The Hyperliquid Policy Center and Douro Labs submitted a joint comment letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 17 supporting the proposed repeal of Regulation NMS Rule 611.

Rule 611, commonly called the trade through rule, generally prevents trading centers from executing orders at prices worse than protected quotations displayed elsewhere. The framework uses consolidated market data to establish the National Best Bid and Offer, or NBBO.

HPC and Douro argued in their 22 page letter that this quotation system does not map cleanly onto automated market makers, onchain order books and markets operating continuously outside traditional exchange hours.

Douro Labs is a core contributor to Pyth Network. HPC is an independent advocacy organization focused on creating a regulated path for U.S. users to access onchain markets, including markets available through Hyperliquid.

SEC Rule 611 repeal would change order protection

The SEC proposed rescinding Rule 611 and Rule 610(e) on June 11. Rule 610(e) restricts locked and crossed quotations, where bids equal or exceed available offers.

The agency’s proposal would also remove related definitions from Rule 600 and make corresponding changes elsewhere in Regulation NMS. The SEC has not adopted the proposal, meaning the existing rules remain in force.

Rule 611 was adopted as part of Regulation NMS in 2005. It requires trading centers to establish procedures designed to prevent executions at prices inferior to protected quotations available through other connected venues.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said in June that the proposal was intended to simplify market structure and reduce costs. He also said the agency would take a “careful, deliberative approach” while reviewing public feedback.

HPC and Douro supported the repeal “without qualification.” They argued that the current framework assumes executable interest appears as firm quotations collected by securities information processors.

Automated market makers work differently. They calculate an execution price from a liquidity pool when an order is placed. Some onchain central limit order books display bids and offers, but those prices are not currently incorporated into the consolidated feeds used to calculate the NBBO.

Onchain markets require updated best execution guidance

Repealing Rule 611 would not remove brokers’ duty to seek favorable execution terms for customers. HPC and Douro said that obligation should remain the central investor protection standard.

Their letter asked the SEC to coordinate with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority on principles based guidance for onchain execution. The groups said existing guidance does not fully address network fees, atomic settlement, transaction ordering risks or markets operating when the NBBO is unavailable.

An onchain venue may also calculate prices based on the size of an order and the liquidity available when it executes. As a result, one displayed reference price may not capture the final cost that a customer receives.

The groups proposed evaluating the effective execution price after accounting for protocol charges, network fees and market movement caused by the order. Settlement speed and reduced counterparty settlement risk could also form part of that assessment, according to the letter.

HPC and Douro further asked regulators to recognize qualifying independent reference prices when an NBBO does not exist or does not reflect onchain conditions. They said such benchmarks should use transparent methodologies and resist manipulation.

The filing cited Pyth as one possible model. Pyth receives pricing information from exchanges and trading firms involved in price formation, then publishes aggregated data onchain. The proposal did not request that the SEC endorse Pyth as the mandatory provider.

Tokenized stocks would stay within securities rules

HPC and Douro asked the SEC to confirm that tokenized versions of NMS stocks remain inside Regulation NMS and the wider best execution framework. Under that approach, investor protections would not depend on whether ownership records use a blockchain.

The request comes as tokenized stock products expand across crypto networks. As previously reported, Ondo brought 35 tokenized stocks and ETFs onto HyperEVM in June.

Such products can use different legal structures. Some represent claims against an issuer or special purpose entity rather than direct legal ownership of the underlying company shares. The structure must therefore be assessed separately from the blockchain used for trading or settlement.

In related coverage, an onchain platform launched trading for more than 70 tokenized equities across Ethereum and Solana. That system uses public market information to help keep token prices aligned with the underlying shares.

HPC and Douro also argued that onchain transactions may qualify for Rule 611’s existing exception for trades that do not use “regular way” settlement terms. They asked the SEC to confirm that interpretation if the repeal is delayed or rejected. This remains the groups’ legal position, not an SEC determination.

The SEC must decide whether to adopt the repeal

The public comment period for file S7-2026-20 closed on Aug. 17, according to the SEC docket. The joint submission arrived on the deadline alongside comments from exchanges, investment firms, trade groups and other market participants.

The SEC will now review the responses before deciding whether to adopt, revise or withdraw the proposal. A repeal would require a final Commission vote and an adopting release establishing the final text and effective date.

Not all commenters support removing the rule. Some responses warned that repeal could weaken an objective price protection standard and place greater reliance on individual brokers’ routing systems.

SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda also acknowledged those questions in a June statement. He said removing Rule 611 could raise issues involving best execution, transparency, trading mechanics and investor confidence.

The next decision rests with the SEC. No final vote, adoption date or implementation timetable had been announced as of Aug. 18.

The Ethereum Foundation has warned that wallets, indexers and gas estimators could break as Glamsterdam changes the 21,000-gas assumption for some ETH transfers, with the upgrade due to activate on the Platåberget testnet on Aug. 20.

The Ethereum Foundation’s Protocol DevOps team said on Aug. 17 that any tool relying on a hardcoded maximum gas limit “will break,” naming wallets, indexers and gas estimators among the software likely to be affected. The team urged application and infrastructure developers to test their systems on Platåberget, a public testnet designed to stay online for several months.

Forkcast data shows Platåberget launched on Aug. 13, giving developers an early environment for Glamsterdam before the upgrade moves to Sepolia and Hoodi. The Glamsterdam fork is scheduled to activate on Platåberget on Aug. 20, according to the foundation, with public validator and builder deposits available as part of the testing process.

Glamsterdam could break hardcoded gas assumptions

Under the planned gas repricing package, the foundation said software can no longer safely assume that Ethereum has a single fixed gas ceiling or that common operations will continue to cost the same amount in every case. The changes are designed around a roughly 200 million gas floor and alter the price of individual operations as well as assumptions tied to the block gas limit.

For application developers, the immediate issue is software that sets fixed boundaries when estimating transaction costs. The Protocol DevOps team said such systems need to be reviewed before Glamsterdam reaches mainnet because the repricing touches wallets, indexers and gas estimators across the network.

The warning follows June 17 Glamsterdam upgrade coverage from crypto.news, which reported that Ethereum developers were already testing the full set of planned EIPs on development networks. At the time, Ethereum Foundation developer Parithosh Jayanthi said the upgrade would change the cost of actions on Ethereum, with high-level computation becoming cheaper while state becomes more expensive.

During the same testing phase, Jayanthi said developers had made “massive progress” but noted that no fixed mainnet timeline had been set. Deployment would depend on the results of testing and whether Ethereum client teams were ready to support the new rules.

EIP-8037 changes how new state is priced

A central part of the warning concerns EIP-8037, which introduces a separate state-gas dimension for operations that create new state. The foundation said creating an account, deploying code or writing a new storage slot will be metered at a fixed cost per state byte and charged at runtime.

Because of that change, a basic ETH transfer will not always carry the same gas cost. Sending ETH to an account that already exists will continue to cost 21,000 gas, with the amount broken into the base transaction cost, cold account access and the value-transfer cost. Sending funds to an address that does not yet exist will also incur a state-gas charge tied to creating the new account.

Developers should therefore revisit applications that treat 21,000 gas as sufficient for every ETH transfer, the Protocol DevOps team said. Gas estimators built around only one gas dimension may also return incorrect estimates once new state is metered separately.

EIP-8037 had already moved close to its final form by May. A May 11 protocol development report said the proposal had reached final-draft status and was being parameterised on a Glamsterdam development network. At the time, its cost-per-state-byte model was designed around limiting annual state growth to roughly 60 GiB at a 300 million gas block limit.

Under the parameters reported in May, new account creation could become roughly 8.5 times more expensive, while contract deployment costs could rise about tenfold. Separate metering for code deposits was designed to keep large contracts deployable, including code-heavy decentralised finance applications.

The state-gas model also changes where Ethereum accounts for the cost of permanent state. The foundation said account creation, new storage slots and deployed code will incur charges based on the amount of new state created, making applications that frequently add permanent data particularly important targets for testing before mainnet deployment.

Ethereum Glamsterdam upgrade also changes block production

Gas repricing is only one part of Glamsterdam. The foundation said the fork also includes enshrined proposer-builder separation, or ePBS, which changes how blocks are built, proposed and validated inside Ethereum’s core protocol.

Under ePBS, the split between the block-building process and the proposer role is incorporated into the protocol, alongside a new builder API flow and payload-timeliness checks. Infrastructure tied to Ethereum’s block-production and validation pipeline should expect to be affected, according to the foundation.

With Platåberget open for public participation, the Protocol DevOps team has encouraged solo stakers, distributed validator technology projects, custom software operators and large staking providers to test their infrastructure. The testnet allows users to deposit new validators and experiment with validator and builder-deposit workflows before the same changes move to longer-lived networks.

Block-Level Access Lists form another major component of the fork. The foundation said the lists will record state locations accessed during execution and post-transaction state changes, with BAL data stored separately from the block body and exchanged between execution-layer peers through the eth/71 networking protocol.

Earlier June reporting said the access-list design gives Ethereum clients advance information about which accounts and smart-contract data a block will use. The system can allow nodes to preload required data and process transactions in parallel when transactions do not access the same state, according to Ethereum.org.

Glamsterdam will also increase size limits for deployed contracts and initialisation code. The foundation said the maximum deployed contract size will rise from 24 KiB to 64 KiB, while the maximum initcode size will increase from 48 KiB to 128 KiB. Forward-compatible consensus data structures are also included in the planned fork.

Platåberget gives developers a longer testing window

Unlike the shorter development networks used during earlier Glamsterdam work, Platåberget is intended to remain available for several months. The Protocol DevOps team said the longer lifespan should give developers time to test post-Glamsterdam behaviour and identify failures before the changes reach Sepolia and Hoodi.

Its validator set is relatively small but open to public participation. For the initial testing period, the foundation has listed container images for consensus clients including Lighthouse, Lodestar, Nimbus, Prysm, Teku and Grandine, alongside execution clients including Besu, Geth, Erigon, Nethermind, Reth, NimbusEL and Ethrex. Tagged client releases remain optional while development teams prepare their own builds.

After feedback from Platåberget has been incorporated into specifications and client software, a non-finality devnet is expected to follow within the month to test difficult consensus scenarios, according to the foundation. Sepolia and Hoodi are due to receive Glamsterdam after the development networks remain stable, while Ethereum mainnet activation will follow successful upgrades on the long-lived testnets.

Development on Ethereum’s next scheduled fork is also proceeding separately. An Aug. 16 Hegotá planning report said developers were considering 66 proposals for the 2027 upgrade, although Fork Choice enforced Inclusion Lists was the only EIP formally scheduled for inclusion at the time.

Several proposals under review for Hegotá concern future gas and state pricing as Ethereum increases Layer 1 capacity. EIP-8368, for example, would recalibrate state-creation pricing if the block gas limit rises beyond the reference level used by Glamsterdam, while developers have discussed preparing Ethereum for a possible path towards a 600 million gas limit.

BitMine Immersion Technologies added 9,926 Ethereum over the week ending Aug. 16, raising its reported holdings to 5,815,164 ETH.

The U.S. company valued the tokens at approximately $11 billion using an ETH price of $1,893. BitMine said the position represented 4.8% of Ethereum’s estimated 120.7 million supply in its Aug. 17 release.

BMNR stock closed 3.68% higher at $18.73 on the New York Stock Exchange on Aug. 17. It gained another 0.37% to $18.80 in after hours trading, according to Google Finance data.

BitMine stock opened Monday at $18.20 and traded between $18.11 and $19.00. Approximately 30.95 million shares changed hands, compared with its reported average volume of 32.51 million.

Google Finance placed BitMine’s market capitalization at approximately $11.3 billion, based on 603.23 million outstanding shares. The market value was close to the company’s reported $11.4 billion in crypto, cash, marketable securities and other investments.

BMNR remained well below its 52 week high of $65.60. The stock was also above its 52 week low of $12.80. Those figures show that BMNR has experienced a wide trading range while BitMine expanded its Ethereum strategy.

BitMine ETH holdings approach the 5% target

BitMine calls its objective of holding 5% of Ethereum’s supply the “Alchemy of 5%.” Using the company’s stated supply estimate, the target would equal approximately 6.035 million ETH.

The current balance leaves BitMine roughly 219,836 ETH short. Its holdings represent about 96.4% of the tokens required. Changes in Ethereum’s supply could alter the final amount needed.

BitMine has reported weekly Ethereum purchases since adopting its treasury strategy on June 30, 2025. As previously reported, its Ethereum balance reached 5.74 million tokens in early July.

The latest acquisition was smaller than several earlier weekly purchases. In related coverage, the company previously added more than 100,000 ETH during a single week in May.

BitMine did not disclose the average purchase price for the latest 9,926 ETH. It also provided no deadline for completing its 5% supply target.

Staked ETH produces variable rewards

BitMine reported that 5,067,309 ETH was staked as of Aug. 16. The tokens were worth about $9.59 billion at the company’s reference price and represented 87.1% of its holdings.

Approximately 747,855 ETH remained outside staking based on the disclosed figures. BitMine said some of its tokens are staked through MAVAN, its Made in America Validator Network, alongside other staking partners.

The company projected $250 million in annualized staking revenue using a seven day yield of 2.61%. This is a company estimate rather than guaranteed revenue. Ethereum staking returns vary with validator participation, network activity, execution rewards and other factors.

Applying the same yield to BitMine’s entire ETH balance would produce approximately $287 million annually at the cited price. BitMine described that amount as a projection for when its treasury is fully staked.

The staking position has grown rapidly since December. As crypto.news reported, BitMine initially deposited 74,880 ETH for staking before expanding the program during 2026.

Share repurchases reach 20.8 million

BitMine repurchased 1.7 million common shares during the latest week. That raised total repurchases since July 1 to more than 20.8 million shares, according to the company.

The board increased its repurchase authorization from $1 million to $4 billion in April, an SEC filing shows. An authorization sets a spending limit but does not require BitMine to use the entire amount.

The announcement did not disclose the average price paid for the latest shares or the total amount spent. At Monday’s closing price, 1.7 million shares would have a market value of approximately $31.8 million. That calculation is an estimate, not the company’s reported cost.

Repurchases reduce the share count when the acquired stock is retired or held as treasury stock. However, future equity issuance or preferred stock conversions could offset that reduction.

The reported portfolio is valued at $11.4 billion

BitMine valued its combined crypto, cash, marketable securities and other investments at $11.4 billion as of Aug. 16. In addition to Ethereum, the company reported holding 210 Bitcoin and $78 million in cash and marketable securities.

The total included a $180 million position in Beast Industries and a $73 million stake in Nasdaq listed Eightco Holdings. BitMine refers to those investments as “moonshots.”

The reported total is not necessarily equivalent to assets calculated under accounting rules. Its value can also change quickly because Ethereum accounts for most of the portfolio.

Investors will next be watching BitMine’s SEC disclosures for further information about the repurchases and investment valuations. The company’s weekly updates will also show whether it continues acquiring ETH as it approaches its 5% target.

Binance reportedly plans to apply for authorization from the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, seeking a potential return to the British market when the country’s comprehensive crypto rules begin in 2027.

The exchange intends to submit an application after the FCA opens its authorization gateway on Sept. 30, according to an Aug. 15 report from The Telegraph. Binance has not publicly confirmed that it filed an application or identified which legal entity would apply.

A successful application could allow Binance to resume regulated services for UK residents after the new framework takes effect on Oct. 25, 2027. Approval is not automatic, and the FCA has not said it expects to authorize Binance.

The regulator’s existing restrictions on Binance Markets Limited remain in force.

Binance must address restrictions dating from 2021

The FCA imposed requirements on Binance Markets Limited in June 2021, preventing the company from conducting regulated activities without the regulator’s prior written consent.

The watchdog’s current warning states that no other Binance Group entity holds UK authorization, registration or a license to conduct regulated activities in the country.

The FCA previously said Binance Markets Limited was not capable of being effectively supervised. It cited the wider group’s structure and complex, high risk products among its concerns.

Binance later withdrew an application to cancel unused UK permissions in 2023. The move left no Binance entity authorized to operate a regulated cryptocurrency business in Britain.

The exchange also stopped accepting new UK customers in October 2023 after the FCA introduced expanded financial promotion rules. Binance initially relied on an authorized company, Rebuilding Society, to approve its UK marketing.

The FCA later restricted Rebuilding Society’s ability to approve crypto promotions. Binance then announced through an official update that it would pause new registrations while searching for another compliant arrangement.

The FCA application window opens September 30

Britain’s new crypto authorization window will run from Sept. 30, 2026, through Feb. 28, 2027. The full regulatory regime starts on Oct. 25, 2027.

As crypto.news reported, companies operating in Britain must obtain fresh authorization before providing activities covered by the new framework. Existing registrations under anti-money laundering rules will not convert automatically.

Firms that apply within the window may qualify for transitional arrangements while the FCA assesses their applications. Those submitting applications after Feb. 28 will not receive the same protection and may need to stop relevant services until authorization is granted.

The FCA encourages applicants to file early. Its guidance says earlier applications provide more time for assessment and increase the period during which eligible companies can rely on transitional provisions.

An application is not a temporary license. Applicants must satisfy the regulator before receiving permission, and companies cannot assume they will be approved because they met the filing deadline.

FCA authorization would impose broader requirements

The new framework expands the FCA’s oversight beyond financial promotions and anti-money laundering registration. It covers trading platforms, dealing, arranging transactions, custody, staking, lending and certain stablecoin activities.

Authorized companies must follow prudential rules, operational resilience standards and financial crime controls. The framework also applies the Consumer Duty and the Senior Managers and Certification Regime to businesses conducting regulated crypto activities.

Trading platforms will face requirements involving disclosures, market abuse controls and asset admission standards. Custodians must meet rules governing client asset ownership, record keeping, reconciliation and private key management.

David Geale, the FCA’s executive director for payments and digital finance, said the regime would hold crypto companies to “similar standards” as other British financial services businesses.

The application review is therefore expected to examine Binance’s governance, ownership, compliance systems and ability to meet continuing supervisory requirements. The FCA can reject applicants that fail its minimum threshold or “fit and proper” tests.

Binance has not disclosed which UK services it would seek permission to offer. It also has not said whether a relaunch would cover spot trading, custody, staking or other products.

Binance faces competition from registered UK firms

Binance would enter a market where several competitors already hold FCA registrations under the existing anti-money laundering framework.

Coinbase, for example, secured permission to offer cryptocurrency services directly through its British entity in February 2025. IG Digital Assets later joined the FCA’s cryptoasset register.

Those registrations do not guarantee authorization under the 2027 framework. Every company conducting newly regulated activities must submit a fresh application or request a variation of its existing permissions.

Binance’s UK effort also follows regulatory setbacks elsewhere in Europe. The exchange withdrew its Greek application for authorization under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets regulation in June.

In related coverage, Binance suspended most services for European Union residents after missing the licensing deadline. The company said it remained committed to finding another route into the European market.

The UK process is separate from the EU framework. FCA authorization would only address Binance’s position under British law and would not provide operating rights across the European Union.

A filing and FCA decision come next

The first verifiable development will be Binance’s submission of an application after Sept. 30. Neither the exchange nor the FCA has published an application notice.

The regulator does not guarantee that applications submitted during the window will receive decisions before October 2027. Eligible firms can continue specified activities under transitional provisions while awaiting a determination, but only if they satisfy the relevant conditions.

A Binance relaunch would require an affirmative FCA decision and any necessary removal or amendment of existing restrictions on Binance Markets Limited. The legal entity receiving authorization would also need to appear on the FCA register.

Until those steps occur, the reported application remains a plan rather than an approved UK return. Existing consumers should not interpret it as evidence that Binance currently holds an FCA license.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is preparing to request public input on futures tied to artificial intelligence computing capacity, according to an Aug. 17 Bloomberg report.

The agency reportedly sent a draft request to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. Once that review ends, the CFTC could open a public comment period lasting 30 or 60 days.

No request had appeared on the CFTC’s public comment pages or in the Federal Register by Aug. 18. The exact questions, comment deadline and effect on pending contracts therefore remain unconfirmed.

The regulatory process comes as CME Group reportedly targets Oct. 5 for two compute futures contracts using Silicon Data benchmarks. The planned launch remains subject to regulatory review.

CFTC review could define compute as a derivatives market

Compute futures would allow market participants to trade contracts linked to the future cost of renting graphics processing units. GPUs provide the processing capacity needed to train and operate many artificial intelligence systems.

The market could give AI developers, cloud providers and data center operators a way to manage changing rental prices. Financial traders could also gain exposure to compute pricing without owning chips or operating data centers.

The CFTC’s reported request is broader than approval of an individual contract. It could seek information about benchmark reliability, market manipulation, settlement methods, liquidity and how exchanges define a standardized unit of compute.

A request for comment would not constitute a proposed rule or a final regulatory decision. It also would not automatically block CME’s target date unless the CFTC separately objects to the contracts or requires further review.

Bloomberg reported that the public consultation could complicate launch plans for CME and Intercontinental Exchange. The CFTC has not publicly confirmed a delay.

CME plans contracts using Silicon Data benchmarks

CME and Silicon Data first announced their partnership on May 12. The exchange said the planned futures would use daily benchmarks tracking on demand GPU rental rates.

Silicon Data collects pricing information across GPU markets, where costs can differ by hardware, provider, region and contract duration. CME argues that standardized benchmarks could make those fragmented prices easier to compare and hedge.

“Compute is the new oil of the 21st century,” CME Chairman and Chief Executive Terry Duffy said in the official announcement. His description represents CME’s assessment of the market rather than a regulatory classification.

Silicon Data CEO Carmen Li said existing compute prices can “vary dramatically” between providers and regions. The company claims its benchmarks provide consistent pricing for a market that has historically lacked transparent reference rates.

Reports now place CME’s intended launch on Oct. 5, but the date does not appear in the exchange’s original May announcement. CME has consistently stated that any launch remains subject to regulatory review.

Contract specifications, including size, expiration months and settlement procedures, will be needed before traders can assess the products fully.

ICE is developing competing compute contracts

Intercontinental Exchange announced separate plans in May to list U.S. dollar denominated, cash settled contracts using Ornn’s Compute Price Index.

Ornn’s index tracks transaction prices across GPU models including Nvidia’s H100, H200, B200 and RTX 5090. ICE said its contracts could provide price discovery across multiple types of computing hardware.

ICE later announced another planned product using NativX’s COIL Index. The benchmark tracks tokenized, energy normalized compute and connectivity. The related contracts would trade alongside ICE’s existing electricity and natural gas products.

Power is a major cost for data centers, making energy prices closely connected to compute economics. ICE said placing the products on the same exchange could let operators manage electricity and GPU price exposure together.

Both ICE projects remain subject to regulatory processes, and the exchange has not announced a fixed launch date. The development of several competing benchmarks could give users more choice but may also divide liquidity across contracts.

Crypto infrastructure is increasing AI capacity

The emerging derivatives market follows rapid investment in U.S. data centers and GPU infrastructure. External forecasts cited by Forbes place AI infrastructure spending near 2% to 2.5% of U.S. gross domestic product in 2026, although those figures are private estimates rather than government data.

Several cryptocurrency mining companies have converted power infrastructure to AI workloads. Their access to electricity, cooling equipment and large industrial sites makes some mining facilities suitable for high performance computing.

As previously reported, TeraWulf generated more revenue from AI hosting than Bitcoin mining during the first quarter of 2026.

In related coverage, Galaxy Digital delivered 133 megawatts of computing capacity to CoreWeave under a 15 year agreement at its former Bitcoin mining campus in Texas.

These long term arrangements show demand for tools that can measure and manage compute costs. They do not establish whether a standardized futures market will attract enough trading activity.

Public questions and contract filings come next

The next formal development would be OMB completion of its review and publication of the CFTC’s request. Only the published document can confirm the questions and response deadline.

CME must also complete the applicable CFTC contract filing process. Registered exchanges can submit new products through self certification, but the CFTC can review contract terms and require additional action where permitted by law.

Public feedback may focus on whether the underlying benchmarks resist manipulation, represent executable rental prices and remain reliable when newer GPUs replace older hardware.

Market participants may also address settlement disruptions, regional pricing differences and whether compute contracts resemble energy, commodity index or financial futures.

The Oct. 5 launch remains a target rather than a confirmed trading date. Regulatory review, contract filings and operational readiness could still change the timetable.