Dubai’s regulator VARA (Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Securitize, a tokenization platform backed by BlackRock, in a move aimed at accelerating regulated tokenization activity in the United Arab Emirates.

According to a Thursday announcement shared with Cointelegraph, the MoU sets out a collaboration framework designed to support tokenization and digital asset infrastructure in Dubai, encourage institutional participation, and help shape how tokenized financial products can operate within the emirate’s regulatory environment.

Key takeaways

• VARA and Securitize have agreed to work together on a regulatory-and-industry collaboration framework for tokenization in Dubai.
• The MoU is positioned as a broad cooperation model rather than the announcement of a specific tokenized product or technology stack.
• Dubai continues to position tokenization as regulated financial infrastructure, with VARA pointing to its regulatory “perspective” as a key contribution.
• Demand for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) has increased sharply in recent weeks, with RWA.xyz reporting rising holder counts and total tokenized asset value.
• Dubai’s efforts arrive as other market operators—such as the London Stock Exchange’s reported partnership with Kraken—push tokenized securities toward more established trading schedules.

VARA and Securitize target regulated tokenization in Dubai

Under the MoU, VARA and Securitize said they aim to support regulated tokenization initiatives across Dubai and the broader UAE. The agreement is also intended to cover tokenization projects initiated by VARA, with a specific focus on understanding how tokenized financial products should function inside Dubai’s existing regulatory framework.

When asked by Cointelegraph about the MoU’s infrastructure objectives, a VARA spokesperson said the effort is meant to establish a collaboration structure between the two organizations rather than to deliver a particular technical implementation or a named product.

“The intention is to combine VARA’s regulatory perspective with Securitize’s experience in institutional tokenisation to identify where collaboration can help support the development of trusted, regulated tokenised markets in Dubai.”

The spokesperson added that no concrete projects will be announced “at this stage.” Still, the agreement creates a formal channel for cooperation that VARA said is intended to “support relevant tokenisation initiatives in Dubai.”

Tokenization shifts from concept to “mainstream” infrastructure

Dubai’s push for tokenization is being framed not as an experimental niche, but as a step toward more conventional financial-market infrastructure. Carlos Domingo, co-founder and CEO of Securitize, described Dubai as among the most “forward-looking jurisdictions” for digital asset innovation and emphasized the importance of regulatory collaboration as tokenization matures.

Domingo’s remarks reflected a broader industry narrative: tokenization is increasingly discussed as a pathway for traditional finance to gain on-chain settlement and programmable workflows, but only if regulators can provide clear operating boundaries.

That theme is reinforced by VARA’s licensing activity. Earlier in July, VARA granted its 50th virtual asset service provider (VASP) license to Tribe Tokenisation FZE—an example of how the regulator has been expanding the number of licensed participants in the ecosystem. While the MoU with Securitize does not announce specific licensed activity, it suggests that regulators are looking to institutional-grade platforms as partners in building “trusted” markets.

Rising RWA adoption meets institutional platform scale

Beyond Dubai-specific policy developments, the MoU arrives amid a broader acceleration in tokenized real-world assets. Data provider RWA.xyz reports that the total number of RWA token holders rose 103% over the prior 30 days to 3.2 million. Over the same period, it said the total value of tokenized assets increased by 2% to $38.5 billion.

Those figures help explain why institutional platforms are increasingly positioning tokenization as a serious revenue and infrastructure layer rather than a purely experimental technology. Securitize is described in the announcement as the world’s largest tokenization platform by tokenized assets under management (AUM), with $4.9 billion. Ondo Finance is reported as second, with $3.5 billion.

For investors and market participants, the practical implication is that regulatory discussions are increasingly happening alongside measurable growth in both participation and capital in tokenized asset categories—particularly RWAs, where compliance and asset governance are central concerns.

Dubai’s move mirrors broader tokenized securities momentum

Dubai’s MoU also lands as tokenization continues to spread across market structures in other jurisdictions. Days earlier, Cointelegraph reported that the London Stock Exchange reportedly partnered with crypto exchange Kraken to launch tokenized stock trading on the operator’s night-time trading venue, aiming to offer 24/5 trading.

While the Dubai agreement is focused on regulated tokenization infrastructure and the operation of tokenized financial products under VARA’s oversight, the parallel is clear: both developments signal that tokenization is moving from issuance and experimentation toward distribution and market access—where regulatory fit, liquidity, and operational reliability become decisive.

As VARA and Securitize begin working under the MoU framework, the key next question for participants will be whether the collaboration produces specific pilot programs or licensing pathways—and how Dubai’s regulatory approach will translate tokenization activity into durable market infrastructure as demand for RWAs continues to grow.

A case involving a supposed “lost fortune” in Bitcoin has become a cautionary tale about how often crypto recovery isn’t just a technical challenge—it can also be a problem of scams, misunderstandings, and missing context about what exactly is stored in a wallet.

In 2021, Chris Brooks, founder and chief executive of Crypto Asset Recovery, was contacted by a client identified as “Rusty.” Rusty and two other men claimed they had won roughly 5,000 Bitcoin in a court case (worth about $53 million at the time) and said they could withdraw up to $300,000 per week. Brooks and his son traveled to help crack the wallet, only to find that the information provided pointed in a very different direction.

Key takeaways

• Crypto “recovery” often means reconstructing access information (seeds, passwords, or missing words), not recovering funds from the blockchain.
• A correct seed phrase can still lead users to think funds are gone if a passphrase was forgotten—wrong passphrases may not trigger errors.
• If a seed is truly destroyed and truly random, there is no practical recovery path—self-custody has a hard limit.
• Recovery firms can be targeted by scammers, and choosing a provider is itself a security decision.
• Unsourced promises, upfront payments, and pressure to move quickly or through nonsecure channels are major red flags.

When “millions in crypto” turns out to be something else

Brooks recounted that Rusty initially presented what he described as a Bitcoin address containing about $53 million. During the first call, Brooks says he realized something was off when Rusty showed another balance—presented as about $1 billion in ETH.

Rusty then drove Brooks and his son to a strip mall office and handed them notebooks containing dozens of recovery seeds. The work involved opening wallets throughout the day, but Brooks says they ultimately found only around $10 in Bitcoin.

The record of what the notebooks represented—and whether they corresponded to any of the claimed balances—was never clarified. Brooks was also not reimbursed for travel costs. With the benefit of hindsight, he suspects Rusty was likely misled by scammers who convinced him he had a large crypto holding that didn’t exist.

Brooks described the episode as an early lesson for his business: sometimes crypto is lost, sometimes the wallet or password is lost, but sometimes the money was never there to begin with.

What wallet recovery specialists actually do

For firms that focus on recovery, “lost crypto” can mean several distinct scenarios. According to Bruno Krauss, co-founder and chief technical officer at recovery firm ReWallet, specialists generally aren’t “undoing” transactions on-chain. Instead, they aim to regain the information required to access an existing wallet—information that may be incomplete, forgotten, or corrupted.

In many cases, missing access material can be reconstructed. Krauss explained that Bitcoin’s BIP39 standard uses a list of 2,048 words, so if someone remembers most of the seed phrase, recovery work may involve systematically testing the remaining unknown words. The fewer elements missing, the smaller the search space becomes.

Password recovery can follow similar logic, including reconstructing likely characters when users recall patterns or context around how they created a password.

Krauss also described a behavioral approach: understanding how individuals tend to choose secrets. In one example, a customer believed her password used her children’s names. Eventually, she realized the password was actually tied to a phone number connected to a local delivery service—an association she remembered when she thought about when a package was delivered to a store.

Passphrases: the part that can hide funds without any warning

Even when users have the correct seed phrase, forgetting a passphrase can effectively make funds inaccessible. Tom Bennet, a Bitcoin educator who has studied wallet security, said that passphrases add a layer of information on top of the seed: enter the wrong passphrase and you can end up with another valid wallet rather than an explicit error.

“A wrong passphrase doesn’t throw an error; it succeeds and shows you a zero balance.”

That means users may reasonably conclude their Bitcoin has vanished when the underlying issue is simply that they entered the wrong passphrase. Bennet also argued that passphrases do not provide the same built-in protections as seed phrases—no fixed word list and no checksum equivalent. If the passphrase was sufficiently random and is fully forgotten, recovery can be effectively impossible.

There are also practical nuances with hardware wallets. Even if a device is broken, the keys may still be restorable if the seed backup survives. In other words, recovery specialists may not need the original hardware, but they do need enough information to reconstruct access to the keys.

Recovery can even involve repairing mistakes. Brooks said the firm has been contracted to crack more than 3,000 wallets for around 1,500 people, and that it has cracked passwords for about 63% of them. Some cases may depend on understanding what chain assets were sent to and whether the receiving wallet is under the client’s control.

The hard limit: when randomness is gone, recovery may be impossible

While many cases are solvable in some form, there is a boundary beyond which recovery becomes unrealistic. Bennet said that if a wallet seed is truly random and is completely lost, the Bitcoin is gone.

Bitcoin’s self-custody model is built around that trade-off: there is no centralized account recovery system, no bank-style mechanism to verify identity and restore access. If the information needed to derive keys is irrecoverably destroyed—and the wallet containing those keys is inaccessible—then no recovery service can help.

Lucien Bourdon, a Bitcoin analyst at hardware wallet maker Trezor, put it bluntly: if both the backup and the wallet are lost or inaccessible, “no recovery company can help.” He warned that if it were feasible to recover such wallets, the concept of self-custody would be fundamentally compromised.

That said, technical reality sometimes creates unusual opportunities. In the recent Coldcard hardware wallet context, for example, a firmware bug was reported to have weakened seed randomness on some wallets, making seeds brute-forceable without physical access—an example of how hardware and implementation flaws can change what’s recoverable. Broader historical issues with weak randomness were also cited as not being new.

Still, Krauss emphasized that specialists sometimes find technical “edge cases,” such as recoveries enabled by old wallet software, corrupted files, poorly generated passwords, or hardware vulnerabilities. But those are exceptions; the baseline remains that truly destroyed, truly random secrets can’t be brute-forced in practice.

Recovery as a security risk: scammers can move first

The Rusty story highlights a difficult irony: the information needed to recover someone else’s funds is the same information that can control those funds. That means selecting a recovery specialist is not just an administrative decision—it’s part of the security model.

Bourdon said users should do due diligence. He recommended looking for firms with a verifiable track record and reviews tied to actual customers. He also advised confirming that the provider charges on success rather than requesting money upfront, and to move funds to a new wallet with a fresh backup after recovery is completed.

He further warned users to be skeptical of unsolicited messages claiming someone can recover their crypto. Krauss echoed this concern, pointing to red flags such as pressure to communicate via WhatsApp, contact from personal email addresses, demands for upfront payments, and requests to open accounts on an exchange.

Percentage-based fees tied to recovered assets are common in the industry, but Brooks’ account makes clear why upfront payment promises should trigger alarm bells—especially when the “recovery” story is built around inflated balances.

What users should focus on before reaching out

After moving away from in-person processing for high-sensitivity cases, Brooks said Crypto Asset Recovery now handles investigations remotely and processes sensitive wallet information through automated and air-gapped systems. He also noted that many of the cracked wallets involved far smaller balances than clients expect: around 71% contained less than $100, and the company does not charge for asset recovery below that threshold.

In Brooks’ view, the simplest way to avoid needing recovery services at all is understanding what a recovery seed is and why it matters—because the biggest vulnerabilities often come from human gaps rather than cryptographic weaknesses.

Going forward, readers should watch for more public discussions of wallet randomness and hardware implementation issues, as those technical details are often what determine whether “recovery” is feasible at all—or whether the most important step is preventing loss in the first place.

Hyperliquid has introduced a preliminary HIP-3 testnet upgrade that lets independent deployment teams control access to perpetual futures markets through deployer-managed on-chain allowlists.

Hyperliquid co-founder Jeffrey Yan said in a testnet proposal that deployers will be able to create permissioned markets and manage their participant lists without handing access decisions to Hyperliquid’s core development team.

Hyperliquid HIP-3 adds optional on-chain allowlists

Under the preliminary design, a deployer can maintain an on-chain list of approved participants or appoint a sub-deployer to handle access. Market operators that do not need permissioning can continue using the existing HIP-3 structure without changing how their markets work.

Hyperliquid has made the first version available on the testnet, where developers can examine the design before any production release. Yan said the specifications remain preliminary, allowing the team to adjust the system after receiving technical feedback.

HIP-3 already allows outside teams to deploy perpetual futures markets on HyperCore without seeking approval from Hyperliquid’s core developers. Each deployer selects the assets offered through its market and controls several operating terms, including oracle inputs, leverage limits, and fees.

Responsibility also remains with the deployment team. Independent operators manage their markets, oversee settlement, and address problems tied to the products they list, while Hyperliquid supplies the underlying blockchain and trading infrastructure.

Adding permissioning extends the tools available to the same operators rather than transferring market control to Hyperliquid. A team could use an allowlist when its business model, legal obligations, or internal policies require it to limit participation, while another deployer could keep its market open under the present framework.

The design also separates infrastructure governance from market-level access. Hyperliquid would maintain the underlying network, but each participating team would decide whether to activate an allowlist and who qualifies to enter its deployment.

Independent deployers retain operational responsibility

HIP-3 was built to support markets launched by third parties instead of limiting product creation to Hyperliquid’s own team. Deployers can list perpetual contracts linked to crypto assets and other reference markets, provided they manage the technical and operational duties attached to their products.

A perpetual futures contract does not carry a fixed expiry date. Recurring funding payments help keep its price close to the referenced asset, while traders can maintain a position as long as they meet the applicable margin requirements.

Through HIP-3, independent teams can determine how those contracts are structured. Oracle selection affects the reference price used by the market, leverage rules determine how much exposure traders can take, and fee settings establish what participants pay for trading.

Permissioned deployments would add participant screening to that list of controls. Hyperliquid has not said that all HIP-3 operators must use the feature, and the testnet release does not change existing markets automatically.

Such separation is consistent with Hyperliquid’s description of itself as a neutral infrastructure provider rather than the operator of every market built on its systems. Deployers remain responsible for the products they introduce and the access rules they choose to apply.

Operational control can also leave deployment teams responsible for failures linked to their own market configuration. Oracle quality, leverage settings, settlement procedures and access management sit with the operator rather than Hyperliquid’s central development group under the structure described by Yan.

During the testnet stage, participating developers can assess how allowlists interact with trading accounts, market permissions and sub-deployer roles. Hyperliquid has not announced a date for moving the feature to mainnet, and feedback could alter the final specifications.

Permissioned markets could support compliance controls

On-chain allowlists provide a technical method for restricting participation, but the proposal does not state that activating one makes a deployment compliant with any particular jurisdiction. Legal obligations depend on the assets, customers, operator, and countries involved, while an allowlist only controls which blockchain accounts can enter a market.

For U.S.-facing operators, derivatives access is generally tied to Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules and the licenses held by the venue, clearing organization, and intermediary. Permissioning software by itself does not replace registration, customer-protection, reporting, or market-surveillance requirements imposed by the regulator.

In July, the Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom requested tailored rules for decentralized trading systems. As crypto.news reported, the groups argued that software developers and non-custodial wallet providers should not automatically face the same registration duties as traditional financial intermediaries that control customer assets.

An Aug. 26 filing from the Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] later proposed energy perpetuals tied to West Texas Intermediate crude, Brent crude, and Henry Hub natural gas. The filing said trade[XYZ] had operated third-party perpetual markets on Hyperliquid since October 2025 and recorded more than $500 billion in cumulative volume across several asset classes.

According to the filing, any regulated U.S. operator would still need to comply with CFTC rules covering customer protection, market integrity and recordkeeping. The groups also proposed asset-specific leverage limits, plain-language funding disclosures and controls addressing benchmark reliability and manipulation risks.

The CFTC has not approved the requested energy products. Its review covers price reliability, surveillance, position limits, margin, clearing, and the possible effects of continuous derivatives trading on physical commodity markets.

U.S. perpetual futures plans require regulatory clearance

Separate discussions involving Hyperliquid Labs and Kraken parent Payward could place selected crypto perpetual futures on Bitnomial, a regulated U.S. derivatives exchange. Payward has presented the proposed structure to the CFTC, according to the supplied report, but no authorization has been confirmed.

Under the discussed arrangement, eligible Bitnomial customers could trade selected crypto-linked futures using Hyperliquid technology. Bitnomial would provide the regulated venue, while the proposed technical and operating roles would depend on the final structure accepted by the companies and the CFTC.

Payward already owns Bitnomial, which holds U.S. exchange, clearinghouse, and brokerage licenses. Kraken launched regulated perpetuals for eligible American clients through Bitnomial in June, allowing users to manage spot, margin, conventional futures, and perpetual contracts from a Kraken Pro account.

The proposed Hyperliquid arrangement concerns selected contracts using its technology and remains distinct from Kraken’s existing Bitnomial products. Any launch would depend on the CFTC’s assessment of the contracts, market structure and safeguards presented by Payward.

A separate legal dispute could also affect how such products reach American customers. CME Group has challenged the CFTC’s treatment of perpetual contracts, arguing that they should be governed as swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act rather than listed as ordinary futures.

The perpetuals classification dispute began after the CFTC cleared Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual contract in May. CME’s position would place the products under a different regulatory framework, while the CFTC has argued that federal law does not require a futures contract to carry a fixed expiry date.

Payward’s proposal involving Hyperliquid technology remains before the CFTC, with no confirmed launch date, approved contract list, or final eligibility requirements for Bitnomial customers.

Privacy coins are gaining a place in regulated investment markets even as direct access to their underlying assets becomes harder. Grayscale’s Zcash ETF now trades on NYSE Arca, while major centralized exchanges have reduced support for Monero and other privacy-focused cryptocurrencies. THORChain’s latest upgrade shows how decentralized infrastructure could help close that access gap.

Privacy is reaching Wall Street as exchange access shrinks

Privacy in crypto is moving in two directions at once.

On one side, it is entering the financial mainstream. Grayscale’s Zcash ETF, ZCSH, began trading on NYSE Arca on Aug. 25. Grayscale described it as the first exchange-traded product to offer spot exposure to Zcash (ZEC).

The fund gives US investors a way to gain ZEC exposure through a regular brokerage account. They do not need to open a crypto exchange account, manage private keys, or hold the asset in a personal wallet.

On the other hand, directly buying, selling, and moving privacy coins has become more difficult in several markets. Centralized exchanges have removed assets or restricted access as regulators apply tighter anti-money-laundering standards.

The contradiction is hard to miss. Wall Street can now package exposure to a privacy-focused asset inside a regulated fund, while parts of the crypto market are becoming less willing or less able to support the underlying coins.

THORChain’s v3.20 upgrade matters within that divide. The release laid technical groundwork for native Monero (XMR) and Zcash swaps alongside assets such as Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH) and stablecoins.

However, THORChain said after the upgrade that the Monero and Zcash rollout had been delayed while contributors focused on network stability. The protocol’s interface for supported cross-chain trades is available through its native swap platform, with XMR and ZEC access dependent on their final activation.

Monero delistings show the cost of centralized access

Monero provides the clearest example of how a permissionless cryptocurrency can remain operational while becoming harder to reach.

Binance removed XMR in February 2024, while OKX also ended support for Monero trading pairs. Kraken later stopped XMR trading and deposits for customers in the European Economic Area, citing regulatory changes.

Those decisions did not shut down Monero. The blockchain continued processing transactions, and users could still send XMR between compatible wallets. What changed was access to the services that many people use to enter or leave the market.

Monero is private by default. Its design conceals the sender, receiver, and transaction amount. Supporters see those protections as the digital equivalent of the privacy available when paying with physical cash.

The same design creates problems for centralized exchanges responsible for customer checks, transaction monitoring, and anti-money-laundering controls. Exchanges may struggle to collect the information expected by regulators when transaction details are hidden at the protocol level.

Europe is making that conflict more direct. The European Union’s Anti-Money Laundering Regulation addresses crypto accounts that allow transactions to be anonymized or made harder to trace, including through “anonymity-enhancing coins.”

The regulation is scheduled to apply from July 2027. Its provisions will prevent crypto-asset service providers from maintaining anonymous accounts or accounts that allow transaction obfuscation through such assets.

The US has not introduced an identical nationwide prohibition on privacy-coin trading. Still, limited support from large exchanges means American users may face fewer options than holders of more widely listed assets. Grayscale’s ZCSH provides regulated price exposure to Zcash, but owning an ETF share is not the same as holding ZEC or using its privacy features on-chain.

THORChain targets the missing bridge between privacy coins and crypto

A blockchain can remain permissionless at the protocol level while becoming difficult to use in practice.

Someone may still receive and send XMR through the Monero network. The larger problem appears when that person wants to move from XMR into Bitcoin, Ethereum, or a stablecoin without using a centralized service that supports both sides of the trade.

Native cross-chain liquidity offers another route. THORChain is designed to exchange assets across their original blockchains instead of requiring users to move wrapped representations onto a separate network.

Under the planned privacy-coin integrations, users would be able to move between native XMR or ZEC and supported crypto assets without first depositing their funds with a centralized exchange. They would not need to create an exchange account or surrender custody for the trade.

THORChain had already tested native Monero swaps before v3.20. As crypto.news reported in June, the protocol said XMR swaps were working from end to end in testing and that Zcash support would follow.

The delay announced after v3.20 shows that technical preparation does not guarantee immediate public availability. Cross-chain systems must manage separate networks, liquidity pools, and security risks, while privacy-focused assets can add further operational and regulatory questions.

THORChain said the delayed rollout would give contributors more time to prepare the Monero and Zcash integrations. Native swaps can reduce reliance on centralized intermediaries, although users must still consider liquidity, network, and implementation risks.

Zcash exposes the market’s privacy contradiction

Zcash makes the split between regulated investment access and on-chain privacy even clearer.

Unlike Monero, Zcash allows users to choose between transparent and shielded transactions. According to the project’s documentation, transparent addresses expose transaction information publicly, while shielded addresses are designed to protect financial details.

Grayscale’s ETF does not give investors access to either transaction type. ZCSH holds ZEC to track the asset’s market value, while investors buy and sell fund shares through a securities exchange.

The product therefore brings the economics of a privacy coin into a regulated US investment structure without giving shareholders its underlying privacy functions. Grayscale’s earlier filings also indicated that the fund would use transparent custody rather than shielded addresses.

For investors, that distinction matters. ZCSH offers price exposure and brokerage convenience, not private payments or direct participation in the Zcash network.

The ETF’s arrival still represents a notable change in how traditional finance treats privacy-focused assets. Crypto.news previously reported that Grayscale’s conversion followed an SEC filing process that began in May. The launch placed ZEC beside other crypto assets available through regulated US exchange-traded products.

At the same time, exchange delistings show that regulatory acceptance is not uniform. Authorities and financial firms may permit a transparent investment vehicle tied to a privacy coin while remaining uncomfortable with direct access to its transaction features.

Decentralized access does not remove every trade-off

THORChain’s planned XMR and ZEC support sits between those two markets.

Version 3.20 also restored support for Solana, Base, and BNB and introduced Protocol-Owned Liquidity and a Stable Reserve. Yet the privacy-coin integrations are more revealing because they address an access problem created outside the underlying blockchains.

Centralized exchanges offer customer support, fiat payment channels, and account protections that decentralized protocols may not provide. They also remain responsible for meeting the laws of every jurisdiction in which they operate.

Decentralized systems remove some of those intermediaries, but they place more responsibility on users. A person making a native swap must manage a compatible wallet, verify addresses, and understand that transactions may not be reversible. Liquidity and execution prices can also differ from those available on a large exchange.

Regulatory questions will remain even if the protocol itself does not require an account. Users are still responsible for following the laws, reporting rules, and tax requirements that apply in their country.

None of those limits change the central issue. A cryptocurrency is only partly accessible when its network remains online, but the main routes connecting it to the wider market disappear.

Privacy coins are now testing the meaning of permissionless finance. If regulated exchanges decide they cannot support certain assets, access will either continue to shrink or decentralized infrastructure will provide another path. THORChain is preparing to offer that path, although its Monero and Zcash swaps must first move from technical groundwork to a stable public rollout.

Bitcoin price extended its recovery above $80,000 on Sept. 3 after Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller cooled expectations for a September rate hike, while the charts showed strong momentum approaching a critical resistance zone.

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price was trading near $80,840 at the time of writing, up approximately 4.5% from its daily opening price of $77,340. The asset traded between $76,968 and $81,370 during the session, according to the supplied Binance chart.

The move reversed much of the weakness seen earlier in the week and returned Bitcoin to the resistance area that stopped its August rally. Buyers must now turn the $80,000–$81,400 region into support to confirm that the breakout can continue.

Waller comments cool September rate hike expectations

Bitcoin accelerated higher after Waller said he was inclined to keep interest rates unchanged at the Federal Reserve’s Sept. 15–16 meeting if incoming inflation data confirms that price pressures are easing.

Waller did not rule out another increase. He said a hike could still be appropriate if inflation accelerates, making the Aug. consumer price index report due Sept. 11 an important input for the decision.

Interest-rate futures reduced the probability of a September increase following his comments, while two-year and ten-year Treasury yields declined. The dollar also weakened, creating a more supportive environment for Bitcoin and other assets sensitive to U.S. liquidity conditions.

Corporate demand provided additional support to the broader Bitcoin narrative. Strive CEO Matt Cole said the company could purchase more than 20,000 BTC before year-end, although the comment describes a potential acquisition rather than a completed or formally committed purchase.

Strive disclosed earlier this week that it had bought 1,800 BTC at an average price of $79,431, lifting its holdings to 23,156 BTC.

France-listed Capital B separately raised €7.6 million from Blockstream CEO Adam Back through a private placement. The company said the net proceeds could fund the acquisition of up to 376 additional BTC.

Bitcoin price reaches a major daily resistance zone

The daily chart shows Bitcoin retesting the area between $81,000 and $82,500, which capped several advances in May and August. A daily close above that band would improve the chances of a move toward $83,450 and then $85,000.

Analyst Franklin said Bitcoin was testing a falling-wedge breakout and identified $83,450 as the next level to watch if buyers defend the breakout. Falling wedges can precede upside moves, but the target remains conditional until price closes above nearby resistance.

Momentum has strengthened quickly. The daily relative strength index stands at 72.31, above the 70 level normally associated with overbought conditions. Its moving average is even higher at 75.50.

An overbought RSI does not guarantee an immediate reversal, especially during a strong breakout. However, it raises the risk of profit-taking if Bitcoin fails to establish support above $80,000.

BTC remains well above all four moving averages shown on the daily chart. The 20-day simple moving average sits at $74,775, followed by the 50-day at $68,489, the 200-day at $69,602, and the 100-day at $66,334.

The rising 20-day average gives bulls a clear medium-term advantage. Still, the large gap between the price and that average shows how far Bitcoin has moved in a short period.

4-hour Bollinger Bands signal rising volatility

The 4-hour chart shows Bitcoin breaking above the upper Bollinger Band at approximately $80,422, with the price near $80,845. The middle band lies at $78,174, while the lower band sits near $75,927.

Trading above the upper band confirms strong upside pressure, but it can also indicate that price is temporarily stretched. The Bollinger Band width reading has expanded to about 5,040, reflecting a sharp increase in volatility.

The $80,400 area is therefore the first short-term level buyers need to protect. A successful retest could allow BTC to challenge $81,370 again before attempting a move toward $82,000 and $83,450.

Failure to hold the breakout would place the 4-hour middle band near $78,175 back in focus. Below it, the $76,000–$76,500 region represents a deeper support area and sits close to both the lower Bollinger Band and the session’s earlier low.

Liquidation map puts $81,500 in focus

CoinGlass’ 24-hour liquidation heatmap shows that Bitcoin climbed through several short-liquidation clusters between $78,000 and $80,500. Forced buying from traders closing bearish positions may have increased the speed of the advance.

The largest nearby liquidity concentration above the market appears around $81,300–$81,600. A clean break through that zone could draw price toward smaller clusters near $82,000 and $84,000.

Downside liquidity remains concentrated around $79,700, $78,000, and $76,400–$76,700. If buyers lose $80,000, those clusters could attract price during a pullback.

Bitcoin’s next move will depend on whether spot demand can sustain the rally after the initial short squeeze. A close above $81,400 would strengthen the bullish breakout case, while rejection followed by a loss of $80,000 would leave the market vulnerable to a return toward $78,200.

Kraken’s parent company Payward has announced a partnership with SoFi aimed at linking SoFi’s dollar settlement infrastructure with Kraken’s institutional trading and liquidity capabilities. The deal will bring SoFiUSD—SoFi’s dollar-backed stablecoin—onto Kraken, while connecting Kraken to SoFi’s 24/7 US dollar settlement network.

Under the collaboration, SoFi will route its digital-asset trading activity through Kraken Prime, using the exchange platform’s smart order routing technology to seek the best available fills across supported venues. Payward, meanwhile, will join the SoFi Exchange Network (SEN) and gain access to SoFi’s business banking services, with the companies saying qualified custody services could be added as the partnership expands.

Key takeaways

• SoFiUSD, issued by SoFi Bank and backed by cash and short-term US Treasurys, will be supported on Kraken.
• SoFi will use Kraken Prime as an additional liquidity source for digital-asset orders, routed via smart order routing.
• Payward will join the SoFi Exchange Network for round-the-clock US dollar settlement for institutional and business clients.
• The partnership extends Kraken/Payward’s broader strategy of deeper ties with traditional financial rails and tokenized market access.

How SoFiUSD and Kraken Prime are expected to connect

SoFiUSD is designed for payments and settlement, with reserves held in cash and short-term US Treasurys. According to a Thursday blog post from Kraken, the partnership will route SoFi’s digital asset orders through Kraken Prime, a venue designed to evaluate pricing and market depth across multiple trading venues in real time and direct orders to where they can be filled most effectively.

That distinction matters for institutions and app-based providers. Rather than relying on a single order book, smart order routing can help a liquidity provider or trading app access fragmented liquidity that may be available elsewhere in the market. Kraken said that enabling routing through Kraken Prime gives SoFi access to liquidity across multiple trading venues.

24/7 dollar settlement through SEN

In the second half of the arrangement, Payward will connect to SEN, SoFi’s exchange network that supports continuous US dollar settlement. Kraken said SEN access will extend to its institutional and business customers, positioning the settlement layer as a key part of the product experience on both sides.

The companies also indicated that custody capabilities could be added later, depending on how the partnership evolves. For market participants, custody and settlement are frequently the two “make or break” components when moving from experimentation to scaled deployment—especially when a platform is trying to support frequent, automated flows.

Payward’s broader push into traditional finance

The SoFi announcement fits within a wider pattern of Payward and Kraken moving beyond the core crypto trading stack and into partnerships with legacy-market infrastructure.

Earlier this week, London Stock Exchange Group reportedly partnered with Payward to offer tokenized versions of leading UK equities through LSE 24, a new trading venue set to launch in 2027 (coverage of the reported partnership was noted earlier by Cointelegraph). In August, Kraken also expanded its funded trading offerings with exposure to the S&P 500, and said commodities were expected to follow in that program.

Kraken has additionally expanded into tokenized public markets through xStocks, a tokenized equities platform developed by Backed Finance, which Kraken acquired in early 2026. Using that platform, Kraken has offered eligible users access to shares tied to SpaceX and Jersey Mike’s IPOs through tokenized equities, and in some cases via direct share allocations.

These moves are notable because they shift Kraken/Payward’s narrative from “just” an exchange and custody operator into a bridge between crypto trading infrastructure and regulated market access workflows—an approach that can be attractive to institutions that want familiar settlement and distribution mechanisms.

Regulatory timing and the IPO backdrop

Payward’s traditional finance partnerships also come as the company prepares for a potential public listing. Reports indicate Payward’s IPO plans have been delayed multiple times.

According to Kraken, Payward confidentially submitted a draft registration statement to the US Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2025. However, reporting cited in the source indicates that the earliest timing for a listing has been pushed to the second quarter of 2027.

While the SoFi partnership itself doesn’t change the reported IPO timetable, it underlines the kinds of business developments Payward may want to demonstrate as it prepares to be scrutinized by public markets—namely, scalable relationships with non-crypto counterparties and settlement mechanisms that resemble mainstream financial infrastructure.

Going forward, market participants will likely watch whether custody services are eventually added to the SoFi-Kraken integration and how quickly SoFiUSD support expands across Kraken products and settlement workflows. The practical question for traders and institutions is whether the combination of multi-venue routing (via Kraken Prime) and continuous dollar settlement (via SEN) improves execution quality and operational reliability at scale.

September rate-hike odds have fallen to 38% on Polymarket after Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller said cooling August inflation could persuade him to support holding rates steady.

Waller makes August CPI the Fed rate hike test

The Federal Reserve said in Waller’s published remarks on Sept. 3 that his decision at the September Federal Open Market Committee meeting would depend heavily on the next inflation report.

With employment near what Waller called its maximum sustainable level, he said inflation has continued to move slowly toward the central bank’s 2% goal. Another jobs report and a fresh inflation reading will arrive before officials meet on Sept. 15–16.

Waller does not expect the employment report to differ greatly from recent labor data. Instead, the August inflation figures will carry more weight in deciding whether he supports keeping the federal funds rate at its present range of 3.50% to 3.75%.

“If there is continued progress toward our 2 percent goal, then I am willing to support holding the policy rate at its current level,” Waller said.

A hotter reading would change his position. Waller said he would consider a rate increase if inflation accelerated, partly because he believes the current policy setting is only slightly restricting demand.

“If there is evidence that progress toward 2 percent inflation reversed in August, a small adjustment in our stance would help ensure that it resumes.”

Waller described the position as conditional rather than a commitment to a particular vote. According to the governor, explaining how economic data could affect his decision allows households, companies, and investors to prepare for different policy outcomes.

During the July meeting, Waller supported the FOMC’s decision to leave rates unchanged because the economy remained solid and recent data had offered early signs of disinflation. The committee held its target range at 3.50% to 3.75% by a 9–3 vote, while three officials preferred a quarter-point increase.

August inflation data will arrive days before the decision

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the August Producer Price Index on Sept. 10, followed by the Consumer Price Index on Sept. 11. Both reports will arrive less than a week before the Fed announces its decision on Sept. 16.

According to the BLS release calendar, the two reports are scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Eastern time. The short gap between the data and the meeting gives policymakers only a few days to assess whether price pressures continued to ease during August.

July’s Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, rose 3.7% from a year earlier. The reading remained well above the central bank’s 2% target, while higher energy costs linked to the U.S.-Iran conflict have added uncertainty to the next set of figures.

Earlier rate expectations had climbed after Fed Chair Kevin Warsh used his Jackson Hole speech to warn that inflation had not returned to target. As crypto.news reported on Sept. 3, CME FedWatch had placed the chance of a quarter-point September increase above 66% before Waller outlined the conditions under which he could support a pause.

CME pricing later moved closer to 50% following his comments, according to Reuters. The difference between CME FedWatch and Polymarket comes from separate markets, pricing methods, and observation times, meaning their implied probabilities do not always match.

Other Fed officials remain open to higher rates

Waller’s conditional support for holding rates differs in tone from comments made by Governor Michael Barr earlier in the week, although both officials identified inflation as the main test for September.

In remarks delivered Sept. 1, Barr said inflation had remained too high for more than five years. Price growth dropped from above 7% in 2022 to slightly more than 2% in 2024, but progress stalled during 2025 as tariffs, the Middle East conflict and spending tied to artificial intelligence infrastructure added pressure.

Barr said officials could take more time to assess policy if incoming data gave him confidence that inflation was returning to 2%. If inflation failed to moderate enough, however, he said the central bank should “act decisively to raise rates.”

The July vote had already shown a split within the FOMC. Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan opposed the decision to hold, preferring a 25-basis-point increase. Their dissents left the September outcome sensitive to even a modest surprise in the inflation data.

Energy remains one source of risk. Brent crude moved above $90 after renewed fighting near the Strait of Hormuz raised concerns about oil shipments, according to an Aug. 31 market report. Sustained increases in crude can feed into transport, production, and consumer costs, though the size and duration of any inflation effect depend on how long prices remain elevated.

Reports that President Donald Trump was considering declaring the U.S.-Iran war over later reduced some concern about another energy-price surge. Any verified end to hostilities could ease pressure on oil, but neither the White House nor the Fed has treated lower energy prices as assured.

Lower Fed rate hike odds support U.S. crypto markets

Polymarket’s September contract showed the probability of a rate hike falling to 38% after approaching 50% earlier in the week, while the chance of no change rose to roughly 62% to 63%. Because prediction-market prices move as users trade, the percentages may continue changing before the inflation releases.

A separate Polymarket contract placed the probability of at least one rate increase during 2026 at about 64%. Traders therefore continued to price a possible hike later in the year even as the expected chance of action in September declined.

For U.S. crypto investors, the rate decision can affect demand through Treasury yields, the dollar, and regulated investment products. Higher yields increase the returns available on government debt and money-market instruments, which can reduce demand for volatile assets that do not produce interest.

Recent U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF flows show why monetary policy remains relevant to the crypto market. An Aug. 31 ETF demand report found that the funds received about $3.04 billion across nine consecutive positive sessions from Aug. 17 through Aug. 27 before recording $201.9 million in net withdrawals on Aug. 28.