Coinbase has added fixed-rate USDC loans backed by cbBTC after its variable-rate borrowing service reached more than $1.4 billion in outstanding loans and nearly $3 billion in collateral.

Coinbase fixed-rate loans set costs in advance

Coinbase said the new borrowing option operates through Morpho Midnight, a fixed-rate and fixed-term lending protocol on Base. Customers pledge cbBTC as collateral and receive USDC without selling their bitcoin exposure.

Stellar’s XLM has risen 2.7% to $0.2135 after BVNK added the blockchain to its stablecoin payments platform, opening the network to business payments across more than 130 markets.

BVNK announced the integration, saying customers can now access Stellar through the same API they use for the company’s other payment rails and digital assets.

Businesses can use the connection for cross-border payments, customer and supplier payouts, remittances and corporate treasury transfers. Since BVNK manages the blockchain connection within its platform, customers do not have to create a separate Stellar integration or replace their existing payment infrastructure.

The arrangement adds a network designed for fast and low-cost transfers to BVNK’s set of settlement options. Instead of selecting and maintaining separate connections for each blockchain, a business can route payments through the networks available within BVNK’s platform.

BVNK has opened Stellar across 130-plus markets

BVNK said the Stellar rail is available across more than 130 supported markets. Its platform connects conventional payment systems with stablecoins and other digital assets, allowing companies to move funds using a single technical connection.

According to BVNK, its payment infrastructure recorded $55.6 billion in volume during 2025 and processed 3.6 billion transactions. The company also reported 99.99% uptime and an average settlement time of about five seconds.

Kimberley Mescal Julien, head of partnerships at BVNK, said businesses should not have to operate separate connections for several blockchain networks. She described Stellar as another low-cost channel that customers can use to send money across borders through BVNK’s existing platform.

Adding a blockchain through one API can reduce the technical work required when companies enter another market or support a new asset. BVNK said customers would also be able to access more Stellar-native assets through the same connection if the company expands the offering.

The current announcement does not name any additional assets or provide a timetable for their introduction. Stellar supports the issuance and transfer of tokens on its network, including assets designed to track national currencies.

XLM price has gained alongside higher trading activity

CoinGecko data showed XLM at $0.2135 at the time of writing, representing a 2.7% increase over 24 hours and an 11.2% gain during the past week. The token traded between $0.2062 and $0.2198 during the daily period.

Daily trading volume stood at about $403.3 million, while XLM’s circulating market value reached roughly $7.46 billion. CoinGecko estimated that about 35 billion XLM were in circulation out of a maximum supply of approximately 50 billion tokens.

The token remained about 75.6% below its record price of $0.8756. CoinGecko calculates the quoted XLM price using a volume-weighted average drawn from 113 exchanges and 244 markets.

BVNK’s announcement supplies another commercial use case for the Stellar network, but it does not confirm how much payment volume will pass through the new rail. The company also did not disclose whether customers must hold XLM directly to use Stellar-based transfers.

Network adoption and token demand do not always move together because businesses may settle with stablecoins or other assets issued on a blockchain. A recent XLM assessment published by crypto.news noted that Stellar’s transaction activity does not automatically produce lasting demand for its native token.

The same report cited about $5.5 billion in stablecoin payment volume and more than $2.83 billion in tokenized real-world assets on Stellar as of June. It also noted that the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation planned to connect its tokenization service to Stellar, with live assets targeted for the first half of 2027.

Mastercard ownership adds scale to BVNK’s payment network

BVNK’s Stellar launch follows Mastercard’s completion of its acquisition of the stablecoin infrastructure company in August. The transaction valued BVNK at up to $1.8 billion and placed its blockchain payment technology within Mastercard’s global operation.

As reported after the acquisition, Mastercard bought BVNK to connect digital assets with traditional payment systems. The companies did not provide a detailed timetable for combining BVNK’s technology, licenses and customer relationships with Mastercard’s existing services.

Mastercard said in its Aug. 3 announcement that the purchase would support transfers between fiat money and digital currencies. The payment company also linked BVNK’s infrastructure with Mastercard Move, which provides money-transfer services across multiple currencies and markets.

BVNK continued operating its platform following the acquisition, and the Stellar connection shows the company adding blockchain rails under its new ownership. Its customers can access the network through the same technical setup they already use rather than waiting for a separate Mastercard product.

Before completing the purchase, Mastercard had worked with BVNK on digital-asset projects. BVNK was among more than 30 companies supporting Mastercard’s Agent Pay for Machines program, which was designed to let automated software conduct high-volume, low-value transactions through cards and stablecoins.

U.S. institutions are testing Stellar-based settlement

For U.S. businesses and XLM holders, the BVNK integration follows a live transaction conducted by U.S. Bank with its proprietary USBDC stablecoin. The bank moved funds between its entities in North America and Europe using Stellar.

The U.S. Bank pilot connected USBDC with the bank’s finance, risk, compliance, and operational systems. U.S. Bank’s Digital Asset Platform handled the token’s issuance, transfer and redemption while also testing freezing and clawback functions.

U.S. Bank described the transaction as a controlled test rather than a public stablecoin launch. It did not disclose the payment amount, transaction hash, settlement time or reserve structure behind USBDC, and the bank did not announce access for customers or outside financial institutions.

The transaction focused on an intercompany transfer between U.S. Bank entities rather than a consumer payment. According to the bank, the trial examined whether a dollar-backed token could support international transfers while remaining connected to established banking controls.

U.S. Bank said it was also studying liquidity management, collateral movement and cross-border treasury operations through its digital-asset platform. The bank did not provide dates for further tests or identify clients and payment corridors that could take part in any later trial.

Bitcoin’s origin story remains wrapped in mystery—even for the coins commonly linked to Satoshi Nakamoto. A recent on-chain transfer of roughly 600 BTC, mined in March 2010 and dormant for more than 16 years, reignited speculation that “Satoshi’s” stash may have finally moved. Yet blockchain evidence can trace holdings and spending patterns far more reliably than it can identify a specific individual.

According to Whale Alert, the 600 BTC transfer showed no direct connection to the widely discussed Satoshi holdings cluster. Meanwhile, blockchain research firm Bitquery examined the underlying block rewards and found that most of the relevant blocks did not cleanly match the distinctive mining pattern attributed to “Patoshi”—the name used for the suspected early-miner fingerprint associated with Satoshi. Together, the findings underline a key limitation: the chain records transactions, not who controls the keys at any given moment.

Key takeaways

• The 600 BTC moved after 16 years came from 12 old block rewards mined in March 2010, but the sender is not proven to be Satoshi.
• Whale Alert reported no connection between the 600 BTC transfer and the commonly tracked Satoshi-associated stash.
• Bitquery found that 10 of the 12 blocks did not match the “Patoshi” mining fingerprint, while the remaining two only weakly matched in a way that could occur by chance.
• Even if a mining pattern points to one early operator, it cannot confirm that the same person still controlled the keys in 2026.
• Bitquery’s full reconstruction suggests the total “Satoshi” estimate can vary significantly depending on how strictly the fingerprint is applied.

Why the long-dormant 600 BTC transfer didn’t settle the Satoshi question

The recent activity involved 12 block rewards mined over four days in March 2010, each remaining untouched until Sept. 5 of this year. The coins were spent in a short window—one-by-one—within roughly half an hour, an on-chain detail that naturally drew attention to whether the move could be linked to the earliest era of Bitcoin mining.

However, multiple lines of analysis complicate the “Satoshi woke up” narrative. Whale Alert reported no connection between the 600 BTC and the tracked Satoshi-linked holdings. Bitquery’s review went further: it reported that 10 of the 12 blocks involved in this transfer did not match the “Patoshi” mining pattern associated with Satoshi in the earliest blocks.

For the two blocks that did show weak matches, Bitquery researcher Gaurav Agrawal noted the matching could plausibly happen by chance. Importantly, this distinction matters for readers trying to separate “connected by pattern” from “connected by identity.”

“What the chain cannot say is whether the hand in 2026 belongs to the person who ran the machine in 2010.”

Even if the coins clearly originate from a period of early mining, the chain does not reveal who held the private keys when the coins were moved. Agrawal also emphasized that keys can be inherited, sold, stolen, or recovered from old storage media—meaning the blockchain may only show that someone had control at the time of spending, not who that someone is.

There’s another practical clue: the spending transactions used modern wallet software. The Bitcoin client used in 2010 would not have supported the same tooling. That implies the keys were likely loaded into a newer system by whoever controlled them in 2026, but it still doesn’t identify whether that controller is the original miner—or a later party who obtained the keys.

The “Patoshi” fingerprint and the limits of circumstantial evidence

The broader claim that Satoshi controlled about 1.1 million BTC rests on forensic-style reconstruction rather than direct proof. The basic method is to identify a recurring mining “fingerprint” in Bitcoin’s early blocks—then attribute blocks with similar traits to a single operator.

In 2013, researcher Sergio Demian Lerner publicly identified what he described as a distinctive pattern in the earliest blocks and argued it reflected one miner operating differently from others. Lerner estimated the miner amassed around 1.1 million BTC, and—more than a decade later—he continued to stand by the calculation, describing it as accurate with the caveat that the evidence remains circumstantial, not “math proof” or direct witness.

The argument is strengthened by additional observations that link early recipients to that same pattern. According to Lerner, several early Bitcoin users—Hal Finney, Dustin D. Trammell, Nicholas Bohm, and Mike Hearn—received transfers showing the Patoshi mining fingerprint. In his view, the fact that those transfers traced back to coinbases in the Patoshi pattern provides “compelling reasons” to connect Patoshi to Satoshi, even though it is still not absolute proof.

Lerner also suggested the miner likely used specialized mining software rather than the standard client. If true, that would imply an unusually fast setup after Bitcoin’s early release, making it “highly improbable” that a different party formed a matching operation later on.

Bitquery’s reconstruction: one stash estimate, multiple possible sizes

Thirteen years after Lerner’s work, Bitquery attempted a more comprehensive rebuild of the Patoshi fingerprint from raw early blocks. In a report released through its investigations, Bitquery said it graded 54,316 early-era blocks and followed every coin through Sept. 1, 2026.

The firm reported a “highest grade” reconstruction that agrees with the published Patoshi list on 99.2% of blocks. It also said it found zero exceptions in a timestamp-ordering test across 5,836 adjacent block pairs, with Agrawal stating, “I don’t know of a stronger test for this.”

Still, the work also highlights how sensitive the estimate can be. While Bitquery’s reconstruction supports the idea of a concentrated early-mining origin, the total count of attributed coins changes depending on how strictly the pattern criteria are applied.

Agrawal said a strict interpretation of the fingerprint covers just under 0.9 million BTC, while a “most generous reading” lands around 1.17 million. He emphasized that published estimates between roughly 1.0 million and 1.13 million fall inside that range, so the firm’s analysis did not “move the number” so much as clarify the uncertainty boundaries.

For investors and market observers, the practical takeaway is simple: the “1.1 million BTC” figure is best understood as an estimate derived from rules about pattern matching, not a precise, settled ledger fact.

What the chain can confirm—and what remains unknowable

Agrawal framed the “Satoshi owns 1.1 million BTC” claim as three separate assertions stacked together. First is that the coins likely came from one mining machine—supported by stronger evidence. Second is that the machine belonged to Satoshi—presented as circumstantial. Third is that the keys still sit under Satoshi’s control, which cannot be proven merely because the coins have historically stayed unmoved.

Bitquery also reported a 2010 transaction moving 600 BTC in two transfers about an hour apart. The first moved at 22:04 UTC and spent 10 block rewards worth 500 BTC; the second moved at 23:07 UTC and spent two block rewards worth 100 BTC. Those rewards were mined at various points throughout 2009, spanning near both the start and end of Bitcoin’s first year.

Agrawal argued that this May 2010 moment is “the clearest” where the chain itself, rather than statistical pattern matching, suggests the blocks belonged together—effectively the closest the chain gets to confirming that blocks from across 2009 ended up under one wallet, matching what the broader Patoshi pattern claims for the entire set.

Yet this does not answer the individual identity question for the Sept. 5 transfer. Bitquery said the 600 BTC moved this month do not belong to the Patoshi miner, and it reported no new evidence connecting this activity to “Satoshi’s” stash. As Agrawal put it, “nothing in the math settles it, so we will never be sure.”

What readers should watch next is less about whether “Satoshi” coins move and more about how researchers refine fingerprint tests and attribution thresholds. The chain can narrow possibilities through spending behavior and mining structure, but unless keys can be linked to a specific person over time, the biggest uncertainty—who controls the coins—will likely remain unresolved.

BitMEX has removed its remaining spot, conversion, and derivatives markets ahead of its Sep. 23 shutdown, ending more than 11 years of exchange operations.

BitMEX said HDR Global Trading Limited, its owner and operator, approved the closure after a “strategic review of the business and the broader crypto industry.” New account registrations stopped when the company announced the decision on July 23.

The exchange has since dismantled its services in stages. Major Bitcoin and Ethereum derivatives were settled on Sep. 16, all remaining spot pairs stopped trading on Sep. 21, and the Convert service ended for every supported token at 04:00 UTC on Sep. 22.

BitMEX shutdown reaches its final stage

BitMEX will formally end exchange operations at 04:00 UTC on Sep. 23, equivalent to 9:30 a.m. in India. Any positions still open at that time will be closed by the system using the relevant settlement price or index under the exchange’s standard procedures.

As crypto.news reported in July, BitMEX initially gave customers two months to close positions and remove their funds. Risk limits introduced on Aug. 26 prevented users from opening new positions while allowing them to reduce existing exposure.

During July and August, the exchange began removing markets with limited trading activity. BitMEX delisted 35 derivatives contracts on July 30 and another 18 on Aug. 11, followed by several spot pairs, perpetual swaps, and Convert-supported tokens.

The final derivatives round included XBTUSD, XBTUSDT, ETHUSD and ETHUSDT perpetual swaps. BitMEX also settled the XBTU26, XBTZ26, XBTH27 and ETHUSDU26 futures contracts on Sep. 16.

Although the formal closure is set for Sep. 23, the removal of the remaining spot pairs and Convert service means users can no longer access the exchange’s main trading products. BitMEX’s limited post-closure interface will support withdrawals, transaction records and wallet-balance checks rather than trading.

Deposits will be credited only until the closure time. BitMEX warned that funds sent to its deposit addresses after 04:00 UTC on Sep. 23 will not appear in customer accounts and may be unrecoverable.

Withdrawals remain open under tighter conditions

Customers who have not removed their assets will retain account access after the exchange closes. BitMEX said its post-closure website will display balances, transaction histories and withdrawal pages, while the trading interface and other discontinued services will disappear.

From Sep. 23, verified accounts containing funds will face a monthly charge based on the higher of $50 or an annual rate of 1%. BitMEX will deduct the charge from the remaining account balance without taking it below zero.

If a balance is lower than the minimum withdrawal amount, the fee may reduce it to zero. The company also reserves the right to raise the charge after providing advance notice.

General application programming interface access will end when the exchange closes, but API withdrawals will remain available until 04:00 UTC on Sep. 28. Institutional withdrawal connections involving Fireblocks and Copper will stop working after that deadline, leaving the BitMEX website as the only withdrawal channel.

At the same time, BitMEX will remove its multi-network withdrawal option for USDT, USDC, and ETH. From Sep. 28, customers will only be able to withdraw the three assets through the Ethereum network.

Returning customers may also need to update their know-your-customer information before withdrawing funds. BitMEX said some users could face a test-transaction requirement and a security cooldown, while minimum withdrawal limits will apply separately to each asset.

The company has warned customers about phishing attempts linked to the closure. BitMEX said it does not offer priority withdrawals and advised users to reject messages claiming they can provide faster access to funds.

BitMEX also said customer assets remain fully backed and pointed to its proof-of-reserves and liabilities records. According to the exchange, no customer funds have been lost through a hack during its 11 years of operation.

Failed buyer search preceded the BitMEX closure

Before approving the shutdown, BitMEX reportedly spent about two years discussing a sale with potential buyers. Rival exchanges and wallet company Exodus were among the parties linked to the talks, while Broadhaven Capital Partners reportedly advised BitMEX during the process.

A later report on negotiations said BitMEX sought a valuation of about $1 billion, though it remained unclear whether any prospective buyer made a formal offer. The discussions ended without an agreement before HDR Global Trading completed its review.

Founder ownership reportedly complicated the proposed transaction. Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo and Samuel Reed left management after U.S. authorities filed criminal charges in 2020, but the three continued to control most of the company’s equity, according to the report.

Declining activity also weighed on buyer interest. BitMEX’s monthly futures volume had topped $100 billion during parts of 2021 but fell to between $25 billion and $30 billion by late 2024, according to figures cited in the report.

Trading activity moved to larger centralized platforms and decentralized perpetual exchanges during the same period. Hyperliquid recorded about $2.6 trillion in notional volume during 2025, according to Artemis data, compared with approximately $1.4 trillion for Coinbase.

Reuters separately cited Kaiko data showing BitMEX with roughly $400,000 in daily trading volume and a market share below 0.01% when the closure was announced. Kaiko analyst Thomas Probst said the exchange’s small share meant its exit was unlikely to have a major effect on the market.

BitMEX helped establish perpetual swaps as a central crypto derivatives product through its XBTUSD contract. Unlike standard futures, perpetual swaps have no expiry date and use recurring funding payments to keep their prices close to the underlying asset.

U.S. cases follow BitMEX into its final days

BitMEX’s U.S. legal history remains relevant as the company shuts its exchange. American authorities accused the platform of serving U.S. customers without sufficient anti-money-laundering and customer-identification controls.

The company pleaded guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act and received a $100 million penalty in January 2025. A federal judge also imposed two years of unsupervised probation on HDR Global Trading.

President Donald Trump later pardoned Hayes, Delo and Reed, along with former BitMEX executive Gregory Dwyer and the corporate entity. Earlier coverage of the pardons noted that the founders had admitted to federal violations linked to the exchange’s failure to maintain an adequate anti-money-laundering program.

Separate civil claims are still moving through U.S. courts. On Sep. 12, the Celsius bankruptcy estate sued five BitMEX entities in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York over liquidations during the March 2020 market crash.

The Celsius estate lawsuit seeks the return of 6,360.17 Bitcoin, valued in the complaint at about $495 million. Its claims include fraudulent transfer, conversion, breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith, and unjust enrichment.

“BitMEX intentionally designed its platform and liquidation procedures to cause liquidations of collateral and defraud its own customers,” the complaint alleges.

The filing claims BitMEX controlled both the liquidation system and the insurance fund that received assets from some closed positions. It further alleges that the exchange kept excess Bitcoin collateral after settling Celsius-linked accounts.

BitMEX has not been found liable for the alleged conduct. The complaint remains at an early stage, and the amount recovered by the Celsius estate will depend on the court’s findings and any relief it grants.

A separate proposed class action filed in July accuses BitMEX of retaining 622.66 BTC that should have been returned to customers after liquidations. Plaintiffs BKX Services and David Namdar seek to represent eligible U.S. traders who used BitMEX Bitcoin perpetual products in transactions dating from July 23, 2018.

Bitcoin traded in a narrow range around $86,000 on Tuesday, pausing after Monday’s push toward 33-week highs. The move came as broader risk sentiment appeared steady, while crude oil slid to levels not seen in nearly three weeks—an easing in energy markets that can still ripple into crypto through macro expectations.

At the same time, developments in geopolitics added a layer of uncertainty. US President Donald Trump told the United Nations that an agreement to end the US-Iran war could arrive after November’s midterm elections, a timeline that kept traders weighing the odds of near-term escalation versus delayed diplomacy.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin consolidated near $86,000 after testing fresh 33-week highs at $87,350 on Monday, according to TradingView data.
• US WTI crude fell to around $89 per barrel—its lowest level since late 2024—before bouncing toward $92.
• Glassnode said Bitcoin’s MVRV ratio has crossed above its 365-day moving average, a pattern historically seen at the start of past bull markets.
• CryptoQuant highlighted momentum in the MVRV 30-day moving average and suggested a break above key levels could signal an end to prolonged accumulation.

BTC holds near $86,000 as oil weakens under $90

Following Monday’s rally, TradingView data showed BTC/USD volatility cooling. Bitcoin reached $87,350—its highest level since Jan. 29—before easing back into a tighter band near $86,000. For traders, this kind of consolidation after a local high often matters as a test of whether momentum can persist or whether the market needs to reset expectations.

In parallel, US stocks moved sideways as Trump addressed world leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York. While he reiterated the intention to reach a deal with Iran, he suggested the timing would be tied to the US midterm election cycle.

Oil’s immediate weakness appeared linked to supply developments. WTI crude dipped as low as $89.16 per barrel, cited as its weakest since early September, before rebounding toward the low $90s. Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia had reopened the East-West Pipeline, a key route for moving oil, and quoted three anonymous sources saying it would take six to eight weeks to reach full capacity. That report helped reinforce the idea that supply constraints may be loosening, at least gradually.

On-chain momentum: MVRV ratio crosses a long-term trend

Beyond price action, on-chain data pointed to improving market structure. Glassnode said Bitcoin’s market value to realized value (MVRV) ratio—an indicator comparing BTC’s market cap to the cumulative price basis of its circulating supply—has moved back above a key long-term benchmark.

According to Glassnode, the MVRV ratio has crossed above its 365-day moving average. In commentary posted to X, Glassnode described the specific “cross” as one it had seen previously in 2019 and 2023 near the beginning of each bull market cycle.

Glassnode frames the MVRV ratio as a way to gauge whether Bitcoin is trading above or below what it calls “fair” value for the supply. In broad terms, higher readings correspond to larger unrealized profits across holders’ wallets.

At the time of the update, Glassnode put the MVRV ratio at 1.62. It had risen from 1.19 on Aug. 16, signaling that the market was, at least by this measure, shifting away from a deeper discount to realized cost. Still, Glassnode noted that the ratio remained well below a commonly cited 3.7 level associated with profitability peaks in earlier bull-market tops.

CryptoQuant watches MVRV MA30 for confirmation of a reversal

While Glassnode focused on the 365-day moving average cross, CryptoQuant emphasized another part of the same on-chain picture: the behavior of the MVRV ratio’s 30-day moving average. In a blog post, CryptoQuant said the MVRV MA30 had broken out from a multi-month resistance area below 1.5, characterizing that move as the kind of shift that can mark the transition out of an extended accumulation phase.

CryptoQuant argued that achieving such a breakout for the first time since January would represent a meaningful inflection—effectively signaling the end of a longer period in which investors accumulated rather than broadly exited at scale.

In its analysis, CryptoQuant added that if the MVRV ratio moves above its current reading of 1.62, it would “confirm the reversal of ongoing bear market.” The firm also referenced Bitcoin’s all-time highs of $126,200 as an upside target under that scenario.

What investors should watch next

With Bitcoin pausing near $86,000 after a sharp test of recent highs, the next signals likely hinge on whether on-chain indicators continue to improve alongside price. Traders and long-term investors will probably look for follow-through that keeps the MVRV momentum intact—while macro drivers such as oil’s ability to hold above or slip below the $90 area remain an additional variable for risk appetite.

The U.S. Senate’s decision last week to let the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act stall has quickly turned into more than a legislative setback for crypto. Industry political groups are already recalibrating their midterm strategy with the 2026 election just weeks away, betting that lawmakers’ voting records will shape who receives financial support—or faces opposition.

On Sept. 15, senators voted 49 in favor and 50 against advancing the CLARITY Act, sharply reducing the odds that Congress will pass the bill before its current window of session time closes and the next Congress convenes in 2027. While some advocates have floated the possibility of another vote during a later phase of the legislative calendar, at least one major crypto-aligned PAC is acting as though the fight will shift to election season.

Key takeaways

• The Senate voted 49–50 against advancing the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15, leaving limited time for passage before 2027.
• Fairshake—backed by Coinbase and Ripple Labs—plans to spend $30 million opposing Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio’s 2026 Senate race.
• Stand With Crypto says lawmakers’ CLARITY votes could have “consequences” in the 2026 midterms based on how they voted.
• As of Monday, multiple major crypto-aligned PACs had not disclosed new spending with the Federal Election Commission following the CLARITY vote.

CLARITY stalls—and the electoral clock starts ticking

The CLARITY Act’s failure to move forward in the Senate is being treated by crypto stakeholders as a clear signal about which members of Congress are reliable allies on market-structure policy and which are not. Steve Gannon, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, told Cointelegraph that the vote “provided the industry with a very clear picture of who are long-term reliable supporters and who are not,” adding that it will be “difficult” for those who opposed CLARITY to argue that the industry should support them financially in the midterms.

That interpretation matters because the U.S. elections ecosystem often translates legislative alignments into fundraising and ad-buy decisions. With the 2026 midterms approaching—an election year widely expected to influence control of both chambers—crypto groups are signaling that voting outcomes on market structure will not be forgotten once campaigns start.

Fairshake targets Sherrod Brown as a test case

One of the clearest indications of how quickly the politics may intensify comes from Fairshake. The PAC, backed by Coinbase and Ripple Labs, announced plans to put $30 million toward opposing Sherrod Brown in Ohio’s Senate race.

Brown previously chaired the Senate Banking Committee when Democrats held the majority. According to the reporting, he has also supported policies that are broadly described as hostile to crypto—positioning his potential return as a threat to efforts to advance CLARITY later.

Fairshake’s move also echoes what happened during Brown’s last campaign cycle. The former Ohio senator lost his 2024 reelection bid to Republican Bernie Moreno after Fairshake spent about $41 million opposing the Democrat. The PAC also deployed more than $130 million on ads across the 2024 election cycle, giving a preview of the scale of advertising and pressure it may bring if it believes CLARITY has a realistic path only with the right Senate composition.

Cointelegraph requested comments from Brown’s campaign but did not receive an immediate response.

Crypto-aligned groups warn members of Congress could face consequences

Beyond Fairshake’s spending plans, industry-backed advocacy initiatives are also preparing to translate the CLARITY vote into electoral pressure. Stand With Crypto—an initiative launched by Coinbase in 2023—warned that lawmakers who did not advance the CLARITY Act could face “consequences” in the 2026 midterms based on their voting behavior.

Stand With Crypto is positioned to influence both campaign messaging and PAC targeting, because it is designed to rate politicians based on their stance toward crypto. In a highly contested election year, those ratings can help shape where money goes and which candidates receive priority support.

“The results of [the CLARITY Act] vote make it clear which officials are with our community, and which are against us — and we’ll make sure our advocates are ready to cast their ballots accordingly in this and future elections,” said Stand With Crypto executive director Mason Lynaugh.

That framing suggests crypto groups believe the Senate vote itself will become campaign material: a concrete record that can be highlighted during fundraising appeals, voter outreach, and debate preparation.

What filings show—and what remains uncertain

While the political response is already in motion, there is still a timing and disclosure gap that readers should watch. As of Monday, Fairshake and affiliate PACs Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress had not disclosed expenditures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) following the CLARITY vote.

FEC filing data cited in the reporting also indicated no post-CLARITY spending by other crypto-aligned PACs, including Fellowship—funded by Cantor Fitzgerald and Anchorage Digital—and the Digital Freedom Fund, described as backed by Gemini co-founders Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss.

That doesn’t necessarily mean spending won’t follow; political groups may delay disclosures depending on filing cycles, contract timing, or when expenditures are finalized. But it does reinforce that the real impact of the CLARITY vote—beyond messaging—may unfold in stages as campaign finance paperwork catches up.

Meanwhile, some advocates have suggested the CLARITY bill could still return for another vote during later congressional periods. Still, the narrow margin in the Senate—just one vote separating supporters and opponents—highlights how precarious any future attempt could be without a shift in the coalition.

Closing perspective

For crypto participants, the immediate question is not whether CLARITY failed to advance once—it already did—but whether lawmakers who opposed the bill will face sustained electoral pressure and whether that pressure changes the math for future market-structure legislation. With spending plans forming and FEC disclosures still pending for some groups, the next few weeks of campaign developments should offer the clearest clues about how aggressively the industry intends to convert a legislative vote into political leverage.

A trading bot making cheap uniform trades on a Zohran Mamdani Kalshi market has stopped trading after it raised suspicions that the prediction market was wash trading its perp volume. 

The wash trading allegations began last weekend when “Beni,” a pseudonymous quant analyst, claimed Kalshi’s 24-hour trading volume of ether perpetual contracts was $539 million, while open interest was just $3.1 million.

They also flagged a series of $5,500 trades that supposedly made up for 58% of Kalshi’s ETH perp volume across four days. 

Kalshi’s crypto lead, IcoBeast.eth, aggressively rebuffed Beni’s claims, and now Kalshi has posted its own article in which it attempts to debunk the argument and claim the “wash trading rumors are false.”

Read more: Kalshi won’t let you bet on its Supreme Court outcome

Kalshi bot is no longer making strange uniform trades

One specific bot was reportedly trading the 2028 Democratic Presidential Nominee market, specifically on Mamdani’s ticker. This is despite the fact that Mamdani can’t be the presidential nominee due to him not being born in the USA.

Prediction market analyst TickerTracker compared the bot’s activity to a metronome as it bought shares for two tenths of a cent before selling them for one tenth of a cent repeatedly every four seconds across almost two months. 

Today, analysts noted that it stopped trading after the continuous back-and-forth trades. 

Read more: CFTC orders Kalshi to continue operations amid New York lawsuit

Prediction market tool firm Resolve even claimed to have made around $30 a day counter-trading the metronome bot. 

Some users have suggested that the trades might just be a bug, while others suggested that the bot might be “someone farming volume for a higher rate limit tier.”

TickerTracker noted that notional volume within prediction markets can often be inflated, and automated trading can be an ordinary occurrence. 

They added that while these trades might break Kalshi’s rules, “Maybe there’s a simpler explanation for these anomalies that we’re overlooking?”

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

What is changing is not simply the tools available to help us make predictions about human biology. It is the speed of the discovery process itself: propose an idea, build it, test it in the physical world, learn from what happened, and begin again. The scientific method itself is beginning to accelerate, and the number of scientific inquiries, opportunities to advance health per dollar spent, is beginning to scale. 

Last month, Merck and Moderna reported that a personalized cancer vaccine for melanoma significantly delayed the disease from spreading. The result is remarkable on its own, and studies are already underway in other settings. What we find particularly exciting is how this growing clinical evidence, combined with AI tools and automated labs, can open the field to more competitors. The evidence reduces uncertainty about the approach, while these tools can lower the cost and time required to pursue it. Together, they can bring more teams and more capital into our fight against cancer and expand the number of promising ideas that will be tested at an unprecedented rate.