Binance says it is withdrawing its application for Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) authorization in Greece and plans to seek approval in another EU member state, days ahead of the July 1 deadline for firms to become licensed or take steps to scale back their EU operations. The decision comes as the European regulator signals that crypto service providers lacking authorization after the transitional period ends must act immediately to wind down activity within the bloc.

In a statement on Wednesday, Binance said it would announce the new member state publicly once it is ready. Binance’s head of Europe and the United Kingdom, Gillian Lynch, told Reuters that the exchange is “not leaving Europe” and would pursue authorization elsewhere if the Greek process does not progress.

Key takeaways

• Binance has withdrawn its MiCA authorization application with Greece’s Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC), aiming to seek authorization in another EU member state.
• The move occurs just before MiCA’s July 1 transitional cutoff, when ESMA expects unauthorized crypto service providers to begin winding down EU activities.
• Binance warned that some users may be affected and that it will communicate with impacted accounts, while stating that user funds remain protected.
• Licensing uncertainty may influence token issuers indirectly, as authorized exchanges increasingly gatekeep MiCA white-paper notifications and listing readiness.

MiCA authorization withdrawal and the new EU strategy

Binance’s stated objective is to remain compliant with EU requirements as the MiCA framework moves into its post-transitional enforcement phase. The exchange said it is taking the necessary steps before July 1 to comply with applicable obligations. It did not specify which member state it plans to approach next.

According to Reuters, Lynch said Binance contacted other regulators but submitted a formal application only in Greece. Binance reportedly held discussions with several authorities, including Ireland and Latvia, before focusing on Greece. Reuters also reported that some regulators expressed concerns related to Binance’s past money-laundering penalties, its international operating structure, and risk-related cultural factors.

For compliance teams and institutional stakeholders, the key point is that MiCA licensing is not a single, centralized EU process for market access. Authorization is assessed by national competent authorities and embedded in national supervisory relationships, which can lead to different outcomes across jurisdictions even within the same regulatory regime.

Why the July 1 deadline is operationally material

MiCA’s transitional period ends on July 1. In a public statement on Tuesday, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) said that crypto service providers that remain unauthorized by the deadline must take “immediate” steps to wind down their EU activities. ESMA’s wording effectively creates a near-term compliance forcing function: firms must either secure authorization or implement drawdown and cessation measures for EU-facing operations.

Binance’s announcement therefore has immediate operational implications. The company did not provide additional detail beyond saying it expects some users could see changes. It said it will communicate directly with affected users and that its priority is to minimize disruption. It also reiterated that all user funds remain safe and secure.

However, unresolved questions remain for regulated counterparties and compliance monitors. Withdrawal of an application can create uncertainty about timelines and the scope of what activities remain permissible during the transition to a new authorization path. For institutions that rely on regulated on-ramps and exchange counterparties, this increases the importance of verifying current licensing status and conducting ongoing controls around service availability and permitted services in specific EU jurisdictions.

Potential effects for European market access

Even if MiCA licensing constraints do not necessarily eliminate EU demand, the regulatory transition can influence how euro-denominated trading access evolves. CryptoQuant analyst Maartunn told Cointelegraph that euro pairs account for about 1% of Binance’s global spot trading volume, indicating that a European licensing setback may have limited impact on overall business volume.

Still, Binance remains a significant venue for euro trading. CryptoQuant data cited in the reporting suggested Binance handled roughly $100 million to $250 million in daily euro-pair volume in 2026, with occasional spikes of about $600 million. The same data placed Binance second in share of euro-denominated spot trading at an estimated 18.5%, behind Kraken’s estimated 43.3% share.

These figures matter for institutional monitoring because MiCA authorization affects not only retail access but also how regulated market participants evaluate venue risk. Where firms have counterparties spread across multiple exchanges, licensing uncertainty may change routing decisions, hedging practices, and settlement reliability—even without direct changes to token market fundamentals.

MiCA compliance as an ecosystem function for exchanges and token issuers

Binance’s licensing challenge may reverberate beyond trading venues. Authorized exchanges increasingly act as compliance gatekeepers for token issuers seeking MiCA-related documentation readiness, including work tied to white-paper notifications and listing processes.

In a LinkedIn post, Ryan King, creator of the EU Crypto Register, said he tracked at least 380 of 867 white-paper entries where notifications were made by third parties rather than the token issuers themselves. He reported that Kraken, LCX, OKX, and Bitstamp together accounted for 271 of those third-party notifications, representing about 31% of the total.

King told Cointelegraph that this approach can be “symbiotic,” because exchanges employ MiCA-trained compliance teams, maintain regulator relationships, and have access to large law firms. He said exchanges increasingly request white papers during onboarding and may offer to prepare documentation, even for tokens covered by transitional arrangements. According to King, one exchange allegedly told a token project to “fill it in and we’ll handle the rest,” reflecting the practical role exchanges can play in operationalizing MiCA requirements.

For market participants, the compliance implication is that exchange authorization status can shape how quickly issuers can move from token planning to EU-ready documentation. When authorization trajectories shift or when a major exchange alters its EU operational posture, it may affect issuer workflows, legal review capacity, and timelines for token availability on EU-compliant venues.

Closing perspective

Binance’s withdrawal of its Greece application and intent to pursue authorization elsewhere set the stage for a rapidly developing compliance timeline as the July 1 MiCA cutoff approaches. What to watch next is whether Binance can secure a new authorization path in time and how ESMA’s “wind down” expectations translate into concrete permitted activity during the transition—particularly for EU customers, counterparties, and token issuers relying on exchange-led compliance processes.

Ethereum traded near $1,655 on June 25, according to crypto.news price data, after falling below $1,600 during the latest market selloff. 

ETH was down about 0.93% over 24 hours and 4.63% over seven days, while trading volume stood near $15.42 billion.

The token moved between $1,557.87 and $1,677.86 during the session. Market value stood near $199.55 billion, keeping ETH in second place by market cap. The bounce has eased pressure, but ETH still trades below the recent recovery zone near $1,800.

Ethereum’s daily chart still shows a wider downtrend from the $2,300 to $2,400 zone into the current $1,600 to $1,700 range. Bulls need a clean move above $1,800 before the structure improves.

Ethereum recently weakened near $1,670 as ETF outflows, weak RSI, and falling open interest kept traders cautious. That report placed $1,750 and $1,800 as near-term resistance zones, while $1,580 stayed in focus if sellers returned.

Ethereum ETF outflows weigh on demand

Spot Ethereum ETFs remain a pressure point for ETH price. SoSoValue data showed the products recorded $30.24 million in net outflows on June 24, marking a fifth straight day of withdrawals. Fidelity’s FETH led the day’s outflows with $15.6897 million leaving the fund.

The latest ETF data followed a larger outflow session one day earlier. As crypto.news reported, U.S. spot ETH ETFs posted $82.351 million in net outflows on June 23. That flow pressure came as ETH failed to hold short-term resistance.

ETF flows show whether regulated demand is adding support or cutting exposure. When funds keep losing assets during a decline, spot buyers need to absorb more selling before recovery can form.

The flow data does not mean all institutional demand has disappeared. It shows that demand remains uneven. A return to steady ETF inflows would help sentiment, but ETH has not yet seen that confirmation.

Ethereum whale moves send mixed signals

Large wallet activity also shows a split market. Lookonchain said a newly created wallet withdrew 17,675 ETH, worth about $28.58 million, from Binance. The tracker described the move as a whale “buying the dip.”

At the same time, Onchain Lens said a dormant whale known as 0x096 sold 27,585 ETH for $44.84 million in USDS at an average price near $1,625. The wallet had been inactive for seven years and still locked in an estimated $39.1 million profit.

Advertisement

Leverage also added stress. Onchain Lens said Machi was fully liquidated on a 25x ETH long position, losing $1.9 million, before opening another 25x long. His total losses had passed $35.4 million.

Such activity can make ETH moves sharper near key support. Whale buying may help the market, but dormant wallet sales and forced liquidations can reduce confidence. This leaves ETH caught between accumulation, profit-taking, and high-risk leverage.

Indicators keep $1,800 in focus

Technical indicators still show a weak recovery. RSI stood near 38.34, slightly below its moving average at 38.79. That reading sits below the neutral 50 level, so buyers have not regained clear control after the latest bounce.

The Aroon Oscillator stood at -64.29, pointing to continued bearish trend pressure. A negative reading means recent lows remain more dominant than recent highs. That supports the view that ETH is stabilizing, not reversing yet.

Advertisement

The MACD picture looks slightly better, based on the provided chart context. The histogram has turned mildly positive, while the MACD line has moved above the signal line. However, both lines remain below zero, so the wider trend still needs confirmation.

CryptoQuant analyst CryptoOnchain described Ethereum as being in a defensive position near $1,600. The model reduced market exposure to 15%, but said the probability of a bullish shift had climbed to 45%. The analyst said stablecoin reserves and netflows on Binance had moved into neutral territory.

Analysts remain divided on the next move. CrediBULL Crypto said ETH/BTC is “still chilling at our HTF buy zone” and is waiting for a lower-timeframe base. Crypto Tony said ETH/USD may be forming a triangle, which could point to several weeks of consolidation.

$ETH / $USD – Update

We are seeing sets of 3 waves off the lows, which gives hints at a triangle forming. Something to pay attention too. Could see some market consolidation over next few weeks. pic.twitter.com/wO6Ybkfq02

— Crypto Tony (@CryptoTony__) June 25, 2026

Advertisement

For now, ETH needs stronger follow-through above $1,700 and then $1,800. A break above that zone, with RSI above 50 and an improving Aroon reading, would support a stronger recovery. Failure to reclaim those levels could keep ETH exposed to another test near $1,580.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Advertisement

A group of Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to SEC Chair Paul Atkins on Tuesday seeking details about how the agency oversees AI-driven trading tools and whether current securities laws are sufficient to address the technology.

The letter, led by Bill Foster, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Financial Institutions Subcommittee, and Brad Sherman, the top Democrat on the Capital Markets Subcommittee, warned that platforms offering AI trading agents to retail investors “raises serious questions for investor protection, broker-dealer responsibilities, market integrity, and the accountability of AI developers.”

Lawmakers said the technology could soon move beyond basic stock trading into more complex financial products. “While such trading may initially be limited in scope, there are indications that agentic trading could expand to a broad range of additional products, including options, cryptocurrency, event contracts, and futures,” the letter stated.

Foster, Sherman, and the other signatories argued that many AI trading agents have “operated largely outside the securities regulatory framework,” despite making “consequential investment decisions on behalf of retail investors.”

The lawmakers also questioned the legal responsibility of brokers and AI developers, noting that disclosures accompanying many AI agents state that brokerage platforms cannot guarantee the accuracy or suitability of AI-generated recommendations and cannot fully control, monitor, or audit agent behavior. They wrote that such disclaimers “raise urgent questions about the regulatory treatment of agentic trading tools and create uncertainty regarding legal responsibility among brokers, AI developers and retail investors.”

The letter asks the SEC to provide written responses by July 31 on several issues, including what safeguards or analyses the agency has conducted on AI agents, when such systems should register with the regulator, how extensively the SEC has consulted with trading platforms, and whether Congress needs to grant the agency additional authority to address emerging risks.

Representatives Stephen Lynch, Jim Himes, Sean Casten, Rashida Tlaib, Brittany Pettersen, and Sylvia Garcia also signed the letter.

AI agents gain ground across crypto and finance

The request comes as AI agents continue to expand into cryptocurrency trading and digital payments.

Earlier this month, Coinbase introduced Coinbase for Agents, a platform that allows large language models such as ChatGPT and Claude to access user-authorized Coinbase accounts. The system lets AI agents execute cryptocurrency trades, manage portfolios, monitor markets, rebalance holdings under predefined rules, and purchase digital services through Coinbase’s x402 machine payments protocol.

Coinbase also integrated Coinbase Advisor into the platform, describing it as an SEC and CFTC-registered financial adviser that can provide investment guidance within agent workflows. The company said support for stocks and prediction markets will follow in a later rollout.

The commercial use of AI agents has also extended beyond trading. On the same day the lawmakers sent their letter, the American Arbitration Association and Integra Ledger introduced the Legal Context Protocol, an open standard designed to record transaction terms, consent, governing law, and dispute resolution information for autonomous AI transactions.

The organizations said the protocol addresses legal recordkeeping rather than payments and can work alongside existing machine payment systems, such as x402 and other digital identity tools. Founding contributors include Google, IBM, Circle, Hedera, Cardano, Aptos Foundation, Ava Labs, Stellar Development Foundation, Wayfair, and several other technology and blockchain organizations.

Integra Ledger CEO David Fisher said, “payment infrastructure is actively being built for AI agents,” while the legal framework has yet to catch up. He said the protocol answers questions about what parties agreed to, the terms governing a transaction, and how disputes should be resolved if they arise.

The increased adoption of AI agents across trading, payments, and commerce has prompted lawmakers to seek greater clarity on how existing securities regulations apply as autonomous software takes on more financial decision-making on behalf of retail users.

For centuries, institutions have played a central role in organizing society. Governments enforce laws, banks facilitate financial transactions, courts resolve disputes, and corporations coordinate economic activity. These institutions exist because trust is difficult to establish between strangers. They provide rules, oversight, and accountability that enable large-scale cooperation.

Today, advances in software, blockchain technology, artificial intelligence, and smart contracts have sparked a provocative question: Can code replace institutions?

While code is increasingly taking over functions traditionally performed by institutions, the answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Rather than completely replacing institutions, code is reshaping how they operate and challenging the need for certain intermediaries.

Why Institutions Exist

Institutions emerged to solve coordination problems.

When individuals interact, there are several challenges:

• How can agreements be enforced?
• How can trust be established?
• Who resolves disputes?
• How are resources allocated fairly?
• How can large groups cooperate efficiently?

Historically, institutions answered these questions through legal frameworks, regulations, bureaucracies, and centralized authority.

Banks verify transactions. Governments enforce contracts. Courts interpret laws. Corporations coordinate workers and capital.

Without these structures, large-scale economic and social systems would struggle to function.

The Rise of Code as Governance

Software has gradually automated many institutional functions.

Online platforms process billions of transactions daily without direct human involvement. Algorithms manage logistics networks, coordinate marketplaces, and execute financial operations.

Blockchain technology pushed this idea even further.

Instead of relying on trusted intermediaries, blockchain networks use cryptographic rules and distributed consensus mechanisms to verify transactions and enforce agreements.

The phrase “code is law” emerged from the idea that software rules can automatically determine outcomes without requiring human judgment.

A smart contract, for example, can:

• Hold assets in escrow
• Execute payments automatically
• Enforce lending conditions
• Distribute rewards
• Govern digital organizations

Once deployed, these rules operate independently according to predefined logic.

Areas Where Code Is Replacing Institutions

Financial Services

Traditional banking relies heavily on intermediaries.

Code-based systems can automate:

• Payments
• Lending
• Trading
• Asset issuance
• Settlement processes

Transactions that once required multiple institutions can now occur directly between participants through programmable systems.

This reduces costs, increases transparency, and enables global accessibility.

Corporate Coordination

Digital organizations increasingly rely on software-driven governance.

Voting mechanisms, treasury management systems, and automated workflows allow distributed communities to coordinate without traditional corporate hierarchies.

In some cases, participants can collectively manage resources through transparent rules encoded into software.

Marketplaces

Platforms increasingly automate trust functions once performed by regulators or brokers.

Reputation systems, escrow mechanisms, and algorithmic dispute resolution reduce the need for centralized oversight.

Code enables strangers from different parts of the world to transact with minimal friction.

Information Management

Institutions have traditionally served as gatekeepers of information.

Today, decentralized networks, open databases, and AI systems can organize, verify, and distribute information at unprecedented scale.

The cost of coordinating knowledge continues to fall as software becomes more sophisticated.

The Limits of Code

Despite its capabilities, code has important limitations.

Code Cannot Anticipate Every Situation

The real world is complex and unpredictable.

Laws often contain flexibility because human circumstances vary.

Software, by contrast, follows predefined instructions.

Unexpected events can expose flaws in code that are difficult to address once systems are deployed.

Human Judgment Still Matters

Many institutional decisions involve ethics, context, and interpretation.

Consider issues such as:

• Criminal justice
• Public policy
• Child welfare
• International diplomacy

These areas require values-based decision-making that cannot easily be reduced to programmable rules.

Humans often disagree about what outcomes are fair, making rigid automation problematic.

Disputes Require Resolution

Even when agreements are encoded, disputes still arise.

Questions such as:

• Was fraud involved?
• Was coercion present?
• Were participants adequately informed?

Often require investigation and interpretation.

Code can enforce rules, but it cannot always determine whether those rules should apply in a particular context.

Power Does Not Disappear

A common assumption is that automation eliminates power structures.

In reality, power often shifts rather than disappears.

Developers, protocol designers, infrastructure operators, and platform owners may gain influence over systems that appear decentralized.

The governance of code itself becomes an institutional challenge.

The Future: Institutions Powered by Code

The most likely future is not one where institutions disappear.

Instead, institutions will increasingly integrate software as a foundational layer.

Code excels at:

• Automation
• Transparency
• Consistency
• Scalability
• Efficiency

Humans excel at:

• Judgment
• Ethics
• Adaptability
• Negotiation
• Conflict resolution

The strongest systems will combine both.

Governments may use programmable infrastructure for public services. Financial systems may rely on automated settlement layers. Organizations may use algorithmic governance for routine operations while preserving human oversight for complex decisions.

Rather than replacing institutions entirely, code may transform them into more transparent, efficient, and accessible forms.

Conclusion

The question is not whether code can replace institutions, but which institutional functions can be automated and which require human judgment.

Code is exceptionally effective at enforcing clear rules and coordinating large-scale activity. However, society depends on more than efficiency alone. Trust, legitimacy, ethics, and adaptability remain deeply human concerns.

As technology advances, the future will likely belong neither to pure institutions nor pure code, but to hybrid systems where software handles execution and humans provide governance.

In that world, institutions do not disappear—they evolve.

REQUEST AN ARTICLE

Bitcoin’s BTC$61,650.42 price drop ahead of Friday’s quarterly options settlement has once again cast doubt on the popular “max pain theory.”

The max pain level for this expiry stands at $72,000, significantly above current spot prices of around $61,700. On Friday at 8:00 ET, options worth $10 billion will expire on Deribit, the world’s largest crypto options exchange.

Max pain, as the name suggests, refers to the price level where options buyers – those who purchased call and put contracts to hedge against volatility – would lose the most money on expiry. In that scenario, option buyers suffer maximum losses, while their counter parties who sold options (also known as writers) stand to benefit.

The theory suggests that ahead of expiry, these option writers actively try to push the spot price toward the max pain level, effectively pinning bitcoin there. Crypto social media has long embraced the idea, particularly after BTC appeared to gravitate toward the max pain point ahead of several monthly and quarterly settlements in 2020–2021. That pattern, even if partly coincidental and driven by other market forces, helped solidify belief in the theory.

Key Takeaways

• The prediction market platform is pursuing funding at a $40 billion price tag, approaching twice its May 2026 valuation of $22 billion
• Negotiations could reach completion by the third quarter of 2026
• Should the deal materialize, the company’s value would have multiplied eight times in less than twelve months
• Company leadership has acknowledged exploring a potential public listing, though not anticipated before 2027
• Legal challenges emerged as Kentucky filed suit against Kalshi and four competitors, alleging unauthorized sports wagering activities

The forecasting platform Kalshi is pursuing a significant capital injection that would establish its worth at $40 billion. This represents nearly twice the $22 billion figure achieved during its most recent financing, which concluded in May just weeks earlier.

Reporting from the Financial Times on Wednesday revealed these discussions, citing sources with knowledge of the negotiations. The financing arrangement could potentially finalize during the third quarter of 2026.

Kalshi’s previous capital raise in May — a $1 billion Series F investment — saw Coatue Management take the lead. The investor roster also featured Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Morgan Stanley, and Ark Invest.

Should negotiations conclude successfully at the $40 billion mark, the company’s worth will have expanded eight times over in under twelve months. In October 2025, Kalshi carried a valuation of merely $5 billion.

Widening Lead Over Competition

This prospective valuation would establish Kalshi’s dominance over its primary competitor, Polymarket. Reports from April indicated Polymarket was pursuing investment at a $15 billion valuation.

The competitive dynamics between these platforms have shifted considerably over recent months. Polymarket maintained superiority in transaction volumes throughout much of 2024, propelled by political election activity. Kalshi surged ahead around September 2025 following its strategic alliance with Robinhood to provide sports outcome contracts.

By May 2026, Kalshi reported notional trading activity totaling $17.9 billion monthly. During the identical timeframe, Polymarket registered $7.1 billion, based on Token Terminal figures.

Kalshi functions as a federally supervised exchange within the United States. Polymarket leverages blockchain technology and executes transactions using digital currencies.

Public Offering Under Consideration

Tarek Mansour, Kalshi’s chief executive, acknowledged Wednesday that management is evaluating a public market debut. During a CNBC appearance, he indicated that while an IPO remains under consideration, it wouldn’t occur prior to 2027.

“A company of our financial profile with the rate of growth that we’re seeing, that sort of conversation has to happen,” Mansour said.

The company’s origins trace back to 2018, with its public platform launching in July 2021.

The prediction markets sector is capturing increasing mainstream interest. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg has allegedly instructed his team to develop a competing prediction markets application called “Arena,” the New York Times reported. Cboe Global Markets, a major exchange operator, also made its entry this week, unveiling “Cboe Predicts” featuring binary contracts linked to the S&P 500.

Regarding regulatory matters, Kentucky initiated legal proceedings against five prediction market operators last week, naming both Kalshi and Polymarket. State authorities claim these platforms operate unlicensed sports gambling services.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has contested this action, maintaining it possesses sole jurisdiction over such platforms. The CFTC filed suit against Kentucky on Tuesday seeking to prevent the state’s regulatory enforcement.

Kalshi representatives declined to provide statements regarding the reported fundraising negotiations.

Key Takeaways

• On June 23, 2026, BlackRock’s Investment Institute issued formal guidance recommending 1–2% Bitcoin exposure in diversified portfolios
• The research was distributed directly to wealth managers and financial advisors, not merely published for institutional audiences
• In a typical 60/40 portfolio, a 1% Bitcoin position accounts for approximately 2% of overall portfolio volatility
• BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust manages approximately $62 billion, representing nearly 49% of total U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF holdings
• Bitcoin currently trades near $59,692, having declined more than 50% from its October 2025 peak of $126,080

On June 23, 2026, BlackRock’s Investment Institute distributed a detailed research document titled “Sizing Bitcoin in Portfolios” to financial advisors throughout the United States.

The guidance establishes a specific allocation range of 1% to 2% for Bitcoin within conventional multi-asset investment strategies. BlackRock positions Bitcoin as a “complementary diversifier” rather than a primary portfolio component.

Four senior BlackRock officials co-authored the document, including leadership from Digital Assets and Global Portfolio Research. This represents the most explicit portfolio sizing recommendation any major asset management firm has released regarding cryptocurrency.

Understanding the Risk Calculation

BlackRock’s analysis centers on risk contribution rather than purely on potential returns. When added to a traditional 60/40 equity-bond allocation, a 1% Bitcoin position generates approximately 2% of the portfolio’s total volatility.

Increasing the allocation to 2% elevates the risk contribution to roughly 5%. BlackRock notes this matches the risk profile of holding a single stock from the Magnificent Seven technology companies.

Allocations exceeding 2% result in disproportionate risk increases. A 4% Bitcoin position could account for approximately 14% of total portfolio risk, potentially overshadowing other holdings.

This methodology provides advisors with terminology and metrics already familiar to compliance departments and investment committees.

Addressing the Fiduciary Challenge

While Bitcoin ETFs have been accessible to financial advisors, most lacked institutional backing to justify cryptocurrency allocations to clients and regulatory oversight.

BlackRock’s guidance directly resolves this challenge. By comparing Bitcoin to individual equity positions within a risk framework, advisors can now document investment suitability using established portfolio management terminology.

The target audience includes advisors and wealth management firms overseeing trillions in retail and high-net-worth capital. These professionals previously operated without formal Bitcoin allocation standards.

BlackRock has incorporated this allocation methodology into its proprietary Target Allocation ETF model strategies.

Market Position of IBIT

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust currently manages approximately $62 billion in total assets. This represents roughly 49% of all U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF holdings.

The product debuted in January 2024 following SEC authorization of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds. It attracted substantial capital inflows throughout late 2024 and into mid-2025.

Following a sharp market correction in October 2025, the fund experienced significant redemptions. June 2026 outflows totaled $2.09 billion through June 23.

Institutional capital now comprises approximately 38% of total spot Bitcoin ETF assets, compared to 24% in the prior year.

Bitcoin currently trades around $59,692. This represents a decline of more than 50% from its record high of $126,080 established on October 6, 2025.

BlackRock’s total assets under management reached $13.9 trillion as of Q1 2026.

Stablecore has launched an early access stablecoin and digital asset program for U.S. credit unions, allowing participating institutions to test blockchain-based financial services before deciding whether to integrate them into their banking platforms.

The program was announced on Wednesday through a partnership between Stablecore, Circuit, formerly known as Members Development Company, and Curql, a fintech investment collective backed by more than 160 credit unions. 

Stablecore said the initial group includes RBFCU, Stanford Federal Credit Union, and La Capitol Federal Credit Union, with the participating institutions representing about $25 billion in combined assets.

Participating credit unions will be able to evaluate stablecoin payments, tokenized deposits, Bitcoin, crypto on and off ramps, staking, and other digital asset services through Stablecore’s platform before deciding whether to offer those products to members. The company said the products are designed to operate within existing digital banking experiences.

“Members trust their credit unions because of their ability to provide secure, trusted access to the financial products and services they care about within a single experience,” said Alex Treece, CEO and co-founder of Stablecore. 

He added that the company is helping credit unions “stay relevant against competitive threats, retain their deposits and continue to be the trusted, primary financial partner for their members” by enabling them to offer digital asset products.

Meanwhile, Ethan Cunningham, chief strategy officer at Circuit, said the program gives participating institutions “a collaborative space” to evaluate stablecoins and digital assets together while learning how the technology could shape financial services without moving away from their member-first approach.

According to Stablecore, the program also includes education for credit union staff and members to support future digital asset adoption. The company added that former FDIC regulator Ben Hailey recently joined as head of risk and compliance to oversee governance, risk, and compliance frameworks for partner institutions.

Stablecore expands banking partnerships

The latest initiative builds on Stablecore’s effort to bring stablecoin and tokenized asset services to financial institutions through existing core banking systems. In February, the company joined the Jack Henry Fintech Integration Network, which provides access to about 1,670 bank and credit union core clients.

Stablecore also expanded its banking partnerships in May after the Tennessee Bankers Association selected the company as a preferred digital asset technology provider for its more than 175 member institutions. The agreement gave member banks access to stablecoin accounts, tokenized deposits, crypto-backed lending, payment acceptance, and digital asset accounts through their existing banking systems.

Colin Barrett, president and CEO of the Tennessee Bankers Association, said at the time that customers would benefit from digital asset tools delivered through the “secure and trusted environment of their local bank.”

U.S. credit unions have also begun preparing for potential stablecoin regulation. In February, the National Credit Union Administration proposed a licensing framework that would require payment stablecoin issuers operating through subsidiaries of federally insured credit unions to obtain an NCUA license before issuing stablecoins. 

The proposal focused on licensing and supervisory requirements, while additional rules covering reserves, capital, liquidity, and risk management are expected through future rulemaking.