BNB Chain has activated the Pasteur hard fork on the BNB Smart Chain (BSC) mainnet, marking a focused change to how blocks are verified and authorized—while aiming to increase how much traffic can fit into each block. The network says Pasteur went live on Tuesday and targets bridge, staking, and governance security, without altering BSC’s 450-millisecond block time.

In the update, BNB Chain combines multiple BNB Evolution Proposals (BEPs) to close verification and authorization gaps, improve validator handling around cross-chain and governance operations, and revise the route used by block builders and validators during busy periods.

Key takeaways

• Pasteur is live on BSC mainnet, with BNB Chain describing it as a security and performance upgrade that keeps the 450ms block time unchanged.
• BEP-682 and BEP-695 address validator duplication during cross-chain light-block verification and tighten controls around validator key rotation, slashing, and governance voting.
• BEP-675 changes block submission mechanics, allowing builders to submit blocks they have already executed, reducing duplicated work by validators.
• QANet test results showed higher throughput—but they were from a controlled test environment, not a live mainnet measurement.

What Pasteur changes on BSC mainnet

According to a Tuesday confirmation from BNB Chain, Pasteur is now active on the BSC mainnet and is designed to strengthen core system components tied to network integrity. The team says the upgrade improves the network’s bridge, staking, and governance security, while also increasing block capacity.

BNB Chain frames the upgrade around three BNB Evolution Proposals:

• BEP-682 prevents duplicate validator entries during cross-chain light-block verification.
• BEP-695 tightens how validator-related changes are handled, including validator key rotation, slashing, and governance voting.
• BEP-675 revises the process for how specialist block builders submit blocks to validators.

BNB Chain also says Pasteur is intended to stop validators from being effectively counted more than once in bridge approvals, reduce the authority of older validator keys, and keep restricted addresses from participating in voting. Those are practical safeguards: bridge verification and governance voting both rely on correct validator participation, so tightening these mechanics is a direct defense against edge-case failures and mis-accounting.

Why BSC is adjusting the block-building route

BNB Chain’s update focuses heavily on how work is distributed between block builders and validators. Under the prior route described by the network, a builder executed transactions before submitting a proposed block, and then validators executed the transactions again before signing.

BNB Chain said that “repeated work” can consume time within the block window, at times leaving blocks underfilled—a problem that becomes more visible when the network is busy.

With BEP-675, the new route allows builders to submit blocks they have already executed. In this design, validators verify the proposed block against consensus rules, sign and broadcast it, and only then proceed with full execution verification afterward.

Importantly, BNB Chain says the previous route is still available: builders can continue to use the earlier method in which validators execute transactions before signing. That dual approach suggests Pasteur is being introduced with operational flexibility, potentially reducing risk for builders that may need time to align with the revised workflow.

Throughput gains in QANet tests—what to watch

To quantify the changes, BNB Chain points to tests conducted on QANet, an internal environment created to mirror BSC’s geographically distributed validators. In those tests, the new block-building route increased throughput by roughly 88%, rising from 1,237 to 2,324 transactions per second.

BNB Chain also reported that average gas used per block increased from 46.35 million to 84.15 million, while two key parameters remained steady: the block interval and the 100-million gas limit.

However, the network emphasized that these figures were generated under a controlled test workload and were not mainnet measurements. For investors and operators, this matters because test throughput does not always translate directly to real-world performance under fluctuating demand, different transaction mixes, and changing validator/builder behavior.

Still, the directional outcome is clear: Pasteur is designed to help validators spend less time on duplicated pre-execution, which should make it easier to keep blocks closer to their capacity during peak traffic.

Where Pasteur fits in BSC’s recent performance push

Pasteur follows an earlier phase of BSC upgrades that prioritized faster block production. BNB Chain previously highlighted that its Maxwell hard fork reduced average block time from 1.5 seconds to about 0.8 seconds in June 2025. The subsequent Fermi upgrade then brought the network down to 450 milliseconds.

In that context, Pasteur looks like a complementary step: once block times were shortened, the system needed a way to avoid traffic bottlenecks that can appear when the time available for building and validating shrinks. By changing how builder execution and validator signing interact—while also tightening validator authorization rules—the network is effectively trying to balance speed, throughput, and correctness.

BNB Chain’s latest move therefore targets two layers at once: security boundaries (validator accounting, key rotation controls, and governance participation rules) and block production efficiency (reducing duplicated work inside the block window).

Readers should watch how quickly builders and validators adopt the new route under real mainnet load, and whether QANet gains translate into more consistently full blocks during periods of elevated activity. The big remaining question is how performance behaves across different transaction profiles—not just raw throughput—now that Pasteur has changed the operational choreography of execution and signing.

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), or SCBHK, has become the first bank authorized to distribute HKDAP, a regulated Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoin issued by Anchorpoint Financial. 

On Monday, the bank said it is engaging eligible institutional clients and partners on uses including tokenized fund settlements, treasury operations and cross-border payments during a phased rollout.

Standard Chartered’s addition expands HKDAP distribution into conventional banking nearly two weeks after Anchorpoint began beta access through HashKey Group and OSL. SCBHK said it expects to introduce new commercial applications over the coming months.

The bank plans to introduce HKDAP-based subscriptions and settlements for tokenized money market funds with international and local asset managers in the fourth quarter. It also intends to use the stablecoin in intragroup settlements across its banking network in the near term.

“Since Anchorpoint received its stablecoin issuer licence, we have seen strong interest from clients exploring how HKDAP can support their business needs,” SCBHK CEO Mary Huen said in the announcement.

She added that SCBHK’s distribution could support payments, settlement and treasury management while providing eligible clients with access through a regulated banking channel.

Related: Hong Kong warns of fake stablecoins impersonating HSBC and Anchorpoint

HKDAP expands distribution

Anchorpoint is a joint venture established by Standard Chartered’s Hong Kong arm, telecommunications company HKT and Web3 investment company Animoca Brands. Standard Chartered is Anchorpoint’s largest shareholder, and the licensed issuer operates as a subsidiary of the bank. 

In February 2025, the partners announced plans for an HKD-backed stablecoin, after participating in the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s (HKMA) stablecoin issuer sandbox since July 2024. In August 2025, they formally established Anchorpoint Financial and began pursuing an issuer license. 

Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance took effect on Aug. 1, 2025. Ahead of its implementation, the HKMA issued supervisory guidelines and opened a public register of licensed issuers.

On April 10, the HKMA granted its first stablecoin issuer licenses to Anchorpoint and HSBC’s Hong Kong banking arm. The approvals came under rules requiring licensed issuers to meet standards covering reserve backing, redemption, governance and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) controls. 

Magazine: MiCA cracks down on USDT in Europe… but no one else cares

Two major crypto industry advocacy groups have taken legal action against Illinois over a newly enacted digital asset tax that is scheduled to take effect in January 2027. The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and the Blockchain Association (BA) filed a lawsuit in Sangamon County, arguing that the measure runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution and other legal protections.

Illinois’ policy imposes a 0.2% tax on cryptocurrency based on transaction volume, which the state described as a “privilege tax.” The groups say the tax’s structure and administration create constitutional problems, including claims that the law is too vague and risks duplicative taxation for cross-border activity.

Key takeaways

• CCI and BA sued Illinois officials over a 0.2% cryptocurrency tax tied to transaction volume, effective January 2027.
• The complaint argues the tax violates multiple constitutional and legal provisions, including due process and the Commerce Clause.
• Opponents contend the rules are “unconstitutionally vague,” placing compliance burdens on residents and brokers under penalty threats.
• The lawsuit follows earlier Illinois crypto tax litigation from the Digital Chamber in July.
• Illinois’ broader regulatory posture also includes prediction market restrictions, alongside separate related legal challenges.

What Illinois’ crypto tax requires—and what challengers object to

The lawsuit was filed Friday in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit for Sangamon County. According to the court filing, CCI and BA challenge Illinois’ digital asset tax on constitutional grounds, including claims involving due process and the Commerce Clause.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the measure into law in June as part of the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget. The tax is framed as a “privilege tax,” and it is designed to apply to transaction volume rather than income.

CCI and BA argue the tax creates uncertainty for market participants because it requires residents and brokers to determine what qualifies and how assets are taxed, while simultaneously exposing them to “serious civil and criminal penalties.” Their due process argument centers on alleged vagueness—essentially, that the law does not provide sufficiently clear guidance to comply safely.

Commerce Clause and the “risk of duplicative taxation” claim

Beyond due process, the complaint asserts that the Illinois tax implicates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which governs regulation of interstate commerce. In the filing, the groups contend the state tax creates a “specter of duplicative taxation,” a point aimed at the risk that crypto transactions spanning multiple jurisdictions could face overlapping tax obligations.

The core logic is that crypto activity is not confined to a single state boundary in the way traditional in-state commerce might be. If multiple jurisdictions try to levy comparable taxes based on transaction activity, the result—according to the lawsuit’s framing—could be inconsistent treatment and uncertainty for businesses and consumers operating across state lines.

“States have an important role in fostering innovation, but that authority has constitutional limits,” said Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association and a former commissioner at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. She added that Illinois cannot impose a “novel tax regime” that discriminates against digital commerce, creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses, and threatens to fragment what she described as a rapidly growing national market.

How this fits into a wider pattern of Illinois crypto and prediction market scrutiny

The CCI/BA legal challenge is not the first court fight over Illinois’ approach. In July, the Digital Chamber filed a separate lawsuit against the same state crypto tax. That earlier case argued that the measure “discriminates against people who transact in digital assets,” aligning with the broader theme in the new complaint: that the tax places crypto users and related businesses under a regulatory burden not matched by other forms of commerce.

These lawsuits also arrive during an election year cycle in which crypto policy can become politically consequential. The filings and related actions point to how industry groups are mobilizing to challenge state laws that they say could reshape the compliance landscape well before the provisions take effect.

Illinois’ regulatory efforts extend beyond crypto taxation. The background includes Kalshi’s lawsuit against Illinois officials over legislation that took effect July 1 and, according to Kalshi, “expressly bans sports event contracts” in violation of federal law by requiring state licensing. Separately, Pritzker signed an executive order in April barring state employees from betting on prediction market platforms, explicitly aimed at preventing insider trading concerns amid the growth of event-based gambling contracts.

What to watch next

As the case moves forward, the key issue will likely be how courts evaluate the law’s clarity and enforcement mechanics—particularly the alleged vagueness and the constitutional concerns tied to interstate activity. With the tax slated for January 2027, businesses and brokers will be watching whether the litigation leads to court-ordered changes, delays, or a clearer interpretation of how Illinois intends to apply the 0.2% levy.

Monero users are turning to instant swaps and decentralized platforms as centralized exchanges restrict access to XMR.

As access to Monero has become more restricted on some centralized exchanges — notably after Binance delisted XMR globally on 20 February 2024, OKX removed XMR pairs on 5 January 2024, and Kraken restricted it for EEA users on 31 October 2024 — many users now rely on instant swap services and decentralized platforms.

This guide compares practical ways to exchange Monero without registration, focusing on USDT TRC20 to XMR, minimum amounts, confirmation requirements, and AML procedures.

Why use a Monero exchange without registration?

Monero’s privacy features — ring signatures, stealth addresses, and confidential transactions — hide sender, receiver and amount on-chain. The best Monero exchange depends on whether the user prioritizes live pricing, decentralization or the number of supported assets.

However, the way to acquire or dispose of XMR still matters. Centralized exchanges that still list XMR usually require full identity verification and maintain user accounts.

Services that do not require registration let users create a one-time order, send crypto from their own wallet to a temporary deposit address, and receive the output directly in a controlled wallet.

This reduces the personal data trail associated with the exchange itself.

“No registration” is not the same as an unconditional guarantee that identity information will never be requested.

Most instant services apply automated AML screening. A standard-order flow usually proceeds without documents, but a flagged deposit can pause processing.

How should investors compare no-registration XMR exchanges?

Useful comparison points include:

• Supported XMR directions, especially USDT TRC20 → XMR, XMR → BTC and other assets.
• Whether an account or identity documents are needed to create a standard order.
• Minimum amounts; always check the live quote — they are pair- and liquidity-dependent.
• How the service handles incoming deposits and outgoing XMR.
• Stated AML / risk-screening policy.
• Custody model during the brief processing window.

According to the official Monero Wallet CLI documentation, newly received XMR normally becomes spendable after 10 confirmations.

Which no-registration Monero exchanges are available in 2026?

The following services are commonly used for accountless XMR swaps. The best XMR exchange for a particular transaction depends on the required pair, available rate, liquidity, and AML terms.

Descriptions reflect publicly available information and community testing as of mid-2026; always re-verify.

Quickex

Quickex operates as an accountless instant exchange. Users can create an order without registration for standard pairs that include Monero.

The service supports XMR routes involving USDT across several networks, as well as BTC and ETH, including exchanges in both directions.

Minimum amounts appear in the live quote and are pair-dependent.

Newly received XMR typically becomes spendable after 10 Monero confirmations, which is approximately 20 minutes at Monero’s two-minute block target. This wallet unlock period should not be confused with the exchange provider’s own deposit-processing requirements.

Quickex applies risk-based AML screening. According to its published policy, suspicious transactions may be delayed for review and additional information can be requested.

For users specifically needing the reverse direction, the service provides an XMR to BTC route.

GhostSwap

GhostSwap functions as a non-account aggregator supporting a large number of pairs, including USDT to XMR and BTC to XMR.

It markets a no-registration flow for standard swaps.

Minimums and exact confirmation counts are shown at quote time and depend on the backend liquidity provider used for that order.

ChangeNOW, StealthEX, and Godex

These established instant-swap services (ChangeNOW, StealthEX, and Godex) allow creation of XMR-related orders without registration for ordinary volumes.

They typically offer both floating and fixed-rate options.

Minimum amounts, supported networks, including USDT TRC20, and confirmation expectations are displayed in the order interface and can differ by pair and current network conditions.

Trocador

Trocador acts as a privacy-oriented aggregator. It does not hold funds itself but routes orders to partner services, allowing rate comparison while remaining within an accountless workflow for many routes.

Haveno

Haveno is a decentralized, Tor-based peer-to-peer platform focused on Monero. It does not operate as a centralized instant swap. Trades rely on an order book and multisig-style escrow. It offers the greatest degree of decentralization among the listed options at the cost of potentially longer matching times and variable liquidity.

How do the leading monero exchanges compare?

How to exchange USDT TRC20 for XMR on Quickex?

A typical accountless flow looks like this:

1. Select USDT (TRC20) as the asset to send and XMR as the asset to receive.
2. Enter a fresh Monero receiving address; a subaddress is preferable. Using a new subaddress for each incoming payment improves privacy by preventing address reuse.
3. Review the live minimum, expected output, rate type, choose fixed or floating rate (fixed locks the receive amount for a limited window, floating follows the market), and any network notes. 
4. Send the exact amount of USDT TRC20 from a wallet to the one-time deposit address generated by the service.
5. After the USDT deposit receives the required TRON confirmations, the service processes the swap and broadcasts the XMR transaction.

Most Monero wallets display the incoming transaction relatively quickly.

Newly received XMR normally becomes spendable after 10 Monero confirmations, roughly 20 minutes under normal network conditions.

The service’s own internal detection or release threshold may differ slightly from the wallet unlock time. Always perform a small test transaction first and double-check the network, TRC20 vs ERC20, etc.

Can a no-KYC XMR exchange freeze a transaction?

Yes. Even services that do not require registration for a standard order usually run automated risk screening.

If a deposit is flagged, for example due to associations with mixers, high-risk addresses or other risk indicators, the service may pause the order, request additional information or source-of-funds details, or process a refund according to its policy.

Quickex’s published AML documentation states that it applies risk-based checks and may request information when elevated risk is identified. Similar policies exist at most instant-swap providers.

Risk-screening outcomes depend on transaction history, counterparties, and the provider’s internal thresholds. Using a self-custody wallet does not by itself guarantee that a deposit will pass screening.

What are the risks of exchanging Monero without registration?

• Sending to the wrong network or an incorrect address is irreversible.
• Floating rates can move between the moment the quote is received and the moment the deposit is detected.
• Confirmation times vary with network conditions.
• AML review can delay or alter the outcome of an order.
• Regulatory treatment of privacy coins continues to evolve.

Recommended practices include using a dedicated Monero wallet, the official Monero GUI or well-established self-custody options such as Feather or Cake Wallet, generating fresh subaddresses, verifying every detail in the order form, and keeping records of order IDs and transaction hashes.

Review each service’s terms and regional restrictions before accessing it via VPN or Tor, as policies differ.

Conclusion

Suitable accountless XMR options in 2026 include Quickex, GhostSwap, ChangeNOW, StealthEX, Godex, Trocador, and the decentralized Haveno platform.

Instant services work well for straightforward routes such as USDT TRC20 → XMR, while Haveno maximizes removal of intermediaries. No single service is universally “best.”

Evaluate speed, live rates, minimums, confirmation expectations, and AML handling against personal priorities, and always confirm current details in the order interface before sending funds.

Combine careful platform selection with secure wallet practices to reduce operational risks during an XMR swap.

FAQ

Can I exchange USDT TRC20 for XMR without registration?

Yes, on multiple accountless instant services. Users can create an order, send USDT TRC20 to a temporary deposit address, and receive XMR in their own wallet.

No account is required to start a standard swap.

Can a no-registration Monero exchange still ask for ID?

Yes, if automated AML screening flags the deposit. Most services allow standard orders without documents, but elevated-risk transactions can be paused pending review or additional information.

How many confirmations does a Monero exchange require?

It depends on the service and the direction. Standard Monero wallets typically unlock newly received funds after 10 confirmations, about 20 minutes.

Instant services may use their own detection thresholds. Always check the specific order details.

What happens if an XMR exchange flags a transaction?

The order may be delayed while the service reviews the deposit.

Outcomes can include a request for information, continued processing after clearance, or a refund according to the provider’s policy.

What is the minimum amount needed to exchange USDT for XMR?

Minimums are pair- and liquidity-dependent and appear in the live quote.

They commonly fall in a modest range for stablecoin pairs but should be confirmed on the day of the swap.

What is the best XMR exchange without registration?

There is no single best XMR exchange for every transaction. Quickex is one of the services that offers a direct XMR to BTC route without requiring registration for a standard order.

Fortune Protocol has integrated Polymarket liquidity into Fortune Markets, adding another source of prediction markets alongside Predict.fun while giving users a single interface to compare liquidity, volume and market probabilities.

Fortune Protocol said in an X announcement on Aug. 25 that Polymarket liquidity was now live on the platform, bringing markets from both Polymarket and the previously integrated Predict.fun into what it describes as a unified market layer.

The integration allows Fortune Markets users to browse event markets supplied through different liquidity sources without moving between separate prediction platforms. Market information is displayed through a redesigned interface that lets traders compare liquidity, trading volume and implied probabilities before selecting a market.

Alongside the additional liquidity, Fortune has changed its trading flow to include outcome selection and a position preview. Its Portfolio section has also been combined into one view covering open positions, settled markets and a user’s full trading history.

“More markets. More liquidity. One Fortune,” the project said while announcing the update.

Fortune Protocol brings Polymarket liquidity into one interface

Fortune Protocol describes Fortune Markets as a prediction market product built around aggregated access, with liquidity from outside venues brought into a common interface. The latest addition puts Polymarket beside Predict.fun as the two named liquidity sources currently available through the product.

Under the new market design, users can examine comparable information across markets before trading, including how much liquidity is available, the volume recorded by a market and the probability implied by its pricing.

Fortune said the updated trading process also lets a user select an outcome and preview the resulting position before proceeding. Once trades have been made, the unified Portfolio provides access to active positions, markets that have already resolved and previous trading activity.

The project said it plans to continue integrating liquidity from established prediction market venues as it builds the unified market layer. According to Fortune, combining different liquidity sources is intended to give users a more efficient way to access and trade prediction markets from one place.

Predict.fun already has integrations elsewhere in the crypto market. In April, crypto.news reported on Predict.fun powering prediction-market access inside Binance Wallet for eligible users.

Through that integration, prediction-market activity is executed on-chain using Predict.fun smart contracts, while Predict.fun operates the events, pricing and resolution rules. Users can access markets covering areas including sports, economics, world events, culture and crypto, with outcome prices representing the probability assigned by traders to each result.

Polymarket has been expanding its own liquidity infrastructure

Fortune’s addition of Polymarket comes after the prediction market operator made changes to its own trading infrastructure earlier this year.

In April, Polymarket launched CLOB v2, introducing new exchange contracts, a rewritten central limit order book backend and Polymarket USD, or pUSD, as its collateral token.

The upgrade was accompanied by a $1 million liquidity rewards program designed to attract market makers and deepen order books across Polymarket’s event contracts. Polymarket also added support that allows front ends and other builders to route orders and track trading flow through its infrastructure.

Those changes matter for aggregation products because liquidity determines how easily traders can enter and exit a prediction market and how closely prices can track changes in market expectations. Fortune’s redesigned interface makes liquidity one of the metrics displayed when users compare available markets.

Polymarket’s trading model uses event contracts whose prices change as traders buy and sell different outcomes. A contract priced at 60 cents, for example, represents an implied probability of roughly 60% before considerations such as market structure, liquidity and trading costs.

Fortune has not disclosed separate volume or liquidity figures for the Polymarket markets made available through its interface.

Prediction market liquidity has drawn professional trading firms

Liquidity has become a larger focus across prediction markets as trading activity has increased.

During May, Wintermute entered prediction market making, providing continuous two-way quotes across several prediction platforms. Aggregate monthly trading volume across the sector had passed $20 billion at the time, while Wintermute described liquidity as still early by institutional market standards.

Jake Ostrovskis, Wintermute’s head of OTC trading, said there was “clear demand for these markets” but liquidity remained insufficient. The firm said tighter spreads and more trading capacity could improve the quality of probabilities produced by event markets.

Market makers provide competing bids and offers that can reduce the gap between prices available to buyers and sellers. For prediction platforms, deeper order books can also make it easier for traders to execute larger positions without moving a contract’s price as sharply.

Fortune’s model approaches the same liquidity issue from the user interface side by pulling markets supplied by multiple venues into one place and allowing traders to examine them before choosing where to take a position.

Aggregating prediction markets is becoming a separate product category

Other firms have also started building products designed around access to several prediction platforms.

Paradigm has been developing a prediction terminal for professional traders and market makers. The project, which began in late 2025, was designed to provide tools for analyzing and routing liquidity across on-chain and regulated prediction platforms.

Paradigm had also begun aggregating prediction-market data into a public dashboard and was considering an internal market-making operation and an index that could package several event markets into one product.

Fortune’s product is focused on bringing the markets themselves into a unified trading interface. Its latest update adds Polymarket to the Predict.fun liquidity already available, while the redesigned Portfolio keeps open positions, resolved contracts and trade history under the same account view.

The protocol said it would continue adding liquidity from other mainstream prediction markets as Fortune Markets develops its unified market layer.

Metaplanet transferred 1,000 Bitcoin, worth approximately $79.77 million, to Coinbase Prime on Aug. 25, according to blockchain analytics account Lookonchain.

The transfer follows several large movements involving the Japanese company’s 43,000 BTC treasury. However, neither Metaplanet nor Coinbase had identified the latest movement as a sale when checked Tuesday.

Metaplanet’s Coinbase Prime transfer does not prove a sale

Lookonchain described the transaction as a deposit into Coinbase Prime. Prime provides institutional trading, financing and custody services. Moving Bitcoin there can precede a sale, but it can also reflect custody management, collateral arrangements or internal account transfers.

“Metaplanet deposited another 1,000 BTC into Coinbase Prime,” Lookonchain reported. The destination attribution is an on-chain analyst’s assessment, not confirmation that Coinbase executed a sale.