Brad Sherman has criticized proposals to distribute government payments through stablecoins, warning during a congressional hearing that such a system could support tax evasion while lawmakers simultaneously advance several new crypto tax proposals.

According to remarks delivered during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on oversight of federal banking regulators, U.S. Representative Brad Sherman argued that using stablecoins for government payments would create risks that outweigh any potential benefits.

The criticism came after National Credit Union Administration Chairman Kyle Hauptman suggested that stablecoins could improve the speed of government disbursements.

Hauptman told lawmakers that dollar-pegged tokens operate around the clock, allowing tax refunds and emergency payments to reach recipients outside traditional banking hours, including weekends and holidays.

Responding to the proposal, Sherman said he could not think of a worse idea and argued that government-backed stablecoin payments would legitimize what he described as an alternative system designed to facilitate tax evasion.

Sherman also raised concerns about yield-bearing stablecoins, stating that legal professionals were already searching for ways to work around restrictions on interest payments and urging regulators to develop rules capable of preventing such outcomes.

Stablecoin tax rules remain under review

Sherman’s comments arrive as Congress examines how stablecoins should be treated under U.S. tax law.

As reported earlier by crypto.news, the House Ways and Means Committee recently released seven discussion drafts covering digital asset taxation ahead of a June 9 hearing.

According to crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett, the package includes proposals addressing stablecoins, staking rewards, mining income, DeFi lending, wash-sale rules, charitable donations and a voluntary disclosure program for unresolved crypto tax reporting.

Among the proposals is a provision that could allow compliant stablecoins to receive de minimis treatment for small gains and losses generated through everyday transactions. The measure would separate certain low-value payments from speculative crypto trading activity for tax purposes.

Lawmakers have previously explored similar concepts through the bipartisan Digital Asset Protection, Accountability, Regulation, Innovation, Taxation and Yields Act, known as the PARITY Act.

According to Representative Steven Horsford’s office, that proposal included a deemed-basis rule that would treat regulated payment stablecoins more like cash while incorporating protections against trading and arbitrage abuse.

Regulators outline banking and compliance plans

Elsewhere during the hearing, federal regulators discussed the implementation of stablecoin oversight requirements established under the GENIUS Act.

FDIC Chairman Travis Hill said regulators are preparing customer identification requirements for stablecoin issuers and indicated that proposed rules could be released soon.

At the same hearing, Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould defended the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s handling of a national trust bank charter application submitted by Trump-linked World Liberty Financial.

The exchange became tense after Representative Gregory Meeks questioned Gould’s independence and asked whether he was acting on behalf of the public or the Trump family.

Gould rejected the criticism, describing the comments as unprecedented and saying the pressure he had experienced came from lawmakers rather than political figures connected to the administration.

The regulatory discussion unfolded as crypto firms continue to gain access to traditional banking infrastructure. Falcon Finance launched its fUSD stablecoin with Anchorage Digital, the first federally chartered crypto bank, while crypto exchange Kraken recently received a Federal Reserve master account with certain limitations.

Separately, World Liberty Financial said last month that it was in the final stages of obtaining conditional approval for its banking charter application.

The US House Ways and Means Committee moved the dial on digital asset taxation by circulating seven discussion draft bills ahead of a key hearing on the topic. The set of proposals touches on stablecoins, mining, staking, and everyday crypto transactions, signaling a bipartisan effort to clarify how the IRS should treat crypto activities and reduce the tax-reporting burden for users.

Chairing the committee, Rep. Jason Smith, and other lawmakers presented the drafts as a step toward more predictable tax rules for participants across the crypto ecosystem. The package aims to ease paperwork for crypto holders, provide clearer treatment for mining and staking activities, and potentially create a “de minimis” reporting exception for small-value transactions. The drafts were released in advance of a Tuesday hearing dedicated to digital asset taxation, underscoring Congress’s ongoing focus on how these assets should be taxed as activity and adoption expand.

Key takeaways

• The Ways and Means package signals a push to reduce annual tax paperwork for crypto holders while clarifying the tax treatment of mining and staking tokens.
• A de minimis reporting approach for small crypto transactions is on the table, with lawmakers exploring thresholds that would ease reporting requirements for ordinary transfers.
• The PARITY Act earlier proposed a $200 reporting threshold for stablecoins, while excluding a similar threshold for other cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.
• Any legislation advancing these ideas will require bipartisan support in both chambers to become law, with the Senate weighing its own priorities alongside a broader tax agenda.
• State-level signals are emerging, notably in Illinois, where a new budget includes a digital asset tax provision that would apply to brokered transactions.

What the proposals seek to change

The seven draft bills circulated by the committee address several recurring pain points for the tax treatment of digital assets. One throughline is reducing the formal reporting burden on individuals who hold or transact with cryptocurrencies. By reexamining the way taxable events are defined and reported, lawmakers appear intent on reducing friction for routine crypto activity while preserving revenue integrity for the federal government.

Another focus is clarity around mining and staking activities. Mining uses energy-intensive processes to validate and record transactions, while staking typically involves locking up tokens to participate in network consensus. The drafts indicate an intent to provide clearer rules for how gains from these activities should be taxed, and under what circumstances, avoiding ambiguity that has long puzzled taxpayers and practitioners alike.

Alongside these aims, the drafts contemplate a de minimis reporting exemption for small-value transactions. The idea is to spare ordinary retail transfers from triggering onerous tax reporting, a concept that has gained traction in policy circles as a way to curb friction without eroding tax base.

In parallel to the House effort, a March draft law known as the Digital Asset PARITY Act proposed a specific threshold for stablecoins—around $200—for reporting purposes. Importantly, the PARITY Act did not extend a similar threshold to other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, illustrating the nuanced approach lawmakers are exploring for different classes of digital assets. The proposal drew a pointed reaction from industry stakeholders who argued for broader tax clarity to encourage onshore compliance, as noted by The Digital Chamber’s CEO in commentary linked to the PARITY Act.

As part of the policy discourse, Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis has signaled interest in a de minimis exemption for Bitcoin transactions that could operate in tandem with federal efforts. Her team has discussed a potential $300 de minimis threshold in connection with capital gains taxes, building on a framework she has introduced in other contexts. These items underscore the cross-chamber tension between ensuring tax compliance and avoiding overbearing reporting requirements that could suppress legitimate onshore activity.

Policy path and the Senate’s timetable

While the House effort concentrates on tax clarity and administrative relief, the Senate’s agenda appears more constrained by broader budget considerations and a longer-running debate over a digital asset market framework. Senate lawmakers are expected to prioritize a budget reconciliation package before evaluating a proposed market structure bill commonly referred to as the CLARITY Act. This sequencing means that any House-passed proposals would need substantial bipartisan support to survive the Senate’s scrutiny and potential revisions.

The dynamic highlights a familiar pattern in Washington: a flurry of activity around digital asset tax policy, followed by protracted inter-chamber negotiations over how to balance investor protections, innovation, and revenue requirements. For market participants, the timing and scope of bipartisan broadening of tax clarity will matter, not just the specifics of any single draft. The Tuesday hearing in the House provides a venue for lawmakers to hear from witnesses and stakeholders as they shape a path forward.

Source coverage points to ongoing industry calls for simpler reporting and more predictable guidance. The crypto policy debate has long centered on how to treat mining and staking activities, whether stablecoins should be given a distinct treatment, and how to avoid stifling everyday on-ramps with heavy reporting burdens. The new drafts reflect an attempt to translate those concerns into concrete legislative language, even as lawmakers acknowledge the need for cooperation across party lines to move from discussion to law.

Illinois moves on digital asset taxation

Beyond federal activity, state-level developments are surfacing as well. This week, the Illinois General Assembly approved a $56 billion state budget that includes provisions imposing a digital asset tax. If Governor JB Pritzker signs the budget into law, crypto users would face a 0.2% tax on transactions conducted through brokers registered with the state. The measure signals how state-level tax policy could complement or complicate federal efforts, especially for residents and businesses with cross-border activity or localized crypto activity in jurisdictions with different tax regimes.

These shifts at both federal and state levels illustrate a broader trend: policymakers are moving from high-level debates about crypto’s legality and morality toward concrete tax policy levers that could affect everyday users. The interplay between de minimis thresholds, mining and staking clarity, and state tax incentives or thresholds will likely shape how investors and infrastructure builders approach compliance and reporting in the near term.

Why this matters for investors, users, and builders

From an investor perspective, clearer tax rules and potential reporting relief can reduce compliance risk and operating costs, particularly for individuals who hold a diversified mix of digital assets or participate in staking and yield-generating activities. For miners and staking participants, explicit guidance on when income is recognized and how gains are calculated can influence decision-making around deployment and asset selection, especially in a climate of rising energy costs and evolving network economics.

For developers and platforms, the material implications extend to how on-chain transactions are categorized and reported. Clarified thresholds and definitions can improve user experiences by reducing friction in tax reporting while maintaining transparency about taxable events. At the same time, the ongoing policy tug-of-war—between tighter reporting for some asset classes and looser requirements for small transfers—will continue to shape product design, KYC/AML considerations, and record-keeping tooling across the ecosystem.

As the dialogue moves forward, readers should watch for two near-term developments: whether the House’s seven-draft package gains momentum toward formal legislation, and how the Senate harmonizes its approach with federal reconciliation processes and the CLARITY Act. The Illinois framework, meanwhile, provides a real-world test case for how state tax regimes may interact with federal policy and influence local crypto activity. The coming months will reveal how these threads converge into a coherent and durable tax structure for digital assets.

Sources and context for this overview reflect coverage of the committee’s discussion drafts, the PARITY Act debate, and state-level developments as reported in Cointelegraph and related policy reporting. For readers seeking to explore the original materials, the Ways and Means Committee’s hearing page and the PARITY Act coverage offer additional detail on the proposals and their rationale.

SpaceX has secured a major compute agreement withGoogle ahead of its planned Nasdaq listing, adding another large customer to its expanding AI infrastructure business.

A regulatory filing by SpaceX said Google will pay the company $920 million per month from October 2026 through June 2029 for access to about 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, CPUs, memory, and other related equipment. The filing said Google’s access will begin at a lower fee as the service ramps up through September.

Google turns to SpaceX for AI capacity

The agreement comes as Google faces rising demand for its AI products. In a statement, a Google representative said Google Cloud and SpaceX have worked together for years and described the contract as a short-term capacity arrangement.

According to Google, demand for its agent platform, Gemini Enterprise, has been higher than expected. The company said the SpaceX deal will provide bridge capacity while it works to meet customer needs.

Unlike Anthropic, Google already controls one of the world’s largest AI compute footprints, according to outside estimates cited in the report. However, Alphabet’s own spending plans show the pressure created by the AI race. Alphabet has committed more than $180 billion in capital expenditures this year and has said spending will rise significantly in 2027. The company also recently announced an $80 billion equity sale.

Deal follows Anthropic agreement

SpaceX’s new contract with Google follows a similar deal announced in late May with Anthropic. Under that agreement, Anthropic agreed to pay SpaceX $1.25 billion per month through 2029 for compute capacity from the Colossus 1 data center near Memphis, Tennessee.

The report said Colossus 1 was originally built by xAI, which is now part of SpaceX, for its own artificial intelligence work. Anthropic raised usage limits on the same day its deal with SpaceX was announced, after facing compute limits before the agreement.

Google’s deal appears to cover about half the compute made available to Anthropic at Colossus 1. SpaceX did not identify which data center Google will use. Elon Musk has previously said Colossus 2 may be reserved for xAI, according to the report.

Cancellation terms give both sides flexibility

The regulatory filing said both SpaceX and Google can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after December 31, 2026. The filing also includes a delivery condition tied to GPU access.

If SpaceX fails to provide the committed GPU capacity by September 30, 2026, Google may end the agreement after a one-month grace period, according to the filing. Google may also accept the available number of GPUs and receive a reduction in monthly fees.

IPO plans add weight to compute strategy

SpaceX announced the Google agreement one week before its stock is expected to begin trading on Nasdaq. SEC paperwork shows the company plans to raise about $75 billion at a valuation near $1.75 trillion, which would make it the largest IPO in history.

Google is already a long-time SpaceX investor. Its stake is expected to be worth more than $100 billion after the listing, according to the report. The two companies are also reportedly discussing orbital data centers, a project tied to SpaceX’s plans after the IPO.

Digital asset treasury companies have come under fresh pressure as the crypto market slump has pushed major bitcoin, ether, and Solana holders into large unrealized losses.

Artemis data shows that Hyperliquid-focused treasury firms are the only major group still holding meaningful paper gains, even after HYPE pulled back from its record high above $74 earlier this week.

The contrast has become sharper in the first half of 2026, as several public companies that copied the crypto treasury model now face deep losses on their token positions. Companies built around bitcoin, ether, and Solana reserves are carrying billions of dollars in unrealized losses, while HYPE treasury firms remain positive for now.

Hyperliquid Treasuries Stay Ahead

According to Artemis, Hyperliquid Strategies holds about 23.7 million HYPE and still has more than $1.1 billion in unrealized gains. The gain remains even after HYPE fell 11.98% during the latest market pullback.

Hyperion DeFi, which disclosed just over 2 million HYPE in its latest SEC filing, also remains in profit. Artemis estimates the company has about $35 million in unrealized gains on its HYPE holdings.

The figures separate HYPE treasury firms from most other digital asset treasury companies. Artemis data shows that treasury firms tied to bitcoin, ether, and Solana are now dealing with major paper losses as crypto prices trade near multi-year lows.

Strategy Leads Bitcoin Treasury Losses

SaylorTracker data shows Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, now holds more than $12.8 billion in unrealized bitcoin losses. The company helped popularize the corporate bitcoin treasury model and remains the largest public bitcoin holder.

Strategy began buying bitcoin when the asset traded near $10,000, but SaylorTracker data shows its average acquisition cost has climbed to about $75,000 per BTC after years of purchases.

The company’s position has moved sharply over the past year. When bitcoin topped $126,000 last October, Strategy had more than $14 billion in unrealized gains. SaylorTracker data later showed those gains turned into about $9.5 billion in losses in February before briefly returning to positive territory in April.

This week, Strategy said it sold 32 bitcoins for $2.5 billion. After that announcement, bitcoin fell toward $59,100 on Friday afternoon, leaving Strategy with a paper loss of about 20% on its holdings. MSTR shares were down more than 11% on Friday near $116, close to a two-year low.

Ether Treasury Firms Face Heavy Paper Losses

Ethereum treasury companies are also under pressure after ETH fell below $1,550 on Friday, its lowest level in more than a year.

Artemis estimates that Bitmine, chaired by Fundstrat’s Tom Lee, has about $10.5 billion in unrealized losses on more than 5.4 million ETH. At current prices, those holdings are worth about $8.6 billion.

Bitmine’s ETH position represents nearly 4.5% of Ethereum’s circulating supply. The company has previously said it wants to raise that figure to 5%. BMNR shares fell more than 10% on Friday to around $16, their lowest level since the firm launched its ether treasury strategy in June 2025.

Sharplink, another major ether treasury company, holds nearly 869,000 ETH. Artemis data estimates its paper loss at about $1.8 billion.

Solana treasury firms have also taken losses as SOL fell below $65 on Friday, its weakest price since late 2023.

As previously reported by crypto.news Forward Industries, the largest public Solana treasury company, holds more than 6.8 million SOL. Artemis data estimates the company now has about $1.2 billion in unrealized losses on those holdings.

The latest data shows how the digital asset treasury trade has split between HYPE-linked winners and larger crypto treasury firms facing heavy losses.

Bitcoin has fallen to nearly $59,000 after dropping more than 20% in a week, prompting Michael Saylor to respond publicly after CNBC host Jim Cramer blamed him for the cryptocurrency’s latest selloff.

Posting on X as Bitcoin (BTC) slid below the $60,000 level, Jim Cramer wrote that “Saylor murdered Bitcoin,” pointing to Strategy’s recent Bitcoin sale and the market’s sharp decline. The comment came after Bitcoin suffered over $450 million in long liquidations and reached its lowest level in almost two years.

Responding shortly afterward, Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor dismissed the accusation, writing that the decline was “just a flesh wound.”

Strategy disclosed earlier this week that it sold 32 BTC after trading opened on Monday. Although the transaction represented only a tiny fraction of the company’s Bitcoin holdings, the move attracted attention because Saylor has spent years publicly advocating a buy-and-hold approach toward the asset. Bitcoin and Strategy shares both came under pressure following the disclosure.

As reported earlier by crypto.news, Cramer argued that the sale altered investor perceptions of Bitcoin’s previous rally. According to his remarks, many traders had viewed Strategy’s aggressive accumulation program as an important source of support for the market.

He described the company as a key factor behind Bitcoin’s rise, while stopping short of calling the situation market manipulation.

Advertisement

ETF outflows have drawn scrutiny from analysts

Several market observers pushed back against the idea that Strategy’s sale was responsible for Bitcoin’s decline.

CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju argued that focusing on Saylor overlooks much larger selling activity from long-term Bitcoin holders. 

“Can we really compare the 1.24M BTC that OG whales sold to Saylor and ETFs over the past two years with the 32 BTC Saylor sold?”

Ju added that Bitcoin would likely be trading at lower levels today without purchases from Strategy and spot Bitcoin ETFs.

While Ju rejected claims that Saylor caused the downturn, he said he remained open to evidence-based analysis challenging his view. In his assessment, blaming Strategy for Bitcoin’s collapse was unsupported by available market data.

Advertisement

Citigroup analysts reached a similar conclusion in a recent note. According to the bank, investors may be paying too much attention to Strategy’s sale while overlooking persistent withdrawals from U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds.

Data from SoSoValue showed spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $2.43 billion in net outflows during May. Another $1.40 billion left the funds during the first three days of June. Citigroup said ETF demand remains one of the most important drivers of Bitcoin prices and suggested those outflows have had a much larger impact on market performance.

Concerns remain around Strategy’s funding model

Elsewhere, some analysts focused less on the sale itself and more on what it could signal about Strategy’s future.

Economist Peter Schiff argued that Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury model depends heavily on its ability to continue raising capital through equity markets. According to Schiff, the company could face increasing pressure if MSTR shares lose their premium and make future fundraising more difficult.

A separate report from Grayscale Research also highlighted potential funding challenges. Grayscale said declining prices for MSTR and STRC shares could make it harder for Strategy to expand its Bitcoin holdings. The firm added that if STRC trades below its intended level, Strategy may need to increase dividend payments, raising cash obligations and potentially increasing the likelihood of future Bitcoin sales.

Advertisement

Despite those concerns, Grayscale said a reduction in Bitcoin concentrated on highly leveraged corporate balance sheets could benefit the market over time by spreading ownership across more treasury companies.

Meanwhile, Charles Schwab Director of Digital Currencies Research and Strategy Jim Ferraioli argued that the market may be searching for a simple explanation for a trend that began months ago.

According to Ferraioli, Bitcoin has been in a bear market since October 2025, when it reached nearly $126,000 before entering a prolonged decline.

Ferraioli said Bitcoin’s weakness stems primarily from the loss of momentum that previously attracted capital into the asset. Because Strategy’s sale occurred near the end of an eight-month downtrend, he argued it is difficult to identify the transaction as the main cause of Bitcoin’s latest losses.

Advertisement

Strategy’s disclosure of a 32 Bitcoin move reverberated through the market, underscoring a shift in the narrative around corporate Bitcoin treasuries. The sale, described as a small fraction of Michael Saylor’s firm’s vast holdings, nonetheless chipped away at the prevailing assumption that corporate BTC reserves would remain permanently locked up. In the days that followed, investors re-evaluated the Bitcoin treasury thesis, even as Strategy’s broader treasury strategy remains, for now, firmly anchored in accumulating BTC per share. This episode arrived alongside a broader set of developments in crypto policy and corporate finance, painting a picture of a market navigating both strategic asset allocation and a tightening regulatory landscape.

In other corners of crypto news this week, JPMorgan Chase & Co. chief Jamie Dimon sharpened his critique of the industry’s evolving market structure proposals, while a French Bitcoin treasury vehicle pursued a sweeping fundraising mandate that would dramatically expand its war chest for Bitcoin purchases. Taken together, the week highlighted how treasury management, regulatory expectations, and capital formation are increasingly interlinked in shaping near-term price action and long-run adoption.

Key takeaways

• Strategy disclosed the sale of 32 BTC, its first reported liquidation outside a 2022 tax event, triggering a reassessment of the firm’s Bitcoin treasury thesis.
• Delphi Digital argued the market has begun to view Strategy as no longer a pure “buy and never sell” vehicle, signaling a structural shift in how Bitcoin treasuries are valued by investors.
• Regulatory discourse intensified as Jamie Dimon said banks would oppose the latest CLARITY Act markup, highlighting a widening rift between traditional finance and crypto innovation on compliance and product offerings.
• Capital B is seeking shareholder approval to expand its fundraising capacity to issue up to 5 billion euros in new equity and about $116 billion in credit instruments to finance future Bitcoin purchases, potentially expanding its BTC stack well beyond current levels.
• Coinbase joined the wave of institutional interest in stablecoin reserves by investing in ProShares GENIUS Money Market ETF (IQMM), signaling appetite for regulated, reserve-backed exposure tied to stablecoins under the GENIUS Act framework.

Strategy’s liquidity rethink tests the “never-sell” meme

The 32 BTC sale announced by Strategy, led by Michael Saylor’s corporate vehicle, represented a modest slice of its total holdings—yet it had outsized consequences for market psychology. The company’s BTC reserve is widely cited as a central pillar of its valuation framework, and the move punctured the dominant narrative that Strategy would only accumulate more coins with no intention to divest. The event helped catalyze a broader debate about how to price Bitcoin treasury models when corporate treasuries face ordinary liquidity needs and risk management concerns.

Reports surrounding the sale noted that Strategy’s overall balance sheet remains vastly weighted toward Bitcoin; the liquidation was the first non-tax-related sale publicly disclosed since 2022. After the disclosure, Strategy’s stock price came under pressure as investors recalibrated expectations about the long-term Bitcoin-per-share metric. Delphi Digital captured the moment, noting in a market summary that “the market learned that Strategy is no longer read as a pure one-way accumulation vehicle.” The message, they added, is no longer confined to conference calls but is reflected in actual trading behavior.

For investors, the episode raises important questions about how to value Bitcoin treasuries when even the most committed holders confront the realities of operating a business—whether it’s funding operations, meeting debt obligations, or pursuing strategic investments. It also invites a broader assessment of whether the “buy and hold” narrative remains a valid framework for evaluating corporate crypto warehouses, especially as markets become more sophisticated about risk-adjusted returns and liquidity planning. The episode doesn’t erase Strategy’s long-standing commitment to Bitcoin per share, but it does remind the market that crypto treasuries are not immune to the same financial pressures that affect any large corporate balance sheet.

The public thread of the narrative remains: even high-conviction holders will occasionally depart from a strict accumulation path when the business case for liquidity or strategic diversification presents itself. The broader takeaway for market participants is that Bitcoin’s role as a corporate treasury asset is evolving from a simple store of value into a more nuanced instrument—one that must be balanced against operating needs, debt covenants, and investor expectations.

Source: Michael Saylor

Regulatory battlegrounds heat up as CLARITY Act debate deepens

Beyond corporate treasury moves, the policy arena is heating up around the envisioned market framework for crypto. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon publicly signaled opposition to the latest CLARITY Act markup, arguing that crypto companies deserve the same regulatory scrutiny as conventional banks and should not be afforded privileged treatment merely for offering certain products. In particular, Dimon targeted provisions that would permit crypto firms to provide interest-bearing products while avoiding the capital and compliance burdens traditionally borne by banks. The remarks added to a broader chorus of critics who warn that such exemptions could create inequities within the financial system.

Supporters of the CLARITY Act contend that a clear, modern regulatory framework would spur innovation and provide certainty for consumers and businesses alike. They describe the act as a necessary step toward standardizing oversight, protecting investors, and clarifying the status of crypto markets in the U.S. The debate underscores a central tension: how to reconcile rapid innovation with prudent risk management and consumer protections. As lawmakers push for market structure legislation, the contours of the policy landscape will continue to influence how institutions engage with digital assets and how new products—ranging from stablecoins to tokenized services—are designed and offered to the public.

Jamie Dimon said the banking industry opposes the latest CLARITY markup. Source: Fox Business

Capital B’s ambitious fundraising plan and its BTC ambitions

Capital B, the French-based Bitcoin treasury company, is seeking shareholder approval to dramatically expand its capital-raising capacity. The plan would authorize the company to issue up to 5 billion euros in new equity and to raise roughly $116 billion in credit instruments to finance future Bitcoin purchases. If approved at the June 17 meeting, management would gain access to a far larger pool of capital than the company has previously raised, a move that could accelerate Bitcoin accumulation during periods of price weakness or volatility.

Capital B has already accumulated a sizable BTC position, reporting holdings of 3,139 BTC after adding 4 BTC in a recent period. The company disclosed it had purchased 192 BTC for $15.2 million in a prior month, reflecting a steady cadence of adds alongside its fundraising ambitions. The scale of the contemplated capital raise would give Capital B the option to accelerate purchases during market dips or to diversify its treasury strategy through more dynamic asset deployment. The potential implications for BTC supply dynamics and market psychology are meaningful, especially if other treasury-focused firms consider similar fundraising moves in response to shifting market conditions.

These developments come amid a broader European and global push to establish clear regulatory parameters for stablecoin-related activity and digital asset institutions. If Capital B can access a much larger capital base, it could become a more prominent participant in the Bitcoin market, potentially influencing price discovery during episodes of liquidity constraints or bursty demand.

Source: Alexandre Laizet

Institutional appetite for stablecoin reserves grows with GENIUS Act momentum

In another sign of growing institutional interest in the mechanics of stablecoin collateral, Coinbase disclosed an investment in ProShares GENIUS Money Market ETF (IQMM). The fund is designed to hold cash equivalents and other highly liquid assets that would qualify as stablecoin reserves under the GENIUS Act—the proposed framework that would require stablecoins to be backed by high-quality, liquid reserves. ProShares notes that the ETF aims to provide exposure to cash, bank deposits, and short-term U.S. Treasury securities, aligning with the asset mix that stablecoin issuers typically earmark to back their tokens.

The investment by Coinbase signals ongoing demand from regulated exchanges and fintechs for vehicles that implement reserve-asset standards envisioned by the GENIUS Act. By supporting a vehicle intended to hold compliant reserves, Coinbase illustrates a path for traditional market participants to participate more directly in the stablecoin ecosystem while adhering to evolving regulatory expectations. For market observers, this development underscores growing institutional interest in structured products tied to stablecoin reserves—an area likely to gain further attention as the regulatory framework for digital assets gradually coalesces.

The GENIUS Act and the broader push to codify reserve requirements for stablecoins are part of a larger effort to create a federally grounded framework that can accommodate rapidly evolving use cases—from payments to settlement and beyond. As institutions seek greater certainty and safer exposure to the stablecoin segment, products tied to reserve assets may become a focal point for capital allocation and risk management in crypto markets.

Source: ProShares

Crypto Biz continues to track how corporate treasuries, regulatory developments, and institutional finance converge to shape the crypto landscape. What unfolds next will hinge on policy decisions in Washington and Brussels, the pace of adoption of regulated investment vehicles, and the willingness of major players to adjust treasury strategies in response to market dynamics.

As Congress and regulators refine market structure proposals and as major treasury entities calibrate their holdings, readers should watch for official guidance on reserve standards, as well as any shifts in large-scale buy-and-hold narratives as real-world liquidity needs pressure even the most steadfast BTC holders.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has turned the U.S. crypto policy fight into a national competitiveness argument by saying rivalry with China could strengthen America.

Armstrong said competition with China “might be the best thing to happen to America since the cold war,” adding that the U.S. had become complacent after leading global markets for years. The Coinbase chief said competition “breeds excellence” as he pushed lawmakers to treat crypto rules as part of America’s economic contest with Beijing.

Armstrong links crypto rules to China competition

Over the past year, Armstrong has repeatedly argued that Washington risks weakening the U.S. crypto industry if it adopts rules that push digital-asset activity offshore. According to Armstrong, restrictive policies on stablecoins and crypto markets could hand an advantage to China, offshore issuers, and central bank digital currency projects outside U.S. control.

In his stablecoin arguments, Armstrong has warned that banning interest-bearing stablecoins would not stop demand for yield. He has said such a ban would instead benefit China’s CBDC efforts and foreign stablecoins operating beyond U.S. oversight.

The Coinbase CEO has used that message as Congress weighs market-structure legislation for digital assets. His argument presents crypto regulation not only as a financial policy issue, but also as a question of American leadership in global finance.

Coinbase and banks clash over legislation

The debate has also deepened tensions between crypto firms and traditional banks. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently attacked Armstrong in unusually sharp language, calling him “full of shit,” according to the report.

Armstrong has responded by accusing large banks of trying to use regulation to weaken crypto competitors rather than building better products. Coinbase has argued that open crypto networks and stablecoins can update payment systems and financial infrastructure, while banks have warned lawmakers about risks tied to lighter oversight.

The fight has grown more political as the crypto industry pushes for market-structure rules that would create clearer lanes for digital assets. Armstrong’s China argument gives Coinbase and its allies a message that can reach beyond the crypto sector and into national security debates.

Trump meeting raises political stakes

President Donald Trump met with Armstrong before publicly urging lawmakers to move crypto legislation forward, according to the report. The meeting showed how closely Coinbase has positioned itself near the administration’s digital-asset agenda.

The China framing gives Coinbase’s policy goals a larger political frame. Instead of arguing only for rules that help exchanges and stablecoin issuers, Coinbase can present its position as part of a contest over financial power, technology, and the future of the dollar.

Critics cited in the report argue that this approach may blur the line between public interest and a private company’s lobbying goals. They say consumer protection, financial stability, and market oversight remain serious questions, even when crypto firms invoke China.

Coinbase has clashed with U.S. regulators before, including the SEC, which previously threatened legal action against the exchange. Armstrong answered that clash directly and has continued to press lawmakers for clearer rules.

Key Insights

• One of the big crypto players is moving out of his holdings in Ethereum and allocating his funds to ZEC, HYPE, NEAR, VVV, and LIT.
• The reason behind the portfolio change is related to valuation issues rather than any problem with the Ethereum blockchain platform itself.
• Zcash fell sharply below important support levels even though it was highly liquid and actively traded on markets.

Ethereum Exit Points to New Period of Altcoin Rotation

Altcoin Rotation is now gaining wide coverage in crypto circles after one notable Ethereum community member was reported to sell off his entire ETH holding and then invest the proceeds into an equally diverse selection of alternative coins. The news has generated buzz as it indicates an evolving investing trend based on valuations and not technology.

Based on reports by BSCN, the individual invested in five altcoins — VVV, NEAR, ZEC, HYPE, and LIT. The action implies a deliberate strategy geared toward diversifying into various blockchain categories, from privacy blockchains and DeFi networks to AI platforms and broader blockchain ecosystems.

Diversification Among Various Crypto Sectors

In the reorganized portfolio, there is a pattern whereby investors are moving away from focusing only on the major large-cap coins. Instead of relying on a single market sector, this particular portfolio is spread across various investment narratives and ideas.

Among the various investments made, the coin that was allocated the highest value was Lit Protocol (LIT). This implies that the confidence level in LIT is high compared to other investments. The remaining coins include VVV, NEAR, ZEC, and HYPE.

By using such a technique, an investor avoids relying heavily on just one market narrative since the allocation in the portfolio gives flexibility should there be a change in preferences regarding market sectors. In crypto markets, investors routinely shift their focus among various ecosystems.

The Most Prominent Gains Belong to Zcash

A prominent coin featured in this reallocation is Zcash (ZEC). For many years, the coin has been considered a top privacy-oriented project in the crypto space, despite market attention sometimes being diverted to emerging blockchain networks.

Certain types of digital assets tend to get attention from the investment community during particular market phases, especially those related to financial privacy. The presence of Zcash in this portfolio suggests continued investor interest in this asset class. Among the visual materials published along with the report were the logos of Zcash and Hyperliquid.

Weaknesses in Technicals Create Pressure on Zcash

Although Zcash is experiencing renewed interest among investors, the coin performed poorly during recent trades. According to current statistics, it was trading around $559.09 with losses of 10.18% over the last day.

Despite the sharp fall, interest in the cryptocurrency remained. Zcash had a market capitalization of approximately $9.34 billion and recorded about $1.33 billion in daily trading volume.

Technical data showed weaknesses in the short-term structure. Buyers attempted to defend an important support zone between $600 and $620 with several recovery attempts during the session. Nonetheless, those recoveries failed to establish positive momentum.

A sequence of lower highs began forming, indicating decreasing buying power and increased seller domination. The major breakthrough occurred when support at $600 broke and sellers drove the price down toward the $559 area. Now that a key support has turned into resistance, the question is whether Zcash can stabilize within the current range.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded $3.05 million in net inflows on Thursday, ending a record 13-day withdrawal streak that erased more than $4.4 billion from the funds since mid-May.

According to SoSoValue data, Thursday’s modest inflow brought an end to the longest run of outflows since spot Bitcoin ETFs launched in the United States. The reversal came after nearly three weeks of continuous redemptions that coincided with a sharp decline in Bitcoin prices and a steep drop in ETF assets.

Despite the positive reading, the scale of the inflow remained small compared with the preceding withdrawals. During the 13-session stretch, daily outflows regularly exceeded $100 million, while Thursday’s $3.05 million gain failed to offset even a fraction of the capital that had exited the category.

Fund-level data showed that BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for the turnaround. SoSoValue reported that the fund attracted $47.66 million in fresh capital, while products from Fidelity, Bitwise, and Ark Invest continued to post net outflows.

Pressure on the sector has been visible in total assets under management. Spot Bitcoin ETF holdings fell to $80.40 billion by Thursday, down from $104.29 billion at the beginning of the outflow streak. The decline occurred as Bitcoin lost ground over the same period, falling from levels above $74,000 to below $64,000.

Bitcoin ETF assets remain below recent highs

Data from CheckonChain showed that spot Bitcoin ETFs currently hold 1.277 million BTC. While that figure sits slightly above the February low of 1.274 million BTC, it remains about 7.2% below the record level reached in October.

Market conditions remained unstable even after the inflow streak ended. Bitcoin (BTC) traded near $63,800 on Thursday after briefly recovering from earlier weakness. By Friday, the cryptocurrency had plunged to an intraday low of around $59,100, its lowest level since October 2024, before rebounding above $61,000.

Recent ETF flow trends have attracted increased attention from market participants. In a recent note, Citigroup analysts argued that investors may be underestimating the importance of ETF demand in Bitcoin’s price performance.

The bank pointed to sustained withdrawals from spot Bitcoin ETFs as a major factor behind recent weakness, noting that the products recorded $2.43 billion in net outflows during May and another $1.40 billion during the first days of June.

Ether ETFs and HYPE funds continue to diverge

While Bitcoin funds returned to positive territory, spot Ether ETFs also halted a prolonged period of withdrawals.

According to SoSoValue, U.S. spot Ether ETFs brought in $19.30 million on Thursday, June 4, after 17 consecutive trading days of net outflows. BlackRock’s ETHA generated the entire inflow, while all other Ether funds finished the session with no net movement.

Assets held by spot Ether ETFs stand at $9.78 billion, equivalent to roughly 4.57% of Ethereum’s circulating market capitalization. Cumulative net inflows since the products launched in 2024 have reached $11.21 billion, although total assets remain about $2 billion below their earlier peak.

A different trend continued in the newly launched Hyperliquid ETF segment. The three HYPE-focused ETFs added another $12.15 million on Thursday, extending an uninterrupted inflow streak that began with their debut on May 12. Grayscale’s HYPG ETF contributed $4.70 million on its first day of trading.

A $56 billion Illinois state budget advanced by the General Assembly on Monday includes a new digital asset tax provision that could affect crypto users and firms operating in the state. The measure, described by supporters as a revenue tool, would levy a 0.2% tax on digital asset transactions carried out by entities acting as digital asset brokers in Illinois. According to Cointelegraph, the provision is framed as a “privilege tax” within the Digital Asset Privilege Tax Act amendment to the budget.

The 1,624-page budget bill, part of the revenue and tax package intended to fund the 2027 fiscal year, was approved largely along party lines. If enacted, the tax would require digital asset brokers to register with the state and comply with enforcement provisions designed to govern Illinois-based digital asset business activity. The legislation also sets out criminal penalties for noncompliance, including potential Class 3 felonies if brokers fail to adhere to the registration and operational requirements starting January 1.

Governor JB Pritzker has indicated an intention to sign the bill into law, but as of Friday morning had not yet issued the formal signature. Lawmakers project that the crypto tax would generate roughly $60 million for the state’s 2027 budget.

Key takeaways

• The Illinois budget includes the Digital Asset Privilege Tax Act amendment, introducing a 0.2% tax on digital asset transactions by brokers operating in Illinois.
• Brokers would face mandatory registration and compliance duties; failure to comply could result in a Class 3 felony with 2–5 years’ imprisonment and fines up to $25,000.
• The measure is expected to raise about $60 million in the 2027 fiscal year as part of the state’s revenue package.
• Industry groups, including the Digital Chamber and the Illinois Blockchain Association, have publicly criticized the move, arguing it was buried in a large budget bill and lacks adequate stakeholder engagement. They contend the policy could be economically destructive and leave Illinois-based firms at a disadvantage.
• The tax comes amid broader policy actions by the governor and state authorities regarding crypto activity, including executive-order–level actions on related areas such as prediction markets.

Tax framework within the Illinois budget

The centerpiece is the Digital Asset Privilege Tax Act amendment embedded in the 2027 budget package. The 0.2% levy would apply to transactions conducted by entities acting as digital asset brokers in the state, with the expectation that brokers register and adhere to specified guidelines governing their Illinois operations. The legislation frames the tax as a privilege charge tied to the digital asset business activity conducted within Illinois’ borders, aiming to augment state revenue while shaping the regulatory perimeter for brokers.

Registration requirements would take effect in the new year, and brokers who fail to register or comply with the act’s provisions could be charged under Illinois’ criminal code as a Class 3 felony. The penalty carries a potential prison term of two to five years and fines up to $25,000 per violation, reflecting a stringent approach to enforcement for noncompliant entities.

The budget bill remains subject to the governor’s signature. If signed, the measure would formalize the tax into law and pave the way for the state to begin collecting the revenue anticipated from the levy. Illinois legislators and supporters view the tax as a mechanism to fund the 2027 budget while establishing a defined regulatory framework for digital asset activity in the state.

Industry response and regulatory implications

Industry advocates have pushed back against the measure, arguing that the tax was tucked into a sprawling budget proposal with limited stakeholder engagement. In public statements, the Digital Chamber and the Illinois Blockchain Association described the proposal as economically destructive and warned that it would impose an undue burden on Illinois-based crypto firms without adequate notice or preparation time. They also pointed to the claim that no other state has imposed a similar tax, signaling a potential competitive disadvantage for Illinois in attracting crypto-related business.

ThePushback underscores broader regulatory frictions between state-level fiscal measures and the fast-evolving digital asset landscape. If enacted, the tax would shape licensing requirements for brokers, affect KYC/AML compliance arrangements, and influence how exchanges and other intermediaries structure their Illinois operations. Moreover, the move could influence how financial institutions assess cross-border activity and banking relationships with Illinois-based crypto firms, given the state’s attempt to formalize its treatment of digital asset intermediaries.

Policy context: prediction markets, enforcement priorities, and the broader regulatory landscape

The proposed crypto tax aligns with a broader regulatory posture taken by Governor Pritzker toward digital asset activities. Earlier in the year, the governor signed an executive order banning state employees from engaging in prediction market event contracts with platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, citing concerns that such bets could leverage nonpublic information for personal gain. The executive order signals a broader emphasis on governance and oversight of crypto-related activities within the state and complements the tax proposal as a coordinated policy stance.

From a wider regulatory perspective, Illinois’ approach interacts with ongoing federal and international frameworks. The state’s action sits alongside debates about licensing regimes, AML/KYC standards, and the relationship between digital asset brokers and traditional financial governance. As policymakers navigate MiCA-like considerations and U.S. oversight from agencies such as the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ, Illinois’ tax design raises questions about harmonization with national standards, cross-border operations, and the role of state-level measures in shaping the regulatory landscape for crypto firms, banks, and investors.

Closing perspective

With the bill awaiting the governor’s signature, the key questions revolve around how the registration regime will be implemented, how enforcement will unfold, and what adjustments, if any, lawmakers will consider in response to industry feedback. The Illinois measure could set a notable precedent for state-level digital asset taxation, with implications for licensing, compliance, and the competitive positioning of crypto firms within Illinois and beyond.