Accepting cryptocurrency is only one part of handling a digital asset payment. What happens to the funds after they arrive can determine how much value a business ultimately keeps.

A payment may arrive in Bitcoin at the correct amount and confirm successfully on-chain, but its value can continue moving while the business waits to convert it. For companies processing payments regularly, repeated exposure between receipt and conversion can add up.

Trybit has built automatic conversion directly into its crypto payment infrastructure to shorten that window. Businesses can set preferred conversion rules for each currency, allowing incoming payments to be exchanged into a chosen stablecoin when the transaction confirms.

The platform combines that function with bulk payouts through API, scheduled auto-withdrawals, static wallets, White Label deployments and custom terms for businesses processing crypto and stablecoin transactions.

Trybit at a glance

• Supports Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT and other cryptocurrencies and stablecoins
• Automatically converts eligible incoming payments into a selected stablecoin
• Uses the exchange rate available when the transaction confirms on-chain
• Provides bulk payouts through API
• Supports scheduled auto-withdrawals and static wallets
• Offers White Label deployments and scalable custom terms
• Has operated for more than five years
• Recorded 99.9% payment gateway uptime over the past 12 months

Trybit targets the time between receiving and converting crypto

A successful crypto transaction does not lock in the value of the asset after it reaches the merchant.

Take a $1,000 Bitcoin payment as an example.

The customer sends $1,000 worth of BTC, the transaction confirms and the invoice is marked as paid. If the business leaves that Bitcoin untouched for several days and BTC falls 15% during that period, the balance would be worth $850 when it is eventually converted.

The payment itself worked correctly. The difference came from the price changing after the funds arrived.

Trybit’s market insights indicate that daily volatility of 2% to 5% remains a standard occurrence for major digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. Lower-liquidity tokens can experience considerably larger price swings.

For businesses processing a high volume of lower-value transactions, the effect may be spread across many individual payments instead of appearing as one large loss.

A 2% or 3% difference on one transaction may look relatively small. Repeated across thousands of monthly payments, the same type of movement can reduce the value eventually converted by the business.

The payment gap in numbers

Customer sends: $1,000 in BTC
↓
Payment confirms: $1,000
↓
BTC falls 15% before conversion
↓
Value at conversion: $850

Trybit describes delayed conversion as an operational issue because the resulting difference may not appear as a separate line item on a company’s income statement. Instead, the loss can simply be attributed to market conditions.

Automatic conversion is designed to address the period in which that exposure occurs.

Automatic conversion begins after the payment confirms

Trybit lets businesses decide in advance how incoming cryptocurrencies should be handled.

A merchant can set preferred conversion rules for each currency. Once a qualifying payment is confirmed on-chain, it is swapped into the selected stablecoin using the exchange rate available at that point.

The process removes the need to leave incoming crypto in a conversion queue until someone manually handles the balance.

How Trybit automatic conversion works

1. A customer sends a crypto payment

The business can accept Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT and other supported cryptocurrencies and stablecoins.

2. The transaction confirms on-chain

Trybit processes the incoming payment through its payment gateway.

3. The configured conversion takes place

Where the business has established a conversion rule, the incoming payment is exchanged into its chosen stablecoin.

4. The converted value remains in the selected asset

The business does not have to wait until a later manual conversion to move the payment out of the original cryptocurrency.

Trybit says the exchange takes place at the rate in effect when the transaction confirms, cutting the period of volatility exposure down to network confirmation time.

The resulting balance can therefore remain closer to the value the customer paid instead of continuing to move with the original cryptocurrency while waiting for a later conversion.

Businesses can accept crypto without keeping the original asset

Payment choice and the asset ultimately held by a business do not have to be the same.

A company can accept Bitcoin from a customer while configuring Trybit to convert that payment into its selected stablecoin following confirmation.

The same automated process means a business does not need to repeatedly make conversion decisions as payments arrive.

Without automatic conversion

Crypto payment arrives → Asset remains exposed to market movements → Business converts later

With Trybit automatic conversion

Crypto payment arrives → Transaction confirms → Configured conversion takes place

The distinction becomes particularly relevant when businesses process payments continuously. Trybit positions its infrastructure for high-volume enterprise payments instead of casual crypto acceptance.

Interest in stablecoins for business payments has been increasing at the same time.

A June 2025 EY-Parthenon survey of 350 corporate and financial-institution executives found that 13% of companies were already using stablecoins for payments and settlements.

Among respondents that were not yet using stablecoins, 54% planned to adopt them within the following six to 12 months.

For businesses accepting volatile cryptocurrencies, Trybit’s setup provides a way to use a stablecoin after the payment arrives without requiring the customer to make that conversion before paying.

Trybit covers more than the conversion stage

Automatic conversion is one part of Trybit’s payment infrastructure.

Businesses handling outgoing transactions can use bulk payouts through an API, allowing multiple payments to be processed through the platform.

Scheduled auto-withdrawals provide another automation option for managing funds, while static wallets are available within the payment system.

For companies that want to deploy the payment infrastructure within their own offering, Trybit provides White Label deployments.

The company lists scalable custom terms alongside those services for businesses with different payment requirements.

Trybit payment tools

Crypto and stablecoin processing: Accept supported assets including Bitcoin, Ethereum and USDT

Automatic conversion: Convert incoming payments into a selected stablecoin based on predefined rules

Bulk payouts: Process outgoing payments through API

Scheduled auto-withdrawals: Automate withdrawals through the platform

Static wallets: Use static wallet functionality within the payment infrastructure

White Label: Deploy Trybit’s payment infrastructure as a White Label service

Custom terms: Access scalable terms based on business requirements

Each function addresses a different part of processing and managing digital asset payments, while automatic conversion remains the feature designed specifically to reduce the time incoming volatile assets remain exposed to price changes.

Trybit has operated for more than five years

Trybit says it has been operating for more than five years and recorded 99.9% payment gateway uptime over the past 12 months.

Its gateway supports payments in popular cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, including Bitcoin, Ethereum and USDT.

The company positions the service around businesses operating globally, with its payment infrastructure designed to support crypto acceptance alongside conversion, withdrawals and payouts.

Trybit’s CEO said the value lost between payment and conversion represents money a business ultimately does not receive on its balance.

“Volatility exposure is not about theory. It’s real money a business won’t see on its balance if conversion isn’t handled at the moment of payment.”

The CEO said Trybit removes the conversion decision from the business after a payment arrives, allowing the received value to become a stable amount at the point of receipt instead of waiting until the company later decides to convert it.

Businesses interested in the service can create a Trybit account, learn more through the Trybit crypto processing page or join the company’s Telegram channel.

Trybit Team

Contact: trybit.com/support

For many crypto believers, retirement planning isn’t about giving up Bitcoin—it’s about deciding whether staking a meaningful portion of future spending power on a volatile asset is actually prudent. A growing debate is emerging at the intersection of personal finance and crypto’s place in mainstream portfolios, with retirement researchers and market participants increasingly focused on the same question: how much (if any) should belong in a long-term retirement allocation?

While some retirement industry professionals argue there is a “sweet spot” near minimal exposure—or even none at all—others say Bitcoin can be integrated more thoughtfully, including as a potential replacement for part of equity risk. The practical challenge is not only whether crypto can deliver returns, but whether investors can survive large drawdowns at the exact moment they need stability most.

Key takeaways

• Public sentiment remains cautious: a National Institute on Retirement Security survey found 77% of Americans view cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans as risky.
• Industry views diverge sharply, ranging from MIT finance professor Jonathan Parker’s “yes, zero” stance to portfolio designers who suggest small Bitcoin allocations for risk-tolerant investors.
• Financial planners often frame crypto as a small, controllable risk sleeve—commonly capped around 5%—rather than a core retirement holding.
• Retirement timelines change the math: volatility that can be absorbed during earning years may become difficult for those near retirement.
• Institutions appear to be gaining exposure through regulated vehicles and crypto-adjacent public equities, even when direct participation is limited.

Americans see retirement crypto as risky—so why is exposure growing?

Despite crypto’s increasing visibility in finance, trust is not universal. According to a survey by the National Institute on Retirement Security, 77% of Americans consider cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans risky. That skepticism exists even as regulators, asset managers, and major institutions have gradually expanded access to crypto-related products over recent years.

BlackRock has argued that a modest Bitcoin allocation—on the order of 1% to 2%—can be reasonable in a diversified portfolio for investors who can tolerate volatility, while Fidelity has suggested higher ranges (2% to 5%) may improve outcomes. The underlying premise in both cases is similar: the position is not meant to dominate retirement planning, but to introduce upside potential while constraining downside.

For investors, the key issue is that these proposals depend on behavior as much as math. A small allocation may be manageable in theory, but retirement is when emotions and cash-flow needs often become least forgiving.

“Yes, zero” versus a capped allocation approach

MIT finance professor Jonathan Parker, whose work spans portfolio choice and retirement finance, is notably blunt about where crypto fits. In the reporting, Parker argues the answer is “Yes, zero,” emphasizing that crypto is not an instrument that naturally serves the role many retirement portfolios are designed to fulfill.

The position contrasts with guidance from some financial planners who treat Bitcoin as an adjustable component within an otherwise conventional asset mix. Ryan Firth, founder of Mercer Street Personal Financial Services and a planner specializing in digital assets, describes Bitcoin not as a stand-alone retirement bet, but as something that could potentially replace a portion of stock exposure rather than simply adding another layer of risk.

Firth tells the magazine that Bitcoin may offer “higher return potential than stocks but with more volatility.” His rule of thumb is that crypto should not exceed 5% of an investor’s investable assets, with a conservative framing: invest only what you could realistically afford to lose.

That advice highlights the difference between “conviction” and “concentration.” Even if someone believes Bitcoin is important to the future of money, retirement planning still requires controlling how much of their lifestyle depends on a single, hard-to-predict market outcome.

Institutions look beyond Bitcoin as a core retirement asset

One reason this debate is moving from academic to practical is that institutional investors are increasingly finding ways to gain exposure. Public filings show pension funds and other large investors holding regulated spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Others seek exposure through publicly traded companies tied closely to the crypto ecosystem.

CalPERS, described as the largest public pension fund in the United States, has disclosed an investment in Strategy—identified in the reporting as a major corporate Bitcoin treasury holder—within an index-oriented public equity portfolio. CalSTRS, the largest educator-only pension fund, tells the magazine it has not made direct cryptocurrency investments, but it has invested in firms “some might consider crypto companies,” including Coinbase, a publicly traded company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform.

As presented in the article, the nuance is significant: institutional interest may not always be about making Bitcoin a central retirement asset. Instead, some investors may be positioning their portfolios to participate in crypto industry growth or to capture returns through regulated structures and publicly traded equities.

Why timing and withdrawals matter more than long-run belief

Bitcoin’s risk profile is not only about whether prices rise over time, but about whether investors can remain invested through severe drawdowns. The reporting draws a clear line between long investment horizons and the vulnerability created when retirement withdrawals begin.

Bill Bengen—credited for research behind the widely cited 4% retirement withdrawal rule—argues that capital preservation should be the primary priority for retirement portfolios. In the piece, Bengen recommends limiting volatile assets like Bitcoin to no more than 5% in order to “help prevent a disaster.”

Firth also emphasizes that the real question is not simply if Bitcoin recovers, but whether investors have the capacity to tolerate waiting. His concern, as quoted, centers on whether people will stay disciplined when prices inevitably fall, and what happens if the asset’s long-term outcome diverges from expectations.

That “behavioral resilience” point is often overlooked in purely theoretical allocation debates. Retirement planning introduces a new constraint: spending needs can force investors to sell at the worst possible moment, turning a temporary drawdown into permanent damage to future purchasing power.

What if the investment thesis is wrong?

Even among committed holders, a common stress test is unavoidable: what happens if the core thesis fails. The reporting highlights the concern that retirement savings could become too dependent on one idea being correct—whether that means Bitcoin declining under future risks or another technology displacing it.

Parker’s broader critique aligns with that stress test. He suggests investors in retirement should not treat crypto as cash-like peer-to-peer currency, and should not treat it like a substitute for holding cash either. In the article, Parker argues that currencies are for transacting rather than investing, and that investors should prefer assets tied to economic activity that pay interest, coupons, or dividends.

Importantly, Parker’s alternative is not a demand that investors avoid crypto-related exposure altogether. He proposes that those who want exposure to crypto industry success or failure should consider owning equity or debt of companies generating revenue from the sector, rather than holding Bitcoin directly.

Belief and bet don’t have to be the same thing

The underlying message across the different perspectives is that belief in crypto’s long-term role does not automatically translate into a justified retirement allocation. As Firth frames it, crypto does not have to be “all-or-nothing.” Investors may still support the broader thesis for technology or market structure without letting one volatile asset determine whether they can fund decades of spending.

What to watch next is how retirement-focused guidance continues to evolve as more regulated crypto vehicles become familiar to institutions and as lawmakers and regulators weigh in on how (and where) digital asset exposure can fit within retirement accounts—especially during the moments when withdrawals turn portfolio volatility into real-life risk.

Coinbase has expanded its Morpho-powered lending product to eligible Brazilian customers, offering market-based returns on USDC without a fixed lock-up period.

Coinbase brings USDC lending to Brazilian users

Coinbase said in a Sep. 9 announcement that its DeFi Earn product would become available to eligible customers in Brazil over the coming days.

Users can access the service through the Lending tab in the Coinbase app, where they choose how much USDC to allocate. Coinbase then transfers the stablecoins onchain to Morpho, a decentralized lending protocol that connects lenders with borrowers.

Deposited USDC enters a vault curated by Steakhouse Financial. According to Coinbase, the vault has undergone an audit, while Steakhouse manages how funds are allocated among available lending markets.

Borrowers supply crypto assets as collateral and pay interest to access the USDC provided by lenders. The interest they pay generates the returns distributed to depositors, creating a two-sided lending market without Coinbase setting a fixed rate.

Unlike a term deposit, the product does not require users to commit their funds for a set period. Coinbase said customers may withdraw their USDC and accrued rewards at any time, although access to funds in an onchain lending market can depend on available liquidity.

Returns will change with supply and demand on Morpho rather than remaining at a guaranteed level. When demand for USDC loans rises relative to the available supply, the lending rate may increase; additional deposits or lower borrowing activity can reduce it.

Coinbase One members may receive an added rate increase where the benefit is available. The company did not state the rate Brazilian customers would receive at launch or whether the boost would apply to every eligible Coinbase One account in the country.

Morpho routes deposits through an audited vault

The Brazil rollout extends a lending model that Coinbase first introduced in other markets in Sep. 2025. As crypto.news previously reported, the original product routed USDC into Morpho vaults on Base, Coinbase’s Ethereum layer-2 network.

Under the setup described at the time, Coinbase created a smart contract wallet for a participating user and directed the deposited USDC into vaults curated by Steakhouse. Customers gained access through the exchange’s app, while the lending transactions took place through Morpho’s onchain infrastructure.

Rates reached as high as 10.8% annual percentage yield when the service launched, but the figure was variable and did not represent a fixed return. Coinbase now says the product has accumulated nearly $500 million in total supply and has recently offered rates of up to 7.4% APY.

The current return may therefore differ from both figures as borrowers enter or leave Morpho markets. Coinbase’s regular USDC Rewards program remains separate from the onchain lending product, meaning the two services use different methods to produce payments for customers.

Coinbase also expanded its in-app lending menu in June by adding an Ethena-powered USDC vault. Morpho supplies the lending infrastructure for that product, while Steakhouse also oversees its vault allocations.

The June product uses a different collateral profile from Coinbase’s Prime USDC vault. Its high-yield option includes markets linked to Ethena assets, while the Prime vault has focused on collateral such as cbBTC, cbETH and wrapped staked Ether.

Different collateral structures can expose lenders to different liquidity and smart contract conditions. Coinbase has not said that the Brazilian launch includes the Ethena-linked option, and its Sep. 9 announcement describes access to its existing Morpho-powered DeFi Earn service.

Coinbase separates lending from standard USDC rewards

Coinbase presents the Brazil expansion as another use for USDC balances alongside staking and its regular stablecoin rewards program. Regional Managing Director for the Americas Fabio Plein said the product was part of the exchange’s effort to “make users’ assets work harder for them.”

Plein also linked the launch to Coinbase’s Everything Exchange strategy, under which the company has been adding financial products to a single platform. His statement identified staking and USDC Rewards as other services customers can use to earn from supported holdings.

The lending option carries mechanics that differ from simply holding USDC in an exchange account. Deposits move into an onchain vault, and the available return comes from borrowers rather than a rate set in advance by Coinbase.

Access through the main app removes the need for customers to connect a separate wallet to Morpho or manually select lending markets. Onchain execution, however, means the funds still interact with smart contracts and lending pools even though Coinbase handles the user-facing process.

For US customers, Coinbase introduced the same general model with access in most states but excluded New York when the product first launched in 2025. The Brazil rollout does not change US eligibility or the terms available to American users, though it expands the geographic reach of a product first tested in the US market.

Brazil adds crypto oversight as stablecoin use grows

Coinbase is adding the product as Brazilian authorities place more controls on crypto businesses. In June, the country’s central bank added independent audit requirements to the authorization and license-renewal process for virtual asset service providers.

Required reviews cover anti-money laundering measures, customer asset segregation, internal risk controls and employee compliance programs. Auditors must also be registered with Brazil’s securities regulator, the Comissão de Valores Mobiliários.

Brazil established its first virtual asset framework in 2022 before assigning primary oversight of crypto service providers to the central bank in 2023. Existing firms were later given until October 2026 to meet a framework covering licensing, custody, governance and stablecoin supervision.

A Chainalysis estimate cited in the June report put Brazil’s crypto transaction volume at about $318 billion across 2024 and 2025. Stablecoins account for much of that activity, with central bank Governor Gabriel Galípolo saying dollar-linked tokens represented about 90% of the country’s reported crypto flows.

Recent commercial activity has also extended beyond trading. An August report on Brazilian stablecoin payments found that providers were developing services for financial institutions, cross-border commerce platforms and digital asset companies as regulators increased scrutiny of international transfers.

Brazil’s central bank has restricted the use of virtual assets within supervised electronic foreign-exchange channels under Resolution BCB No. 561. The rule does not prohibit private crypto trading or stablecoin transfers through exchanges and wallets, but regulated eFX providers must use foreign-exchange transactions or non-resident real accounts when settling with overseas counterparties.

U.S. Bank says it has successfully completed a live cross-border payments pilot using its proprietary USBDC stablecoin issued on the public Stellar network. The test involved transfers between U.S. Bank entities in North America and Europe, while also exercising key stablecoin controls such as minting, redemption, freezing, and clawback.

The bank described the pilot as a validation of its internally developed Digital Asset Platform, which is designed to connect tokenized assets and stablecoin operations with existing banking risk, compliance, and operational systems. U.S. Bank said Wednesday that it is now evaluating additional use cases, including cross-border treasury operations, liquidity management, and moving collateral onchain.

Key takeaways

• U.S. Bank completed a live cross-border payment test with USBDC on Stellar, transferring value between entities in North America and Europe.
• The pilot included not just transfers, but also operational stablecoin capabilities like minting, redemption, freezing, and clawback.
• U.S. Bank framed the exercise as proof of its Digital Asset Platform’s ability to integrate stablecoin workflows with traditional bank controls.
• The bank is exploring next-step applications such as onchain collateral movement and cross-border treasury and liquidity management.

USBDC pilot targets real payment and stablecoin controls

According to U.S. Bank, USBDC was issued and transferred on the public Stellar blockchain during the pilot. Unlike smaller demonstrations that focus primarily on technical connectivity, this test centered on a banking-grade flow: moving funds between separate U.S. Bank entities across regions, with the stablecoin acting as the settlement mechanism.

Importantly, U.S. Bank said the trial also validated the stablecoin’s administrative and risk features—specifically minting and redemption, as well as the ability to freeze and claw back funds. For banks, those controls are not optional “nice-to-haves”; they are central to compliance and operational governance when tokenized value is used outside of internal ledgers.

U.S. Bank linked the results to its Digital Asset Platform, a system the bank has been building to bridge tokenized assets and traditional banking infrastructure. The bank’s emphasis on integration with risk, compliance, and day-to-day operations suggests the institution is trying to move beyond proof-of-concept toward something that can fit within existing regulatory and internal control frameworks.

Digital Asset Platform becomes a bridge between banking and token rails

U.S. Bank said the transaction helped confirm that its Digital Asset Platform can connect the stablecoin lifecycle to established banking workflows. In practical terms, that means the institution is working to ensure that token issuance and transfer activity can be managed with the same operational disciplines used for conventional banking systems.

The bank is also exploring broader applications for the platform. U.S. Bank specifically pointed to cross-border treasury operations and liquidity management, along with moving collateral onchain—areas where the operational overhead of settlement and the speed of fund movement can materially affect how financial institutions manage capital and risk.

The bank’s framing matters for investors and market participants because it highlights a recurring theme in institutional stablecoin adoption: the technology itself is only part of the story. The ability to integrate with compliance, governance, and operational monitoring often determines whether a pilot can progress into a repeatable product.

U.S. Bank expands on earlier Stellar work

This cross-border pilot builds on U.S. Bank’s earlier digital asset efforts. The bank said it launched a dedicated Digital Assets and Money Movement organization in October 2025 focused on stablecoin issuance, crypto custody, asset tokenization, and digital money movement. That internal structure indicates the project has been treated as a longer-term initiative rather than a short-lived experimental desk.

U.S. Bank also previously indicated that it has been testing custom stablecoin issuance on Stellar since at least November 2025. In that earlier phase, the bank said it was working alongside PwC and the Stellar Development Foundation. Taken together, the timeline suggests the institution has moved from stablecoin issuance testing on a blockchain to a broader operational exercise that includes cross-border transfers and full stablecoin administrative functions.

Readers watching the institutional stablecoin space should note what appears to be the bank’s progression: first establishing the issuance capability and ecosystem partnerships, then refining operational mechanics, and finally running a live cross-border settlement scenario designed to stress the operational and governance layer.

Broader banking stablecoin momentum continues

U.S. Bank’s announcement lands as the wider banking sector continues to accelerate stablecoin projects, even as parts of the industry have pushed back on how stablecoins should be allowed to behave in markets.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that American banks have raised objections to proposals that would let stablecoin issuers and crypto platforms offer yield or rewards. Even so, major lenders and financial institutions are still moving ahead with their own token plans, often positioning them around payments, settlement, and institutional workflows rather than consumer yield incentives.

Cointelegraph also reported that on Sept. 1, 21 large financial institutions—including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and UBS—announced plans to form a company to issue stablecoins. The group’s plan, as described in that reporting, is to launch a U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027 before expanding to other G7 currencies, with a target spanning wholesale, institutional, and retail use cases. The stated focus includes cross-border payments and digital asset settlement.

Separately, Fidelity has already entered the stablecoin market with its Fidelity Digital Dollar (FIDD), issued through Fidelity Digital Assets and available to retail and institutional investors. According to DefiLlama data referenced by the original coverage, FIDD had about $50 million in circulation at the time of writing, with DefiLlama providing ongoing stablecoin supply tracking: DefiLlama—Fidelity Digital Dollar.

For market participants, these parallel efforts underscore that the industry is not waiting for a single “breakthrough” policy moment. Instead, large banks appear to be pursuing stablecoin infrastructure that can support cross-border and settlement use cases while they work through regulatory and market-structure questions.

Next, investors and builders should watch whether pilots like this translate into broader deployments with measurable adoption—such as increased settlement frequency, expanded corridor coverage, or more formal linkage to treasury and collateral workflows—and how institutions manage stablecoin governance features under real-world regulatory scrutiny.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center has asked a federal court to dismiss CME Group’s lawsuit against the CFTC, arguing that the derivatives exchange lacks standing and cannot rely on the Commodity Exchange Act provisions cited in its complaint.

Hyperliquid policy group disputes CME’s standing

The Hyperliquid Policy Center said in a Tuesday X announcement that it had submitted an amicus brief supporting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in its legal fight with CME. An amicus filing allows a person or group outside a case to offer arguments that may help the court consider the dispute.

HPC, an advocacy group with ties to the Hyperliquid Foundation, based its request on two alleged defects in CME’s case. Its first argument concerns whether CME has suffered the type of injury required to bring the lawsuit in federal court.

CME has relied on a legal principle known as competitor standing. Under that doctrine, a business may establish an injury when government action increases competition in a defined market and creates a predictable economic disadvantage for the company bringing the case.

According to HPC, the CFTC’s decision does not meet that standard because it allows every registered U.S. futures exchange, including CME, to seek approval for comparable perpetual products.

“The CFTC order it challenges does nothing of the kind,” the group said while rejecting CME’s competitor-standing argument.

Rather than placing CME under different rules from its rivals, the agency’s policy provides registered exchanges with a route to list perpetual futures if their products comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. HPC therefore contends that CME cannot treat its decision not to use the same route as an injury caused by the regulator.

A recent dismissal request from the CFTC made a similar argument. The regulator told the court on Sep. 2 that CME could seek permission to list comparable contracts and described any disadvantage created by its refusal to do so as “self-inflicted.”

The CFTC also cited CME’s trading data, noting that its Bitcoin and Ether futures volumes in June and August exceeded the levels recorded in May, when Kalshi’s contract received approval. According to the agency, the figures weaken CME’s claim that the decision produced a concrete competitive loss.

CME’s interests may fall outside CEA protections

HPC’s second objection focuses on the “zone of interests” test, which examines whether a plaintiff’s concerns relate to the purposes of the law it has invoked.

In its brief, the group argued that “CME is an unsuitable challenger because its interests fall outside the zone of interests of the CEA provisions it invokes.”

CME’s lawsuit relies on sections of the Commodity Exchange Act that govern how derivatives products are classified and approved. HPC maintains that the exchange is using those provisions to protect its commercial position rather than an interest Congress intended the law to cover.

The CFTC raised the same issue in its motion, arguing that the relevant parts of the Act do not protect an established exchange from lawful competition. A judge could dismiss the case on standing or zone-of-interests grounds without deciding the main question of whether perpetual contracts qualify as futures or swaps.

HPC also accused CME of using the lawsuit to restrict product development in U.S. derivatives markets. Since the CFTC’s decision applies to registered futures exchanges, the group said CME remains free to list a similar instrument but has chosen to challenge another venue’s approval.

“At least for now, CME has decided not to. But instead of leaving other futures exchanges to make their own commercial decisions, CME has asked a court to take the decision out of their hands,” HPC said. “We filed this brief because CME’s anticompetitive effort must fail.”

CME lawsuit centers on futures versus swaps

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 18, CME’s complaint challenges the CFTC’s May 29 approval of Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract and an agency policy statement addressing perpetual futures.

Perpetual contracts track an underlying asset without carrying a fixed expiration date. Funding payments between long and short traders help keep their prices aligned with the referenced market, allowing positions to remain open without traders having to move into a later-dated contract.

CME argues that the lack of a fixed expiry means the products are swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act rather than conventional futures. According to its complaint, the CFTC departed from its previous treatment of similar instruments and created a new regulatory approach without completing a formal rulemaking process.

The exchange has asked the court to vacate Kalshi’s approval and the related policy statement. Its complaint also alleges that the regulator acted arbitrarily and bypassed requirements established by Congress.

As earlier legal coverage from crypto.news explained, the classification determines which trading, registration, and oversight requirements apply. Treating the contracts as futures gives designated contract markets a more direct route to list them, while a swap classification would place the products under a different part of the federal derivatives framework.

The CFTC maintains that the Commodity Exchange Act does not require a futures contract to have a fixed expiration date. It reviewed Kalshi’s application under Regulation 40.3, which permits a designated contract market to request formal approval for a new product.

After assessing BTCPERP, the regulator found that the contract complied with the act and its rules. The agency also said the approval did not mean every perpetual design would qualify, as proposed contracts could still require individual review based on the underlying asset and product terms.

Kalshi was not named as a defendant in CME’s lawsuit. Coinbase, which received related regulatory relief for certain perpetual products, was also not named.

U.S. perpetual futures market continues to expand

For American traders, the court case could affect which regulated platforms can offer perpetual contracts and which legal framework applies to the products. Perpetuals had long been concentrated on offshore crypto exchanges, where access and leverage terms often differ from those permitted at CFTC-regulated venues.

Kalshi has continued adding contracts while the case remains pending. In June, the exchange filed for HYPE perps after rolling out Bitcoin and Ethereum perpetual futures for U.S. customers. The submission placed Hyperliquid’s native token among several crypto assets targeted for regulated derivatives products.

Hyperliquid itself operates an offshore decentralized perpetual exchange and restricts direct access from the United States. A separate route into the U.S. market could come through regulated infrastructure rather than opening the existing platform to American users.

In August, Hyperliquid Labs and Kraken parent Payward entered advanced discussions about offering selected Hyperliquid-linked contracts through Bitnomial, a CFTC-regulated derivatives exchange owned by Payward. Under the reported structure, eligible U.S. traders would access selected products through Bitnomial instead of connecting directly to Hyperliquid.

Payward has presented the proposed arrangement to the CFTC, according to Bloomberg, but the parties have not announced regulatory clearance, a launch date, or the contracts that could be included.

Meanwhile, the CFTC’s dismissal motion has moved the CME case into its next procedural stage. CME must submit its response by Oct. 2, after which the regulator may file a reply, and the court will decide whether to dismiss the action or proceed to CME’s claims over the classification and approval process.

BitMine Immersion Technologies acquired 28,086 ETH for around $70.1 million last week. The purchase takes the Ethereum Treasury company’s total holdings to 5.93 million ETH, 4.9% of the token’s circulating supply.

Chairman Tom Lee is bullish on ETH, citing positive crypto legislation, tokenization, and blockchain-based AI as positive market developments.

BitMine Announces ETH Purchase

According to a treasury update, BitMine held 5,929,198 ETH as of September 7, following its latest purchase. The purchase was completed at $2,495 per token, with the company’s total holdings valued at around $14.79 billion. BitMine began purchasing ETH on June 30, 2025, with Lee stating the company has added ETH every week since.

BitMine’s previous purchase saw the company acquire 53,501 ETH, taking its total holdings to 5,901,112 ETH as of August 30. Other weekly purchases include 9,926 ETH in the week ending August 16, and 32,447 in the week after.

BitMine also disclosed it was close to reaching its target of owning 5% of Ethereum’s total supply. The company needs to hold approximately 6.1 million ETH to meet its target, a figure it calls the “Alchemy of 5%.” The company currently is 170,802 ETH short of its target, although this figure can change as Ethereum’s total supply fluctuates.

BitMine also disclosed it held 211 BTC, a $180 million stake in Beast Industries, a $91 million investment in Eightco Holdings, and $593 million in cash and marketable securities. The company valued its combined crypto, cash, securities, and strategic investments at $15.7 billion.

Staked ETH Revenue

BitMine also disclosed it had staked 5,067,309 ETH through the Made in America Validator Network and other external staking partners. The company’s staked position is worth around $12.6 billion at its reference price of $2,495 and accounts for 85% of its holdings. The company has estimated its staked ETH could bring in $330 million in annualized staking revenue, based on a seven-day annualized yield of 2.61%. If BitMine stakes its entire ETH holdings, it could generate $386 million in revenue. However, these figures are projections, not fixed revenue.

Staking is an important revenue generator for BitMine. A treasury report revealed the company generated $45.7 million through staking and validation in three months ending May 31, which is 98% of its quarterly revenue of $46.5 million. Staking also supports BitMine’s preferred stock structure. The company’s Series A Perpetual Preferred Stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange. Lee has also said the company’s staking income could be used to fund preferred share dividend payments.

AI and Tokenization Could Support Ethereum

Lee has maintained a bullish outlook on ETH and other prominent cryptocurrencies, including BTC. Lee also stated that ETH outperformed the S&P 500 during the third quarter, making it the best-performing macro asset. He identified ETH, BTC, and SOL as the market’s strongest performers since June 30, arguing that institutional investors may want to increase their exposure to these assets.

“We believe there are multiple positive catalysts as we head into the final months of 2026.”

Lee named the upcoming vote on the CLARITY Act, tokenization, renewed crypto purchases, and the growing use of blockchains by AI agents. Lee believes tokenization and AI could benefit Ethereum more compared to Bitcoin. The BitMine chairman has previously linked Ethereum demand to blockchain and AI, and predicted that ETH will outperform BTC during the ongoing market cycle, witnessing growth similar to the 2017-2018 cycle, when ICOs supported price action, and 2020-2021, when NFTs drove network activity.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Compound Foundation has launched a USDC lending market with loan-to-value ratios of up to 87% as part of its $52 million plan to attract institutional capital.

Compound Foundation said in a Sept. 9 announcement that its Institutional Market runs on Compound v3 and separates selected collateral into a lending pool designed around specific liquidity and risk conditions.

Borrowers can use Ether (ETH), wrapped staked Ether, Wrapped Bitcoin, or Coinbase Wrapped BTC to access USDC. The market gives ETH an 87% loan-to-value ratio, while wstETH carries an 85% ratio. WBTC and cbBTC each have an 81% ratio.

Each collateral asset has a $10 million borrowing cap. Liquidation factors range from 86% for WBTC and cbBTC to 93% for ETH, while penalties begin at 5% for ETH and rise to 10% for both Bitcoin-backed assets.

Compound promoted the product as an institutional-only market in its announcement. However, its official market page states that anyone can borrow, while approval applies to suppliers seeking additional incentives.

Compound market pairs higher LTVs with a narrow collateral list

By limiting the market to four liquid collateral assets, Compound said it can offer terms based on their individual risk and liquidity profiles instead of applying one set of conditions across a large group of tokens.

Institutions often manage larger positions and follow internal risk controls that differ from those of retail users, according to the foundation. Compound said the new structure provides increased borrowing capacity, defined collateral parameters, and direct operational support.

A dedicated contact will assist participating institutions with onboarding, market updates, and other operational matters. Compound also said USDC suppliers will receive the standard market yield, while approved lenders can qualify for extra incentives.

The rewards program will distribute as much as 200,000 USDC on a pro-rata basis over three months. Applicants must supply at least 100,000 USDC, and only the first $20 million in eligible deposits will count toward the program.

Compound said the market was oversubscribed when it opened, naming DeFi Saver, K3, KPK and Yearn among the participants. The foundation did not provide the amount committed or explain how much demand exceeded the available capacity.

“With today’s Institutional Market launch, we are taking the first step toward building infrastructure to meet institutional client demands, including better capital efficiency, clearly defined risk, and a much higher standard of service,” Compound Foundation Executive Director Aaron Schnarch said.

According to Schnarch, early demand encouraged the foundation, which plans to release more capabilities over the coming months.

KPK co-founder and CEO Marcelo Ruiz de Olano said direct access to a team familiar with institutional requirements made the market attractive to his company.

“Compound is combining the capital efficiency of onchain markets with the level of service institutional participants expect,” Ruiz de Olano said.

Institutional market follows Compound’s $52 million program

Three weeks before the product launch, crypto.news reported on Compound’s new management team and its DAO-approved, two-year development program.

COMP holders approved $28 million for operations and another $24 million for growth and incentives. The package represents the largest development allocation in the protocol’s history, according to the foundation.

Only $14 million was moved to the foundation’s multisignature wallet at the start of the program. The remaining $38 million stayed in reserve, with future releases linked to delivery targets such as assembling an engineering team and producing a Compound v3 integration kit.

Along with Schnarch, the management group includes Chief Operating Officer Christopher Donovan and Chief Product Officer Steven Liu. Team members brought experience from Coinbase Custody, Anchorage Digital, Near Foundation, Maple Finance, HSBC, and Broadridge Financial.

The program covers institutional lending, real-world assets, and tools that allow financial companies to connect with Compound’s infrastructure. Improving capital efficiency also forms part of the plan, as does building credit products around traditional finance requirements.

Founded in 2018, Compound helped establish blockchain-based borrowing and lending through permissionless markets governed by COMP holders and delegates. The foundation says the protocol has processed about $480 billion in cumulative deposits and borrowing volume, although the figure does not represent current assets held on the platform.

Data cited by The Defiant placed Compound’s total value locked near $1.53 billion around the launch, with approximately $638 million borrowed. Ethereum accounted for about $1.42 billion, or 93%, of the protocol’s locked assets.

US financial firms are also expanding crypto-backed credit

For US institutions, Compound’s use of USDC and Bitcoin or Ether collateral places the product alongside several recent crypto-backed lending programs, although the legal structures and access models differ.

In August, JPMorgan’s collateral program was reported to allow institutional clients to pledge Bitcoin and Ether for US dollar loans through its Kinexys digital asset platform. Fidelity Digital Assets and Coinbase Custody were named among the custodians holding the pledged assets.

Kraken and Maple also introduced a USDC-funded lending facility in June. Their structure uses a bankruptcy-remote special purpose vehicle to fund overcollateralized loans backed by Bitcoin and Ether, with Maple providing senior financing and Kraken servicing the loans.

Retail access to onchain credit has expanded through centralized platforms as well. Coinbase added an Ethena-linked USDC vault in June, using Morpho markets and allocations managed by Steakhouse Financial.

Unlike bank and special-purpose-vehicle lending arrangements, Compound’s new market operates through its v3 smart-contract infrastructure. The foundation described Compound v3 as having completed four years of production use without an exploit, a performance claim made by Compound rather than an independent auditor.

Compound delegate questions who controls the market

While the product was open, Compound delegate ugurmersin submitted a governance proposal asking for the DAO to receive ultimate authority over the Institutional Market.

The delegate said Compound governance did not appear to have approved the market’s current control structure. According to the proposal, the Treasury Management Committee administers the product, while a separate multisignature wallet holds authority over its collateral settings and other parameters.

Ugurmersin also said the committee’s existing DAO mandate covers treasury management rather than the operation of a lending market. The delegate could not identify a mechanism allowing COMP holders to withdraw the administrators’ permissions under the present setup.

Under the proposed changes, the foundation and committee could continue handling daily market operations. Administrators would have 10 business days to publish a full map of their permissions and 30 days to transfer final authority to Compound governance.

The Compound Foundation had not posted a public response to the governance proposal at the time of publication.

Crypto industry trade groups are asking a judge to halt Illinois’ upcoming 0.2% tax on cryptocurrency transactions, arguing the measure is unconstitutional and would force companies to incur substantial compliance costs before the rule even begins.

According to the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and the Blockchain Association (BA), they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, seeking to block enforcement ahead of the tax’s planned start in January 2027. The request comes after the groups previously sued to challenge the law itself.

Key takeaways

• CCI and BA have moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Illinois’ 0.2% tax on crypto transaction volume from taking effect in January 2027.
• The groups argue the tax would trigger irreparable harm, including major spending on systems and resources while key details remain unclear.
• Illinois enacted the digital asset tax in June as part of the state’s FY 2027 budget, described as a “privilege tax.”
• The challenge is part of a broader pattern of Illinois regulation targeting crypto-related activity, including prediction markets.

Trade groups seek to pause Illinois’ crypto transaction tax

CCI and BA said in a Wednesday filing that they are seeking immediate court intervention to prevent Illinois from enforcing its 0.2% levy on cryptocurrency transactions before it becomes effective in January 2027. The motion asks the court to block enforcement while the underlying legal dispute continues.

Ji Hun Kim, CEO of CCI, said the clock is forcing companies to act now without sufficient clarity. In his statement, he argued firms are being pressured to build systems for a tax he says violates constitutional rights, under the threat of criminal penalties, and that this diverts employees and other resources from other priorities.

The groups’ central contention in the injunction request is that the compliance burden and related operational disruption amount to “irreparable harm”—a standard courts often require before issuing emergency relief.

Illinois’ tax was enacted as a “privilege tax” in June

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the digital asset tax into law in June, placing it in the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget. As described by related reporting, the measure is structured as a “privilege tax” and taxes crypto users based on transaction volume rather than income.

The timing is at the center of the legal and practical dispute: the tax is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027. CCI and BA argue that the state’s early enforcement timeline compels immediate spending even though the law is still contested in court.

Illinois’ approach is also notable for being among the first in the U.S. to single out cryptocurrency transactions for a transaction-based levy rather than treating them through more general tax frameworks.

Legal challenge argues constitutional and statutory violations

The motion for a preliminary injunction follows a lawsuit filed earlier by CCI and BA to challenge Illinois’ digital asset tax. In the complaint and accompanying arguments described in earlier coverage, the groups contend the law violates multiple legal protections, including the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, federal and state due process laws, and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act. (One component of the challenge is reflected in the complaint document published by the groups, linked in earlier reporting.)

Another trade group, the Digital Chamber, also filed a similar lawsuit days earlier. Together, the parallel suits suggest the dispute is not limited to a single industry representative, but rather a broader coalition concerned about how the tax is designed and implemented.

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, framed the issue as a wider regulatory risk. He said waiting costs the state little but moving forward could prompt other jurisdictions to adopt similar tactics, given the precedent that Illinois could set.

Illinois also targets prediction markets alongside crypto

While the crypto transaction tax is one of the most immediate issues facing digital asset firms in Illinois, it is not the only area where the state has moved to restrict or regulate activity tied to the broader crypto ecosystem.

Separately, Illinois has also pursued rules affecting prediction markets. Kalshi has filed a lawsuit against Illinois officials over a law that took effect July 1 and “expressly bans sports event contracts,” according to earlier reporting. Kalshi’s complaint argues the state action conflicts with federal law and requires licensing steps that it says it cannot comply with under federal constraints.

In addition, Pritzker signed an executive order in April that banned state employees from betting on platforms associated with prediction markets. The executive action was described as a measure intended to reduce insider trading risk amid the growth of online prediction markets and event-based gambling contracts.

Taken together, these moves illustrate how Illinois’ regulatory posture is extending beyond simple taxation and into conduct restrictions around crypto-adjacent markets.

What to watch next in the court fight

The immediate question for investors and operators is whether the court grants emergency relief—keeping the 0.2% tax from starting in January 2027—while the constitutional challenge proceeds. For firms doing business in Illinois, the outcome may determine whether they must begin large-scale compliance work on a short runway or can pause until the legal issues are resolved.