Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego warned that rushing the CLARITY Act to a Senate vote before lawmakers resolve disputes over ethics and stablecoin yield could set United States crypto market structure legislation back.

Speaking at the SALT Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on Wednesday, Gallego said the crypto industry should encourage Senate Democrats and Republicans to continue negotiating instead of pushing for an immediate vote. He said lawmakers still had to address the bill’s Agriculture Committee portion, assemble the broader package and determine how to send it to the House. 

The warning complicates the Trump administration’s push for swift passage by suggesting that a procedural vote could arrive before negotiators have assembled the bipartisan coalition needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. 

“Don’t go for a fast vote,” Gallego said. “A fast vote gets you a fast result, but I’m not sure it’s the result you want.” He added that Congress still had a lot of steps to complete and that “any premature movement is going to set it back further.”

Gallego says White House has not answered ethics proposal 

Gallego said he and Republican Senator Thom Tillis submitted compromise ethics language to the White House before the congressional recess but had not received a point-by-point response. He said that sufficiently strong ethics restrictions were necessary to attract Democratic support and advance the bill. 

“We’ve been sending offers over and over again to the White House, and they’ve been coming back either blank, or they’ve come back even slightly further back, or we’ve heard nothing,” Gallego said. 

Cointelegraph reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response before publication. 

Related: CLARITY Act delay gives Asian financial hubs an opening: First Digital CEO

The remarks follow renewed pressure from the administration. On Wednesday, Trump urged Congress to pass a “fair version” of the CLARITY Act during a White House appearance with crypto executives. 

Senate leaders have delayed action until September. On Aug. 7, Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed to Cointelegraph that the chamber was “punting” the vote and said CLARITY would be queued up “first thing” after lawmakers returned from recess.

White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt previously said the administration would negotiate with Democrats until the September vote but “can’t afford to wait forever.”

Magazine: ‘Fabricated rumors’ about BitMart founder, Binance bStocks dominate: Asia Express

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.

Standard Chartered and HSBC have completed what they describe as the first live cross-border transaction using Swift’s blockchain-based ledger, marking an early interoperability milestone for banks experimenting with tokenized deposits. The test took place about a month after Swift said the ledger was ready for initial use.

According to the details of the transaction, payment messages were exchanged between the two banks via Swift’s ledger, while the resulting obligations were recorded on HSBC’s Tokenised Deposit Service and StanChart’s tokenized deposit infrastructure. Swift’s ledger then acted as an orchestration layer—matching and netting obligations between the banks before final settlement through existing payment systems.

Key takeaways

• HSBC and Standard Chartered report the first live cross-border trade on Swift’s blockchain-based ledger.
• Swift’s ledger is positioned as an orchestration and netting layer, with settlement still tied to existing payment infrastructure.
• The test builds on Swift’s July announcement that 17 banks would pilot live transactions using tokenized deposits.
• The approach targets 24/7 cross-border settlement while keeping established compliance, risk, and settlement controls in place.
• Interoperable tokenized deposits are increasingly being tested across jurisdictions, with broader industry trials also underway.

What happened in the first live transaction

Swift’s blockchain-based ledger is designed to connect tokenized deposits issued on separate bank infrastructure. In the live transaction between HSBC and Standard Chartered, the mechanics were centered on messaging, obligation recording, and settlement orchestration rather than a full replacement of the banks’ existing settlement rails.

Rather than moving funds end-to-end solely on-chain, the transaction used Swift’s ledger to handle the exchange of payment messages between the banks. The obligations that resulted from those messages were captured within each bank’s own tokenized deposit setup—HSBC’s Tokenised Deposit Service for HSBC and Standard Chartered’s tokenized deposit infrastructure for StanChart.

Swift’s ledger then netted and matched the obligations between the two counterparties, after which settlement proceeded through existing payment systems. That structure is significant for banks that want faster and more continuous execution without abandoning the operational, legal, and risk frameworks already embedded in traditional payment workflows.

How Swift’s ledger fits into the broader tokenized-deposit push

The live report follows Swift’s July announcement that its blockchain-based ledger was ready for initial use. Swift said it would support a pilot involving 17 banks spanning six continents, preparing to conduct live transactions using tokenized deposits.

The banks named as part of that pilot include Citi, BNP Paribas, BNY, Wells Fargo, UBS, MUFG, DBS, and ANZ, alongside HSBC and Standard Chartered. Swift has framed the ledger as a way to enable interoperability between tokenized deposits across different institutions, while still respecting the settlement, compliance, and risk controls that financial institutions require.

For investors and market participants watching the “tokenization” trend, the key signal is not only that banks are testing digital assets, but that they’re working toward connectivity between separate tokenized systems. Interoperability is often the hardest problem: tokenized value can exist inside a silo, but cross-border payment usefulness rises substantially when institutions can transact across siloed infrastructures.

Why orchestration and netting matter for adoption

Swift describes its ledger as an orchestration layer that matches and nets obligations before final settlement. That design choice can reduce the operational complexity of cross-border payments between different tokenized deposit environments—each bank can maintain its own infrastructure while relying on Swift’s ledger to coordinate the interaction.

The emphasis on netting also reflects a practical reality: cross-border payment systems must handle large numbers of transactions without turning every transfer into a fully independent settlement event. By pairing messaging with netting, banks can potentially reduce friction and execution overhead—while still settling obligations via established payment rails.

Swift’s positioning is also relevant to a wider debate in crypto-adjacent payments about how far blockchain should be used in the payment stack. This pilot suggests a hybrid direction: blockchain-based infrastructure for coordination and continuity, alongside conventional settlement processes where required.

Industry momentum beyond Swift’s pilot

The Swift-anchored cross-border transaction is occurring as other major institutions pursue tokenized deposit and “real-value” settlement trials.

HSBC previously indicated plans to expand its Tokenised Deposit Service to corporate clients in the US and UAE in the first half of 2026, building on deployments in Hong Kong, Singapore, the UK, and Luxembourg. The service was also launched in the US in April, with coverage for eligible corporate and institutional clients seeking 24/7 domestic and cross-border transfers using tokenized deposits.

Standard Chartered has participated in broader efforts to test tokenized bank money across institutions. In July, it was among 28 financial institutions and central banks involved in the Bank for International Settlements’ Project Agorá, which conducted real-value settlement trials using tokenized commercial bank deposits and central bank reserves across six currencies.

Meanwhile, the US payments landscape is also moving toward connectivity between legacy systems and tokenized rails. The Clearing House has reportedly discussed plans to launch a tokenized deposit network in the first half of 2027, connecting traditional payment networks with digital asset infrastructure for around-the-clock settlement.

Taken together, these efforts point to a broader pattern: rather than treating tokenized deposits as isolated experiments, major players are working toward networks and coordination layers that can make tokenized money function across boundaries—geographic, institutional, and regulatory.

Next, market participants will want to track how quickly the Swift ledger pilot expands beyond initial counterparties, and whether additional banks can complete similar end-to-end workflows with the same level of operational readiness—particularly around reliability, compliance processes, and how netting and orchestration behave as transaction volumes increase.

BitGo Korea has secured VASP registration from South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit, becoming the first local entity owned by an overseas crypto company to complete the process directly.

Yonhap News Agency reported on Aug. 20 that the Financial Intelligence Unit, an agency under South Korea’s Financial Services Commission, had accepted BitGo Korea’s virtual asset service provider registration two days earlier.

BitGo Korea plans institutional custody services

Established in 2024, BitGo Korea chose to meet the country’s regulatory requirements through its own entity rather than acquire a company that already held VASP registration, according to the Yonhap report.

The company plans to use the registration to establish cryptocurrency custody and transfer services in South Korea. BitGo said its local business will focus on financial institutions and corporate customers, although the company did not provide a launch date.

Details about the assets supported by the service, custody charges, and insurance coverage were also absent from the announcement. BitGo did not identify any customers or disclose how much it expects to hold in custody through the Korean entity.

BitGo CEO Mike Belshe described the registration as an important step in the company’s plan to establish regulated infrastructure in major markets.

“We will focus on connecting global virtual asset infrastructure with the Korean market,” Belshe said, according to a translation of his statement carried by Yonhap.

The reported first applies specifically to a Korean subsidiary of an overseas virtual asset company obtaining VASP registration directly. BitGo’s announcement does not establish that it is the first foreign-linked crypto business of any type to operate legally in the country.

South Korea treats VASP approval as a registration rather than a general financial services license. The approval lets BitGo Korea build its stated custody and transfer operations, but the announcement did not say that the company can operate a won-based retail cryptocurrency exchange.

Hana and SK Telecom hold stakes in BitGo Korea

BitGo’s entry has been supported by two large Korean companies. Hana Financial Group acquired a 25% interest in BitGo Korea in 2024, while SK Telecom purchased a 10% stake and joined the venture as a strategic partner.

In May, crypto.news reported Hana Bank’s planned 930 billion won, or roughly $670 million, investment in Dunamu, the operator of Upbit. The report also noted that Hana and SK Telecom had helped establish BitGo Korea as part of the bank’s activity in digital assets.

Hana Bank began working with BitGo on cryptocurrency custody services in 2023. Under the later ownership arrangement, Hana was expected to contribute its financial-sector experience, while SK Telecom would provide knowledge related to authentication, identity checks, and security.

Alongside its BitGo investment, Hana has pursued other crypto-related projects. A March 2026 report detailed cooperation between Hana Financial and Standard Chartered on tokenized deposits, stablecoins, custody, and payment infrastructure.

BitGo said in 2024 that its Korean partners would help develop an institutional market for digital assets. The latest announcement did not state whether Hana, SK Telecom, or their subsidiaries will become paying customers of the newly registered business.

BitGo follows regulated custody paths in Korea and the US

Founded in the United States in 2013, BitGo provides custody, wallets, trading, settlement, staking, and other digital-asset services through entities operating in several jurisdictions.

In Europe, BitGo holds authorization from Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority under the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework. Its other regulated operations include entities in Singapore, Dubai, Denmark, and Switzerland, according to the company’s licensing information.

For US institutions, BitGo’s Korean registration follows a separate federal banking process. A July 2026 report said BitGo had received full approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to convert its state-chartered trust company into a national trust bank.

A national trust bank may provide custody, fiduciary, and approved asset-servicing functions under federal supervision. It does not operate like a commercial bank that accepts ordinary insured deposits and issues conventional consumer loans.

BitGo states on its website that BitGo Bank & Trust, National Association, is regulated by the OCC. The company also warns that digital assets held in custody are not protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or Securities Investor Protection Corporation insurance.

The Korean approval therefore does not extend the protections or permissions attached to BitGo’s US-regulated entity. Services offered in South Korea will remain subject to local rules, customer eligibility requirements, and the authority of Korean regulators.

South Korea has tightened VASP registration checks

BitGo Korea received its approval shortly before stricter entry checks took effect on Aug. 20. The Financial Services Commission said the revised rules expand regulatory reviews to the chief executive or controlling shareholder of a VASP.

When a company is the largest shareholder, the FIU may also examine that company’s largest shareholder and representative. BitGo Korea’s shareholder structure includes Hana Financial and SK Telecom, although neither the FSC nor BitGo said whether the new tests applied to the application accepted on Aug. 18.

Under the updated framework, applicants must maintain a debt ratio of no more than 200% and must not have defaulted during the previous three years. A company may also be rejected if it was previously declared an insolvent financial institution or lost a registration or operating license for violating financial laws.

Executives must satisfy the qualifications established under South Korea’s rules for the governance of financial companies. The FSC said applicants also need suitable staff, cybersecurity systems, physical infrastructure, and internal controls covering anti-money-laundering duties and customer protection.

South Korea has previously acted against overseas platforms that served local customers without registration. In January, Google Play restrictions required crypto exchanges and wallet providers targeting South Korean users to show proof of an accepted VASP filing to remain available through the local app store.

Transfer controls will become stricter under another part of the revised framework. The FSC said South Korea will remove the existing 1 million won threshold for Travel Rule checks between registered domestic VASPs, requiring sender information to accompany transfers of every value.

Transfers involving foreign exchanges or personal wallet providers will be permitted under risk-based conditions. Six months after the revised rules are promulgated, registered providers must also report transfers of at least 10 million won to overseas VASPs or wallet services to the FIU, regardless of the assessed transaction risk.

Centrifuge has expanded its tokenized-fund liquidity options by integrating Symbiotic’s Liquid Lane into three of its funds, enabling eligible holders to exchange fund positions for USDC through an onchain request-for-quote (RFQ) process.

The integration applies to Janus Henderson’s JAAA (an AAA-rated collateralized loan obligation strategy), JTRSY (a short-duration US Treasury strategy), and New York Life Investment Management’s HYB (a US high-yield corporate bond strategy). Together, these tokenized funds represent about $1.6 billion in assets under management, according to the announcement.

Key takeaways

• Centrifuge is adding Symbiotic’s Liquid Lane as an additional USDC redemption route for three tokenized funds, spanning loans, Treasuries, and high-yield credit.
• Liquid Lane uses an RFQ marketplace where market makers can pull liquidity from vaults to fill redemption requests.
• The structure is designed to let investors receive USDC immediately, while the funds’ standard redemption process occurs separately.
• Symbiotic’s head of ecosystem, Felix Lutsch, framed Liquid Lane as an improvement in transaction capital structure and redemption flow—rather than a claim to being the first “instant redemption” solution.
• The move adds to Centrifuge’s existing liquidity arrangements, including routes already used for JTRSY and HYB.

How Liquid Lane changes Centrifuge redemptions

Symbiotic’s Liquid Lane is built around an onchain request-for-quote marketplace. In practice, eligible holders submit redemption requests that market makers can respond to via RFQs. Instead of market makers needing to rely solely on pre-positioned inventory, Liquid Lane allows participating liquidity providers to access liquidity stored in vaults to meet those redemptions.

Once a market maker acquires the fund tokens through the RFQ settlement, it can then obtain the underlying redemption through the issuer or route the position again through a separate RFQ transaction. Centrifuge’s stated objective for the integration is to provide USDC to investors immediately, while letting the funds complete their normal redemption process on their own schedule.

Funds onboarded: JAAA, JTRSY, and HYB

The Symbiotic route is being applied across three Centrifuge-issued tokenized funds.

Janus Henderson’s JAAA targets collateralized loan obligation exposure with an AAA rating. Its JTRSY strategy focuses on short-duration US Treasuries. New York Life Investment Management’s HYB offers exposure to US high-yield corporate bonds.

For investors, the practical significance is breadth: the Liquidity Lane route spans different credit profiles and duration characteristics. That matters in tokenized fund markets where demand for liquidity can vary by asset type, and where some participants treat tokenized funds as either yield products or as components in onchain collateral and financing workflows.

Not the first route—an emphasis on capital economics

Liquid Lane is not Centrifuge’s first liquidity pathway. Felix Lutsch, Symbiotic’s head of ecosystem, told Cointelegraph that the company is not trying to claim exclusivity as an early provider of instant redemption functionality.

“We’re not claiming to be first, and other liquidity routes exist. That’s healthy for the market,” Lutsch said.

Earlier in 2025, Centrifuge announced a partnership with Wintermute to provide 24/7 instant redemptions for JTRSY. HYB also launched in June with a separate liquidity arrangement aimed at near-instant redemptions.

Where Lutsch said Liquid Lane differs is in the underlying capital structure that supports redemption transactions, not simply the speed of settlement. He described a marketplace design that allows multiple market makers and curators to participate without forcing each market maker to pre-fund and carry inventory for particular assets. In Lutsch’s view, that approach targets a core market issue: low tokenized-asset trading volumes have historically reduced incentives for liquidity providers to commit capital.

“The bigger constraint has been flow,” Lutsch said, pointing to the challenge of building consistent redemption demand in tokenized markets.

Why aggregating redemption demand could matter

Lutsch argued that pooling redemption demand across issuers and asset classes can improve liquidity economics—particularly as tokenized funds increasingly show up as collateral and financing assets in onchain markets.

That framing connects today’s integration work to a broader shift in how tokenized fund products are being used. When tokenized funds move beyond standalone investment wrappers and start serving as building blocks for onchain lending, collateral management, and other structured finance use cases, liquidity tends to become less about one-off redemptions and more about dependable throughput under changing market conditions.

In that context, additional liquidity routes are not just incremental product features. They can reduce friction for holders who need to exit positions quickly and can help liquidity providers manage exposure more efficiently when they can participate through a shared marketplace rather than relying on dedicated inventory for each asset.

How big is the push within Centrifuge?

Janus Henderson has been a major contributor to Centrifuge’s growth. Cointelegraph previously reported that Janus Henderson’s JAAA and JTRSY products supported Centrifuge surpassing $1 billion in total value locked, according to institutional demand coverage from that earlier period.

More broadly, Token Terminal data cited in the source article indicated that by December 2025 Centrifuge had attracted about $1.3 billion in new inflows, driven primarily by Janus Henderson’s two funds. JAAA alone contributed about $1 billion in total value locked and was described as one of the largest tokenized funds in the market.

With Liquid Lane now added across JAAA, JTRSY, and HYB, the integration effectively targets three substantial strategies within Centrifuge’s ecosystem, rather than testing a liquidity route on smaller holdings.

What to watch next

As Centrifuge expands liquidity routes through Symbiotic and other counterparties, investors should watch whether USDC settlement-through-RFQ becomes consistently used as redemption volume grows, and whether market makers’ participation broadens beyond a small set of active liquidity providers in tokenized funds.

A U.S. federal court has resolved the CFTC’s cases against Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang by imposing five-year trading bans and registration bans of up to 10 years.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said on Aug. 19 that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had entered supplemental consent orders against Ellison, the former chief executive of Alameda Research, and Wang, who co-founded Alameda and FTX.

Under the orders, both former executives must continue assisting the regulator. Ellison cannot trade for five years and is barred from registering with the CFTC for 10 years, while Wang received a five-year trading ban and an eight-year registration ban.

The restrictions did not begin with the latest ruling. According to the regulator, each period runs from Dec. 23, 2022, when the court entered the initial consent orders against the pair.

Those earlier orders also permanently barred Ellison and Wang from violating the antifraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and related CFTC rules. Combined with the supplemental orders, they close the regulator’s enforcement actions against both former executives.

CFTC declines additional financial penalties

The CFTC is not seeking restitution, disgorgement, or civil monetary penalties from Ellison and Wang at present. In explaining its decision, the agency pointed to their assistance in its investigation, their cooperation in connected proceedings, and the financial consequences imposed through the parallel criminal case.

Both pleaded guilty to several federal charges, including conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, in December 2022. Their criminal cases also carried an $11.02 billion forfeiture order for which they were jointly and severally liable, according to the CFTC.

The agency treated their cooperation as a central factor when setting the civil sanctions.

“Ellison and Wang were senior executives who committed fraud at Alameda and FTX for which they were found liable,” CFTC Enforcement Director David I. Miller said. “Their sanctions, however, reflect their material assistance in the Commission’s FTX-related investigations.”

Miller said the resolution showed the value that the enforcement division placed on “robust cooperation.” Although the financial remedies differ from those originally requested, the trading and registration restrictions prevent both defendants from participating in CFTC-regulated markets or registering with the agency during the stated periods.

Ellison and Wang admitted liability in 2022

The cases began after FTX collapsed in November 2022, and the CFTC expanded its fraud lawsuit against founder Sam Bankman-Fried and his companies.

In its December 2022 amended complaint, the regulator accused Ellison and Wang of taking part in a scheme that caused more than $8 billion in FTX customer deposits to be lost. The CFTC charged Ellison with fraud and material misrepresentations involving digital asset commodities, while Wang faced a fraud count tied to their sale in interstate commerce.

Ellison was found liable on both fraud counts included in the amended complaint. Wang was found liable on the single count brought against him.

According to the CFTC’s 2022 allegations, Wang helped create code that gave Alameda an essentially unlimited credit line on FTX. Other exceptions allegedly let the trading firm execute orders faster and avoid the exchange’s automatic liquidation process, even when Alameda lacked enough money to support its positions.

The regulator claimed those features allowed Alameda to withdraw billions of dollars in customer assets without disclosing the special treatment to FTX users. FTX had publicly represented that customer funds were held in custody and separated from company assets, but the complaint alleged that Alameda routinely received and mixed those assets with its own funds.

After becoming Alameda’s sole chief executive, Ellison allegedly directed the firm to use billions of dollars from FTX for trading on other exchanges and investments in digital asset companies. The CFTC also accused her of making misleading public statements about the separation between FTX and Alameda.

Ellison and Wang did not contest their liability under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC Regulation 180.1. Their Dec. 23, 2022 consent orders formalized those findings while leaving the court to determine the remaining sanctions later.

Criminal sentences treated cooperation differently

The supplemental CFTC orders follow separate criminal sentences that also consider how extensively each defendant assisted U.S. prosecutors.

Ellison received a two-year prison sentence in September 2024 after serving as a key government witness at Bankman-Fried’s trial. She reported to federal prison in Connecticut that November.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan imposed prison time despite prosecutors detailing Ellison’s cooperation. At sentencing, the judge said her assistance did not remove the need to deter fraud, according to the November 2024 report.

Wang avoided an additional prison term. In November 2024, Kaplan sentenced him to time served and three years of supervised release after prosecutors described his help in tracing funds and explaining FTX’s code and internal financial systems.

The court found Wang’s cooperation especially useful because he had written parts of the exchange’s software and could explain the privileges given to Alameda. During Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial, Wang testified about the code that allowed the trading firm to access customer funds and operate without the restrictions applied to ordinary users.

As Wang’s sentencing report detailed, prosecutors said he was the first member of Bankman-Fried’s senior group to approach U.S. authorities in 2022. Ellison later became a central witness against Bankman-Fried, who received a 25-year prison sentence in March 2024.

FTX litigation has continued into 2026

Legal claims connected to FTX have remained active beyond the criminal cases against its former executives.

In May 2026, crypto.news reported that law firm Fenwick & West had agreed to pay $54 million to settle a class action brought by former FTX customers. The proposed settlement still required court approval when it was announced.

The customers accused Fenwick of helping establish corporate and legal structures that allowed FTX and Alameda to move and mix customer funds without adequate controls. According to filings cited in the report, the plaintiffs relied in part on testimony from Ellison, Wang, and former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh concerning improper loans, false statements, and the handling of customer money.

Singh reached his own supplemental settlement with the CFTC in April 2026. He agreed to pay $3.7 million in disgorgement and accepted a five-year trading ban and an eight-year registration ban, with the regulator also citing his cooperation with investigators.