Ireland has identified crypto assets as a “very significant” money laundering and terrorism financing risk and has committed to introducing industry standards governing crypto-related sources of funds by the second half of 2027.

According to Ireland’s Department of Finance, the policy forms part of an implementation plan released alongside the country’s latest National Risk Assessment, the first government review in seven years to examine risks linked to digital assets.

The assessment said the growth of crypto-related fraud, money laundering prosecutions, and financial crime involving digital assets has increased pressure on authorities to strengthen oversight.

The report stated that crypto assets present challenges beyond criminal financing. Irish officials warned that digital assets can facilitate sanctions evasion, complicate tax enforcement efforts, and create opportunities for corruption involving officials responsible for supervising the sector. 

At the same time, the assessment pointed to weaknesses stemming from inconsistent international regulation and activity occurring in less-regulated segments such as decentralized finance.

Although Ireland is part of the European Union, the report noted that the country still lacks some of the regulatory and legislative measures adopted in other major jurisdictions to address risks tied to the crypto industry.

New compliance standards are scheduled before 2027

Under the implementation plan, Irish authorities intend to establish industry standards covering the acceptance of crypto-related activities as a source of funds by the latter half of 2027. The proposal forms part of a wider effort to strengthen anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing controls across the financial sector.

Data from the Central Bank of Ireland cited in the assessment showed that roughly 10% of the country’s population had invested in crypto assets as of December, highlighting the growing role of digital assets in the domestic financial system.

Recent enforcement actions have already brought compliance shortcomings into focus. In November 2025, the Central Bank of Ireland fined Coinbase Europe Limited approximately $24 million for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism breaches. The regulator said the company failed to promptly report deficiencies in its transaction monitoring system.

Separately, the assessment highlighted concerns that crypto is being used more frequently in payments connected to corruption. Political donations involving digital assets, however, have already been restricted in Ireland. In 2022, policymakers proposed a ban preventing Irish political parties from accepting cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ether, and privacy-focused tokens.

Regulators increase focus on crypto crime controls

Ireland’s review arrives as regulators in several jurisdictions tighten supervision of crypto businesses through anti-money-laundering frameworks.

Earlier this year, Zimbabwe placed crypto firms under the supervision of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe through Statutory Instrument 99 of 2026. The rules require businesses involved in buying, selling, transferring, or safeguarding digital assets to register as Virtual Asset Service Providers and comply with financial crime controls.

Industry compliance standards have also become stricter, according to a May report preview from Chainalysis. The blockchain analytics firm found that nearly 47% of organizations entering the market in 2026 adopted alerting standards that would have ranked among the top 10% most stringent settings in 2020.

Chainalysis reported that monitoring of direct exposure to illicit funds has become relatively consistent across regions. The company said the remaining challenge lies in tracking indirect exposure, where funds move through intermediary wallets before reaching a platform. 

According to Chainalysis, alert thresholds for indirect exposure linked to ransomware, scams, darknet markets, fraud operations, and sanctioned jurisdictions are often set 10 to 20 times higher than thresholds applied to direct exposure, leaving potential gaps that criminals can exploit.

Malta’s financial regulator has issued a discussion paper outlining a potential legal framework for decentralized finance (DeFi), including recognition of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), as European policymakers continue to grapple with how to regulate blockchain-based financial services.

On June 12, the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) opened a public consultation on DeFi under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. The paper invites industry feedback through July 10 and proposes a new legal category for so-called “software-based organizations,” which would encompass DAOs and other software-governed DeFi entities.

Rather than treating DAOs as a standalone legal concept, the MFSA suggests recognizing them as a type of software-based organization, separating the legal framework governing the organization itself from the rules governing the underlying protocol and software.

The discussion paper builds on Malta’s long-standing role in the digital asset industry, having introduced one of the region’s first comprehensive crypto regulatory frameworks in 2018. While stressing that fully decentralized services generally fall outside MiCA’s scope, the regulator argues that many DeFi projects retain centralized features that complicate claims of decentralization and raise questions about regulatory accountability.

“MiCA excludes fully decentralised models from its regulatory scope, meaning that projects without intermediaries or central control may not need to comply with MiCA,” the paper states.

The MFSA outlines the scope of the DeFi discussion paper. Source: MFSA

Related: DAOs may need to ditch decentralization to court institutions

EU regulators increasingly turn attention to DeFi

Malta’s discussion paper comes amid a broader push across the European Union to clarify how decentralized finance and decentralized autonomous organizations should be treated under MiCA.

In March, a European Central Bank working paper found that governance and control across four major DeFi protocols remained highly concentrated, suggesting many projects may struggle to qualify as “fully decentralized” and therefore fall outside MiCA’s scope.

The debate continued in May, when the European Commission launched a targeted review of MiCA seeking feedback on issues including stablecoin interest payments, the treatment of DeFi and whether gaps in the framework warrant additional regulation.

However, not everyone believes a new DeFi rulebook is necessary. Speaking to Cointelegraph at the WAIB Summit Monaco earlier this month, European Commission adviser Peter Kerstens said policymakers should prioritize integrating tokenization into a broader digital asset framework rather than pursuing a second version of MiCA focused on DeFi.

European Commission adviser Peter Kerstens (right) speaks with Cointelegraph’s Zoltan Vardai. Source: WAIB Summit 2026

Related: Crypto firms face July 1 EU cutoff as MiCA grace period ends

Bitcoin pulled back sharply after failing to reclaim the $67,200 area, and the selloff stood out because broader risk markets appeared to be holding up. The move sparked heavy liquidations in leveraged long positions and renewed questions about whether capital is rotating away from crypto’s “non-yielding” profile and into the AI-driven parts of tech.

While stocks looked resilient—amid signs of easing oil prices and upbeat US labor-market signals—crypto struggled to follow. At the same time, a firmer US dollar and comparatively elevated Treasury yields added pressure for assets that don’t pay income, including BTC.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin dropped about 7% after missing $67,200, triggering roughly $330 million in liquidations tied to bullish leverage.
• The selloff occurred as the Nasdaq 100 remained near its all-time high, underscoring a notable shift in crypto-vs-tech correlations.
• A strengthening US dollar and high Treasury yields continued to weigh on non-yielding assets like Bitcoin, with gold also sliding.
• Interest in AI-themed equities appeared to strengthen while leverage demand for BTC weakened after the early-June crash.

What drove the BTC correction

Bitcoin’s pullback accelerated after it failed to regain $67,200 on Monday. The decline—described as a “decoupling” from strength in major tech indexes—coincided with the Nasdaq 100 trading roughly 1% below its all-time peak.

Liquidation data cited in the report pointed to about $330 million wiped out from leveraged bullish positions, highlighting how quickly sentiment can turn when BTC breaks key levels. The article frames the question many traders are now watching closely: whether $60,000 becomes the next meaningful retest if selling pressure persists.

Macro backdrop: dollar strength and higher yields

Several macro signals were cited as supportive for equities even as crypto weakened. The stock-market tone, according to the report, was boosted by a memorandum of understanding signed between US President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian. It also noted that crude oil prices fell to their lowest level in 15 weeks, landing near $74, which can ease inflation concerns.

On the data side, continuing jobless claims were reported to have held steady at 1.81 million, helping underpin investor confidence.

However, crypto’s performance depended less on these equity tailwinds and more on rates and the dollar. The article attributes BTC’s stress to US dollar strength and “high” Treasury yields, emphasizing that non-yielding assets tend to struggle when fixed income remains attractive. It references the US 5-year Treasury yield staying around 4.21%.

CNBC is cited for the idea that Fed Chair Kevin Warsh repeatedly referenced “price stability,” strengthening expectations that the central bank will focus more directly on inflation dynamics. In that environment, the report suggests, the US dollar’s bid can tighten financial conditions for BTC even when equities hold up.

Leverage cooling after early-June volatility

The report also points to a shift in positioning: demand for bullish leveraged Bitcoin positions reportedly faded after June 4, following a fast drawdown from $73,700 to $61,300 over just three days. That earlier crash appears to have left traders more cautious, even as AI-related narratives kept capturing market attention.

Funding dynamics were referenced through Laevitas, with the article noting that perpetual-futures leverage metrics have weakened since the volatility spike. The implication for traders is straightforward: when leverage demand cools, recoveries can become less orderly because there’s less “fuel” behind the bid.

At the same time, the piece highlights that bearish momentum in crypto contrasts with strength in AI-linked markets, where new product cycles and public valuations continue to attract attention—and capital—at the expense of older “risk-on” themes.

Why AI narratives looked stronger than BTC’s

The article argues that the macro tape and the sector narrative are diverging. It describes AI-related equities showing renewed momentum, including a 10% jump in Intel shares on Thursday after Trump announced Apple had agreed to work with the chipmaker to build processors. It also notes that memory and data-storage companies, Micron and SK Hynix, have recently joined companies valued at $1 trillion or more.

More broadly, the report frames the AI sector as a growing magnet for investment. It references SpaceX’s market capitalization reaching $2.4 trillion within days of its IPO as an example of how quickly capital can concentrate around major AI/technology ecosystems.

In contrast, it cites Joe Carlasare—described as a commercial litigator and Bitcoin supporter—who argues that traders’ sentiment is currently worse than during the period surrounding the FTX collapse. Carlasare’s view, as presented in the article, is that the narratives that previously drew buyers to Bitcoin have “broken down” this time, even as the market retains reasons to believe in longer-term participation from traditional finance.

That maturity point is supported by the article’s reminder that institutional access to Bitcoin is far more established than in earlier halving cycles. It notes that US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs have accumulated more than $102 billion in assets, and that major financial firms have launched Bitcoin investment offerings to clients, naming Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs.

What to watch next for BTC

With Bitcoin struggling to reclaim $67,200 and leverage interest reportedly cooling after a rapid early-June selloff, the next test—particularly around the $60,000 level—may depend less on whether stocks stay strong and more on whether rates and the dollar continue to tighten conditions for non-yielding assets. If the AI rally keeps drawing capital, traders will likely continue to measure BTC not just against its own prior highs, but against how quickly institutional appetite returns to the asset as macro pressure eases or persists.

US financial regulators have proposed customer identification rules for stablecoin issuers, aiming to align identity verification practices with requirements applied to banks and other covered financial institutions under federal law. The initiative, issued by multiple agencies, is part of the broader implementation framework for the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin-focused statute enacted in July 2025.

The proposal would require stablecoin issuers to perform “customer identification” in connection with onboarding and account access, alongside related recordkeeping and screening obligations tied to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). For regulated firms, the move signals an expectation that stablecoin-related activities will be treated within established AML/CFT compliance structures—raising practical questions around supervision, data handling, and how identity requirements apply across different stablecoin business models.

Key takeaways

• US agencies have issued a proposed rule that would require stablecoin issuers to implement customer identification procedures comparable to those used by banks under the BSA.
• The proposal is positioned as part of the GENIUS Act implementation process and is intended to address AML/CFT obligations for stablecoin providers.
• The notice will be open for public comment for 60 days after formal filing in the Federal Register.
• Regulators cite baseline BSA standards including identity verification, retention of identity information, and screening for potential terrorist affiliations.
• Treasury has already issued related GENIUS proposals on illicit-finance requirements, indicating a multi-agency rulemaking path for stablecoin compliance.

Proposed customer identification requirements under GENIUS

According to the agencies’ notice, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and the US Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) jointly proposed that stablecoin issuers be treated as regulated financial institutions for purposes of verifying customer identity.

The action is linked to the GENIUS Act’s implementation timeline. The law is expected to enter effect 18 months after enactment or 120 days after federal authorities finalize implementing regulations, depending on the administrative schedule for the rulemaking process. In practical terms, the proposal represents regulators translating statutory obligations into operational compliance expectations for stablecoin issuers.

The agencies stated the proposal is designed to meet AML and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) requirements through GENIUS. In the BSA framework, covered financial institutions are generally expected to verify the identity of a person seeking to open an account, maintain records of identity information, and apply risk-based determinations that include whether the person may be associated with terrorism or terrorist organizations.

For institutional stakeholders, the significance lies in how customer identity and onboarding procedures can affect both compliance operations and product design. Identity verification requirements may necessitate enhanced onboarding controls, clearer definitions of “customer” and “account” for stablecoin use, and more robust governance over identity data retention, access controls, and audit trails.

How the Bank Secrecy Act baseline is likely to map onto stablecoin issuers

The BSA standards cited in the notice provide a concrete benchmark: verifying customer identity, keeping records, and determining potential terrorist connections. While those obligations are familiar for banks, applying comparable expectations to stablecoin issuers introduces implementation questions—particularly where stablecoins are issued or distributed via programs, intermediaries, or digital-asset rails rather than through conventional deposit account structures.

Institutions will likely need to assess how customer identification obligations interact with existing compliance programs. Many stablecoin providers and partners already run onboarding and transaction monitoring processes, but the proposed rule would more explicitly anchor identity verification in the same legal and supervisory logic used for covered financial institutions.

That alignment may also affect compliance risk assessments and regulator expectations regarding accountability. Firms may face increased scrutiny over who performs the verification (issuer versus downstream counterparties), what information is considered sufficient for “verification,” and how firms document and retain records to support investigations and examinations.

Broader GENIUS implementation: AML/CFT rulemaking and related deposit coverage issues

The customer identification proposal is not occurring in isolation. Treasury has previously proposed GENIUS-related AML and CFT requirements targeting illicit finance involving stablecoins. In addition, other GENIUS-linked implementation activity has already touched on the contours of insurance coverage for stablecoin issuers.

Earlier, the FDIC suggested that rules allowing deposit insurance for certain corporate deposits of stablecoin issuers would not automatically extend to holders. That distinction matters because it signals regulators are attempting to define regulatory treatment not only for issuers’ activities but also for how stablecoin users and balances fit into existing consumer protection and prudential frameworks.

While the identification proposal focuses on onboarding and screening obligations, the broader GENIUS implementation path suggests a phased approach: first establishing AML/CFT compliance structure and supervision expectations, then refining other areas such as how stablecoin balances interact with deposit-like protections.

From a compliance monitoring perspective, these parallel threads increase the likelihood that stablecoin programs will be evaluated through multiple regulatory lenses—identity verification, transaction monitoring, illicit finance risk controls, and potentially prudential or insurance-related requirements—depending on how each firm’s activities are classified.

Regulatory landscape beyond GENIUS: CLARITY Act timing remains uncertain

Even as stablecoin-specific rules progress under GENIUS, broader US crypto regulatory clarity remains unresolved. The Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act—intended to reshape roles and enforcement mechanisms across financial agencies—has not yet established a defined timeline.

Coverage of the legislative environment indicates that while many stakeholders expect progress by the August recess, there are unresolved concerns raised within Congress, including Democratic objections related to potential conflicts of interest by lawmakers and elected officials. That political uncertainty can influence how quickly the government can harmonize crypto oversight across agencies, even when stablecoin rules move forward.

For regulated entities, this matters because GENIUS addresses stablecoins specifically, but firms operating in the broader digital asset ecosystem may still need to contend with overlapping or inconsistent regulatory treatment depending on the asset category, the structure of the offering, and the designated regulator under any future CLARITY framework.

As a result, institutions should treat the GENIUS customer identification proposal as part of a longer regulatory process rather than a final endpoint. Compliance programs may need to be designed for iterative updates as implementing rules expand, agencies issue additional guidance, and Congress potentially advances wider statutory frameworks for digital asset regulation.

Closing perspective

With the proposed customer identification rule now open for a 60-day comment period after Federal Register filing, stablecoin issuers and their compliance teams will need to prepare for changes that bring identity verification expectations closer to bank-style BSA requirements. The next key step will be how agencies finalize the rule after public feedback and whether broader crypto oversight legislation—such as CLARITY—clarifies agency roles and enforcement priorities alongside GENIUS implementation.

Morgan Stanley has updated its proposed Ethereum and Solana exchange-traded funds with a staking structure that would allow 95% of staking rewards to remain within the trusts while charging a 0.14% annual sponsor fee.

According to amended S-1 registration statements filed by Morgan Stanley, both the Morgan Stanley Ethereum Trust and Morgan Stanley Solana Trust would stake portions of their underlying crypto holdings to generate additional income for investors.

Strategy’s STRC preferred stock has fallen as much as 17% below its $100 par value, prompting Arca Chief Investment Officer Jeff Dorman to argue that selling billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin may be the company’s best path to easing pressure on its capital structure.

According to a June 18 X post by Dorman, the recent decline in STRC has left Strategy facing increasingly difficult choices as investors question the sustainability of its preferred stock obligations. The preferred security dropped to a record low of $82.53 on June 18 before recovering and closing at $88.59, remaining well below par value.

Describing the situation as the latest stage of the “MSTR pickle,” Dorman said management must decide whether to take direct action to restore confidence in STRC or continue operating under a structure that leaves multiple parts of the company exposed to uncertainty.

Selling Bitcoin could buy Strategy more time

In Dorman’s view, the most effective solution would involve Strategy selling between $3 billion and $4 billion worth of Bitcoin. Assigning a 25% probability to that outcome, he said such a move would provide additional flexibility, support STRC holders, and address concerns surrounding the preferred stock without materially changing the company’s long-term Bitcoin strategy.

While Dorman acknowledged that a large Bitcoin sale could weigh on the asset in the short term, he argued that it would buy the company significant time and reduce pressure on its financing structure.

His most likely scenario, however, points elsewhere. Dorman assigned a 70% probability to Strategy continuing its current approach of selling small amounts of MSTR stock at what he described as non-accretive levels.

Under that outcome, he said STRC investors would retain some hope of recovery while Bitcoin holdings remain largely intact, though common shareholders could face further downside.

The comments arrive as scrutiny surrounding Strategy’s financing model continues to intensify. As reported by crypto.news, Peter Schiff recently accused Strategy co-founder Michael Saylor of misleading investors who purchased STRC after it was promoted as a yield-generating investment.

Schiff argued that retirees and income-focused investors could have grounds for legal action if risks associated with the security were not adequately disclosed. He also warned that the stock’s decline could make future fundraising more expensive if investors begin demanding higher yields to purchase additional STRC shares.

Dividend obligations remain at the center of concerns

Beyond stock sales and Bitcoin disposals, Dorman assigned a 5% probability to what he called a “nuclear option” involving the elimination of payments tied to preferred securities.

According to Dorman, such a move could leave preferred shareholders recovering only 30 to 40 cents on the dollar while effectively shutting Strategy out of capital markets. At the same time, he said the company would eliminate an annual cash obligation of roughly $1.7 billion.

Separate concerns about liquidity have also emerged in recent weeks. Earlier, market maker QCP estimated that Strategy’s available liquidity could support preferred dividend payments for approximately seven and a half months.

QCP added that if existing funding channels become less attractive, the company may eventually need alternative sources of capital, with Bitcoin sales potentially becoming one available option.

Alongside those concerns, Dorman challenged Strategy’s valuation. Based on his calculations, the company holds roughly $35.2 billion in unencumbered Bitcoin collateral against an equity market capitalization of about $40.4 billion, leaving MSTR trading at approximately 1.15 times net asset value.

Given those figures, Dorman argued that MSTR should trade below net asset value and warned that the stock could continue falling unless Bitcoin stages a strong recovery. Even then, he said any upside would depend on Strategy avoiding additional dilution through dividends, asset sales, or future fundraising activities.