million in cash. It also reported that 905 BTC had been pledged against secured term loans, while another 100 BTC had been transferred to a fixed-term product.

Mining efficiency improves as capacity stays idle

The decision follows improvements in Canaan’s North American mining efficiency despite underused capacity.

Canaan achieved fleet efficiency of 17.9 joules per terahash across its North American non-joint venture operations in May. It marlet, an 11% improvement from the previous year and a roughly 4% gain from the 18.7 J/TH recorded in March and April.

Operating activity nevertheless remained below installed capacity. At the end of May, Canaan had 10.05 exahashes per second of installed non-joint venture capacity, while only 6.47 EH/s was operating after a hosting agreement expired.

By June, non-joint venture operating hashrate had fallen further to 3.36 EH/s. Joint venture operations recovered to 4.09 EH/s following wildfire-related disruption at facilities in West Texas.

Nasdaq compliance remains a risk

Canaan’s ADSs were trading near $0.19 on Aug. 6, well below Nasdaq’s $1 minimum bid-price requirement. Each ADS represents 15 Class A ordinary shares.

Nasdaq granted the company an additional 180 days, until Jan. 11, 2027, to regain compliance. Canaan must maintain a closing bid price of at least $1 for a minimum of ten consecutive business days.

The company has not directly linked the buyback decision to its listing deficiency. Still, repurchases could reduce the number of outstanding shares and offer price support, while selling cryptocurrency would lower the reserves available for mining operations, debt obligations, and working capital.

About 64 Bitcoin, worth $4.17 million, and 200 Ether, worth $380,000, linked to the recent Coldcard exploit were sent to cryptocurrency mixing protocols, according to blockchain security platform CertiK. 

The Bitcoin transfer was from address bc1q0 to crypto mixing protocol Wasabi on Tuesday, according to blockchain data shared by CertiK.

“We think it might be a smaller exploiter. There’s likely a few copycats after the initial exploit,” a CertiK spokesperson told Cointelegraph. The 200 Ether (ETH) was transferred to Tornado Cash on Wednesday, according to CertiK’s X post.

Crypto mixing protocols such as Tornado Cash typically pool and then scramble the cryptocurrency from multiple users, breaking the publicly traceable onchain link between senders and recipients. This makes it difficult to trace the stolen funds, decreasing the chances of asset recovery.

In April, the hacker behind a $293 million Kelp DAO hack laundered about 75,700 Ether, then worth $175 million, primarily through THORChain, generating about $910,000 in fee revenue for the protocol. The attacker also used the Umbra privacy protocol.

The Coldcard exploit has now become the third-largest cryptocurrency hack so far in 2026. It drained at least $100 million in Bitcoin across three confirmed attack waves from 7,300 victim wallets, according to Galaxy Digital. The company also identified a suspected fourth wave that could bring total losses to about $130 million in BTC.

Source: CertiK

Most copycats haven’t moved stolen funds

Onchain tracing by TRM Labs showed that the majority of victim funds were still pooled in a small number of attacker-controlled addresses with limited mixing attempts, according to a Thursday report.

The blockchain intelligence company said that the “differences in transaction construction” during each attack wave hint at multiple attackers behind the exploit.

The analysis is in line with Galaxy’s previous findings that showed at least 15 different attackers who exploited the Coldcard vulnerability.

Related: AI has not triggered DeFi ‘hackpocalypse,’ Dragonfly partner says 

TRM Labs said that a firmware bug from March 2021 weakened seed randomness on some Coldcard wallets, cutting key strength to 40 bits from 128 bits, making it “brute-forceable without physical access.” 

Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi wrote that roughly “$2 of AI hardening” could have prevented the Coldcard exploit, citing social media reports that some AI models rediscovered the vulnerability that led to the attack in less than 20 minutes. 

Magazine: Does Botanix’s failure prove Bitcoiners don’t care about DeFi?  

Bitcoin (BTC) institutional investment vehicles have shed 10% of their BTC holdings since May as analysis warns of a “breaking” sector.

Key points:

• Bitcoin institutional funds see a blanket 10% reduction in holdings over three months.
• Analysis says that the Bitcoin treasury model is “breaking” as company valuations fall below net asset value.
• Coinbase premium has been negative for a record 93 days. 

Fund exposure drops as Bitcoin treasury companies face squeeze 

Data from onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant shows that combined institutional BTC exposure, which includes trusts, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and closed-end funds, has fallen from 1.33 million to 1.20 million BTC over three months.

Bitcoin fund holdings. Source: CryptoQuant

The drawdown comes as another major Bitcoin institutional investment vehicle, corporate treasuries, faces upheaval. Business intelligence software company Strategy, which holds the largest Bitcoin treasury of any public corporation, sold 1,638 BTC last week. 

“Bitcoin treasury companies once amplified demand through a reflexive financing loop. Their shares traded above the value of their Bitcoin holdings, allowing them to issue equity or debt, buy more Bitcoin and reinforce the premium. That mechanism weakens when market capitalisations fall below net asset value, and financing becomes dilutive,” contributing analyst Novaque Research commented.

CryptoQuant highlights the plight of several Bitcoin treasury companies with stock trading below the net asset value (NAV) of their BTC holdings. In Strategy’s case, the discount disappears according to the valuation methodology used.

Basic share count puts the discount at 0.7 as of Thursday, but once the company’s $8 billion debt and liquidation preference of its STRC preferred stock is factored in, the mNAV equals 1.03.

Strategy Updated mNAV. Source: Bitcoin Treasuries

“The on-chain evidence supports a loss of institutional demand, although it cannot directly isolate treasury companies,” CryptoQuant notes.

Coinbase Premium sees record negative stint

The drawdown in both fund exposure and Bitcoin treasury holdings comes as the Coinbase Premium index sees a record 93 days of negative readings.

Related: Bitcoin price-metric basket sees longest capitulation since FTX blow-up: Glassnode

As Cointelegraph reported this week, the Index, which measures the difference in price between Coinbase’s and Binance’s BTC/USDT pairs, has been negative since the start of May — a record streak.

Coinbase Premium Index. Source: CryptoQuant

Analysis sees the return of the Premium as a prerequisite for a BTC price recovery. This week, Web3 marketing platform FOUR argued that the genesis of the months-long negative reading did not lie in blanket US selling pressure.

“Until the premium flips positive, institutional buying from U.S. investors appears muted—suggesting this is more of a demand shortage than aggressive selling,” it told X followers.

In a note quoted by Reuters last month, Citi highlighted ETF flows in particular as an “important driver of prices” while cutting its BTC price forecast to $53,000 through 2027.

Fairshake-linked political action committee (PAC) affiliates reported new campaign spending aimed at federal primaries in several states, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings reviewed as of Thursday. The disclosures include more than $1.5 million spent on media backing House and Senate candidates in Florida, Alaska and Wyoming, after a related primary loss in Michigan on Tuesday.

The latest expenditures were filed by two Fairshake-affiliated groups—Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress—each aligned with the broader push for U.S. crypto market-structure legislation. Many of the candidates supported in the new filings have voting records in favor of the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act and other related proposals.

Key takeaways

• FEC filings show Fairshake PAC affiliates spent a combined more than $1.5 million on political media in Florida, Alaska and Wyoming after a Michigan primary loss.
• Defend American Jobs reported over $500,000 for Alaska’s Aug. 18 at-large GOP primary and comparable spending in Florida’s 16th district.
• Protect Progress reported more than $50,000 on Florida’s 23rd district, supporting incumbent Representative Lois Frankel.
• The spending reflects how Fairshake-aligned groups are using election cycles to reward or reinforce crypto-related legislative voting records.

Fairshake affiliates ramp up media buys for Aug. 18 primaries

FEC filings as of Thursday indicate that Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress spent together more than $1.5 million on media related to federal contests in Florida, Alaska and Wyoming. The figure is tied to primary elections scheduled for Aug. 18 in multiple states.

In Alaska’s at-large congressional district, Defend American Jobs reported spending more than $500,000 on media supporting the re-election of Representative Nick Begich. In Florida, the same group spent about $500,000 backing Republican candidate Sydney Gruters in Florida’s 16th district.

For Wyoming’s political calendar, the reported spending also references a contest connected to the state’s upcoming Senate vacancy. Protect Progress-affiliated activity backed Representative Harriet Hageman, a candidate now running for the soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat currently held by Cynthia Lummis. Like Alaska and Florida, Wyoming’s primary is also listed as occurring on Aug. 18.

Michigan defeat follows heavy pre-election spending

The new disclosures come immediately after Protect Progress-supported activity appeared to backfire in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District. On Tuesday, Democratic incumbent Shri Thanedar lost a primary to State Representative Donavan McKinney, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.

In connection with that Michigan race, Protect Progress previously reported spending more than $2 million on media supporting Thanedar. Thanedar’s current term in Congress ends in January 2027, making the outcome consequential for the district’s future representation.

While the FEC numbers in the Michigan race indicate substantial investment, the primary result underscores that large independent political spending does not guarantee electoral success—particularly in competitive districts where local dynamics and voter preferences can override national legislative alignment.

Who the PAC backs: CLARITY and GENIUS voting records in focus

Beyond the election cycle’s tactical spending, the disclosures highlight a recurring theme in U.S. crypto politics: PACs and advocacy-aligned groups appear to target candidates based on their legislative history. The filing-related reporting notes that Begich, Frankel and Hageman voted in favor of the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act during their time in Congress.

On the Democratic side, Protect Progress reported spending more than $50,000 to support the re-election of Lois Frankel in Florida’s 23rd district. Frankel’s voting alignment with GENIUS and CLARITY places her within the group of lawmakers that crypto-aligned backers have previously tried to reinforce with campaign support.

By contrast, the reporting indicates that Gruters did not appear to have made public statements about crypto or blockchain in the same manner as some other candidates, with one exception: she reportedly supported the crypto market structure bill in a questionnaire response conducted by the advocacy organization Stand With Crypto.

Those distinctions matter because they show how crypto-aligned groups may weigh both formal voting records and documented position statements when deciding where money goes—an approach that can help explain variations in spending patterns across candidates and parties.

Why these filings could matter for the 2026 cycle

The most important implication of these disclosures may be less about the immediate primaries and more about how lawmakers understand what their votes mean electorally. While it remained unclear as of Thursday whether the U.S. Senate would hold a vote on the CLARITY Act before a month-long recess, the pattern of independent spending suggests crypto-aligned groups are preparing for a broader political push heading into the 2026 midterms.

All 435 House seats are up for election in 2026, and 33 Senate seats are also on the ballot. As a result, how members vote on crypto market-structure legislation can potentially influence whether candidates face better or worse chances of receiving aligned support.

In January, Stand With Crypto said its “primary goal” for 2026 was to get crypto market-structure legislation through Congress. Earlier reporting also indicates the organization’s community director, Mason Lynaugh, told Cointelegraph in November that lawmakers’ votes on relevant bills could affect their re-election chances. Stand With Crypto reportedly rates candidates on a scale ranging from “strongly supports crypto” to “strongly against crypto,” using voting records and public statements—inputs that PACs and advocacy groups may use when deciding how to allocate resources.

Taken together, the new FEC filings show Fairshake-affiliated groups continuing to convert legislative alignment into campaign strategy, while also reacting quickly after electoral setbacks in earlier races.

With multiple primaries scheduled for Aug. 18 and the 2026 midterm picture already taking shape, readers should watch whether candidates’ crypto-related legislative histories translate into measurable primary outcomes—and whether subsequent disclosures show a shift in spending priorities after the Michigan result.

Criminals stole more than $30 million through physical attacks on crypto holders in the first half of this year, putting the year on pace to surpass the record $58 million stolen in 2025.

In a Chainalysis report released Thursday, the blockchain analytics firm said that 46 violent crypto-related incidents had been documented globally through late June, up from 40 during the same period in 2025. The incidents include kidnappings, home invasions and hostage situations, collectively known as “wrench attacks.” 

The findings suggest wrench attacks are increasing, expanding the risks facing crypto holders beyond custody and asset management to their physical safety, homes and families.

According to the report, only 12 of the 46 attempts resulted in payment, giving attackers a 26% success rate, down from 49% in 2025. However, the report acknowledged that known cases likely understate the scale of the problem, as many attacks go unreported. 

Chainalysis said the “tradecraft tends to be amateur at the point of violence, but professional at both ends,” with victims often selected through data leaks, social media or insider information before low-skilled crews carry out the attacks.

Success rate of crypto wrench attacks by year. Source: Chainalysis

France remains wrench attack hotspot

According to Chainalysis, France recorded 30 publicly known incidents by midyear, compared with 19 throughout 2025. The report noted that French authorities have counted more than 70 incidents, indicating the actual total may be substantially higher.

Related: Spain arrests suspect in 2025 kidnapping of Ledger co-founder

In July, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez put the first-half count at 77 kidnappings, extortions or attempted extortions, up from 45 in all of 2025. In response, the government has introduced a rapid-alert and protection system and promised greater intelligence-sharing and coordination with the crypto industry.

Chainalysis said in the Thursday report that the alleged misuse of French tax records was the likeliest driver of the surge. A French tax official allegedly accessed and sold information about crypto investors to criminals, while a separate breach at crypto tax-reporting company Waltio reportedly exposed data belonging to about 50,000 users.

Onchain activity also showed varying levels of sophistication. Some attackers sent stolen funds directly to centralized exchanges, while others used bridges, decentralized exchanges and laundering services. Chainalysis said the most advanced cases showed links to broader criminal networks.

Magazine: Do the Coldcard attacks mean all hardware wallets are now insecure?