G20 finance ministers and central bank governors have committed to advancing clearer regulatory frameworks for digital assets while keeping financial stability and cross-border risks in focus.

The G20 Chair’s Statement, issued after officials met in Asheville, North Carolina, on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, recognized digital assets as part of the financial innovation that could support economic growth and private-sector development.

Officials said member countries would work toward regulatory and supervisory frameworks that provide defined pathways for digital financial innovation while maintaining trust in monetary and payment systems.

“We commit to advancing responsible and effective regulatory and supervisory frameworks that preserve financial stability, support economic growth, and establish clear pathways for sound digital financial and digital assets innovation,” the officials said.

The commitment places digital asset regulation within the G20’s work on modernizing financial oversight, which covers financial stability, new technology and payment infrastructure.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had identified support for a digital asset ecosystem and improvements to cross-border payments among the priorities of the U.S. G20 presidency in February. The Asheville meeting formed part of the 2026 Finance Track, ahead of another ministerial meeting scheduled for October in Bangkok and the G20 Leaders’ Summit in December.

G20 digital assets work puts stablecoins under focus

Stablecoins received specific attention in the statement as G20 officials wait for further work from the Financial Stability Board.

The group said it expects the FSB to publish findings covering the cross-border implications of global stablecoin arrangements, along with work examining stablecoin data sources, their availability and potential problems with the information regulators currently have.

Cross-border use has become one of the areas drawing closer attention from financial authorities as stablecoins move through payment networks without relying on the same infrastructure used for conventional international bank transfers.

In June, crypto.news previously reported that the People’s Bank of China was monitoring stablecoin payments as officials considered their effect on international payment networks and the monetary system.

Chinese central bank officials said stablecoins could take on a larger role in cross-border transactions and called for stronger international coordination as their use increases. Beijing has maintained restrictions on cryptocurrency activity while examining how stablecoins and central bank digital currencies could affect global payments.

Regulatory coordination has moved ahead elsewhere. The United Kingdom and United States agreed in July to pursue closer stablecoin coordination covering regulatory standards, cross-border payments and tokenized financial markets.

Officials from the two countries have been examining pathways that could allow regulated stablecoins issued in one jurisdiction to access the other market. Their discussions have included requirements for one-to-one reserves and protections for holders if an issuer becomes insolvent.

The G20 statement did not propose a common stablecoin licensing system or set a deadline for countries to adopt identical rules. Its commitment instead centers on advancing national regulatory frameworks while considering opportunities and risks that extend across borders.

Cross-border payment reforms remain part of G20 plans

Payment infrastructure sits alongside digital asset regulation in the G20’s current work.

Finance ministers and central bank governors reaffirmed their commitment to the G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-border Payments and called for countries to expand the operating hours of large-value payment systems.

Officials want jurisdictions to encourage use of the harmonized ISO 20022 messaging standard and facilitate cross-border transmission of financial services data while taking domestic laws and data security requirements into account.

Stablecoin use has increasingly intersected with the same payment issues. The UK Financial Conduct Authority identified cross-border payments as the strongest practical stablecoin use case during its Stablecoin Sprint, based on feedback from banks, payment firms and crypto companies.

Participants told the regulator that stablecoins could be particularly useful in markets where access to U.S. dollars remains limited. The FCA found less incentive for UK consumers to replace existing domestic payment methods, though businesses could potentially use stablecoin infrastructure for settlement.

Individual G20 members have taken different approaches to incorporating crypto into international payment systems. Brazil’s central bank, for example, moved in May to bar virtual assets from settlement within regulated eFX cross-border payment rails, while allowing cryptocurrency transfers outside those supervised channels.

The G20’s latest position leaves room for those differences, with the statement calling for jurisdictions to consider cross-border opportunities and challenges under their respective regulatory systems.

Major G20 economies have already built crypto frameworks

Several members have moved ahead with domestic digital asset laws while international organizations continue working on common standards.

In the United States, the GENIUS Act established the first federal framework specifically covering payment stablecoins. Permitted issuers will be required to maintain one-to-one backing using eligible liquid reserve assets and comply with disclosure, supervision and redemption requirements.

Implementation remains unfinished. Federal regulators missed a July 18 deadline to complete several rules required under the law, with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency subsequently setting a November target for its main regulations.

The framework is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 18, 2027, or 120 days after the primary federal regulators complete their implementing rules, whichever comes first.

Across the European Union, the Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation has established a common licensing and supervision system covering crypto service providers and stablecoin issuers. MiCA’s transition period ended on July 1, leaving firms without the required authorization unable to legally provide covered crypto services to EU customers under the framework.

Japan has continued restructuring its digital asset rules as well. Lawmakers in July passed amendments classifying cryptocurrencies as financial products under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, creating a path toward domestic crypto exchange-traded funds, a separate 20% tax treatment and tighter market conduct requirements.

The country’s Financial Services Agency subsequently established a dedicated crypto division responsible for cryptocurrency and stablecoin supervision, digital payment planning and related policy work.

Japan regulates stablecoins separately under its payment services framework. MUFG Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and Mizuho Bank are preparing jointly issued stablecoin transactions for fiscal 2026 following an FSA-backed pilot that tested corporate cross-border payments.

G20 calls for tighter oversight of illicit crypto finance

Financial crime formed another part of the G20’s digital asset agenda.

Officials reaffirmed support for the Financial Action Task Force and called for countries with significant virtual asset activity to make effective implementation of FATF standards a priority.

The group specifically backed risk-based supervision covering anti-money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing, while calling attention to fraud involving scam compounds and the use of artificial intelligence by criminals.

FATF and its regional bodies have been tasked with overseeing implementation of those standards across jurisdictions. The United States is due to host a FATF Learning and Development Forum in Dallas later this year as countries continue work on applying the organization’s financial crime rules.

The G20 finance ministers and central bank governors are scheduled to meet again in Bangkok on Oct. 15 before the U.S. presidency concludes with the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Miami on Dec. 14 and 15.

TradeXYZ recorded $202.36 billion in trading volume during the second quarter of 2026, an increase of 79.2% from the previous quarter, according to a Sept. 1 report from the Hyperliquid Research Collective.

The platform’s estimated share of trading across Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets rose from 84.5% to 95.1% during the quarter. Its fastest-growing segment was equity perpetuals, where volume increased 377% quarter-on-quarter to $58.9 billion across 55 markets.

The figures come from an external research report prepared by GLC Research, Four Pillars, Arrakis and GRZ Research. They should not be treated as audited financial results or figures confirmed through a TradeXYZ regulatory filing.

The report also calculated $7.59 million in quarterly revenue, up 32.9%, while open interest reached $2.96 billion at the end of June. Open interest increased 64.6% from the previous quarter.

TradeXYZ captures 95.1% of HIP-3 trading volume

TradeXYZ’s quarterly volume rose by approximately $89.43 billion from the estimated Q1 level of $112.93 billion. Growth in trading activity outpaced revenue, which increased by 32.9% over the same period.

That difference can reflect changes in product mix, fee rates, trader tiers and the proportion of volume generated by markets with lower effective fees. The report did not provide enough audited information to identify a single cause.

TradeXYZ’s HIP-3 market share increased by 10.6 percentage points during Q2. The research group estimated that its share had reached approximately 99.5% on a trailing 30-day basis by the time the report was prepared.

HIP-3 allows third parties to deploy perpetual futures markets on Hyperliquid while using the network’s trading infrastructure. Deployers can choose market parameters and list assets that are not available through Hyperliquid’s original validator-operated markets.

Hyperliquid’s current fee documentation says HIP-3 deployers may retain up to 50% of the trading fees generated by their markets. That creates a direct revenue model for platforms that can attract traders and maintain liquid order books.

The structure also separates TradeXYZ from a conventional centralized exchange. Users trade through Hyperliquid’s on-chain infrastructure, while TradeXYZ acts as the deployer responsible for its market selection and related parameters.

Equity perpetuals drive the fastest growth

Equity perpetual volume reached $58.9 billion during Q2, representing about 29.1% of TradeXYZ’s total reported volume. The segment covered 55 equity-linked markets by the end of the quarter.

A perpetual contract gives traders price exposure to an underlying asset without a fixed expiration date. Equity perpetuals can therefore track the market value of a company’s shares while trading outside the normal operating hours of traditional stock exchanges.

These contracts do not necessarily provide the same rights as owning the underlying shares. Perpetual holders generally do not receive voting rights, legal ownership or direct claims on company assets. Funding payments and liquidation rules also create risks that do not apply to ordinary unleveraged share ownership.

TradeXYZ introduced its pre-IPO perpetual product, known as IPOP, on May 1. The first market tracked Cerebras, followed by contracts linked to SpaceX and Quantinuum, according to the report.

The research group said those contracts continued through the companies’ public listings and then converted into standard equity perpetuals. It also claimed that the pre-IPO markets provided prices close to the companies’ opening public trades.

Those conclusions come from the report’s analysis. TradeXYZ has not filed audited evidence showing that pre-IPO perpetual prices consistently predict opening prices, and three completed examples would not establish long-term reliability.

The growth forms part of a wider convergence between cryptocurrency infrastructure and equity markets. For example, Wintermute registered as a U.S. broker-dealer while preparing to expand into equities and tokenized securities, as covered in the report on its regulated U.S. securities entry.

Rival closures increase market concentration

TradeXYZ’s rising share also reflects the departure of competing HIP-3 deployers. Felix, Ventuals and Dreamcash stopped operating between June 19 and July 2, according to the research report.

Their closures removed alternative venues during and shortly after the quarter. This means TradeXYZ’s 95.1% share resulted from both its own volume growth and reduced competition.

The report did not provide detailed reasons for each closure. It also did not disclose whether customers experienced losses, whether open positions were transferred or how much volume each departing platform handled before stopping operations.

A market share approaching 100% gives TradeXYZ a strong position among HIP-3 deployers, but it also concentrates activity and operational dependence in one platform. Future market share could change if new deployers enter, existing teams relaunch or Hyperliquid modifies the HIP-3 framework.

The concentration is specific to HIP-3 markets and should not be confused with TradeXYZ controlling all Hyperliquid trading. Hyperliquid also hosts its original perpetual markets, spot assets and other infrastructure outside TradeXYZ’s deployed products.

CFTC action does not directly approve TradeXYZ

The report described the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s May action on perpetual futures as regulatory validation for the broader product category.

On May 29, the CFTC issued a policy statement explaining its position on listing perpetual contracts. The agency released the statement alongside an order allowing a designated contract market to list a bitcoin-linked perpetual futures contract.

That action covered a U.S.-regulated contract offered by a registered market operator. It did not approve TradeXYZ, Hyperliquid’s offshore markets or TradeXYZ’s equity perpetual products.

TradeXYZ users should therefore not interpret the CFTC decision as granting U.S. regulatory authorization to the platform. The legal treatment of equity-linked perpetuals can involve derivatives and securities rules that differ from those governing a bitcoin contract.

Regulators in other jurisdictions have followed separate approaches. One Trading received a Dutch license to offer regulated perpetual futures in the European Union, according to coverage of its European derivatives authorization.

The comparison shows that regulatory approval normally applies to a specific operator, legal entity and product structure. Broader acceptance of perpetual futures does not automatically authorize every on-chain market using a similar contract design.

Q3 data will test whether TradeXYZ retains its lead

The next relevant update will be TradeXYZ’s third-quarter volume, revenue and open-interest data. Those figures should show whether Q2 growth continued after three competing HIP-3 deployers closed.

Equity perpetual activity will be another key measure. The segment must maintain liquidity across its expanded list of markets for the 377% quarterly increase to represent more than a short-term surge around major listings.

Future pre-IPO conversions will also provide more evidence about how TradeXYZ handles corporate listings, reference prices and contract transitions. The report did not announce a fixed schedule for additional IPOP markets.

TradeXYZ’s U.S. availability remains a separate regulatory question. Neither the research report nor the CFTC statement announced approval for the platform to offer equity perpetuals directly to U.S. customers.

Fogo has restarted its mainnet after recovering and permanently removing 237 million of the 400 million FOGO tokens stolen in a security incident that forced the Layer 1 blockchain to halt operations.

Fogo said in its latest update that the mainnet was operating normally again, while efforts to recover the remaining affected tokens were continuing with centralized exchanges and law enforcement.

Fogo mainnet has restarted after 237 million FOGO recovery

The restart comes several days after Fogo stopped its blockchain on Aug. 29 to prevent the attacker from moving tokens received during a compromise involving the Fogo Foundation.

Of the 400 million FOGO taken during the incident, 237 million have now been recovered and permanently removed from the token’s total supply, the project said. That leaves 163 million FOGO from the original amount that have not been reported as recovered.

“Efforts to recover the remaining affected assets are ongoing with CEXs and law enforcement,” Fogo said.

The project did not provide further details on how the 237 million tokens were recovered or the process used to permanently remove them from supply. Fogo said its investigation remained underway and asked users to rely on its official channel for further information.

The latest update gives the network a clearer recovery figure after several days of uncertainty over the status of the stolen assets, though Fogo has yet to publish a full account of how the compromise occurred.

Fogo initially disclosed the incident on Aug. 28, when the Foundation said an unknown actor had compromised the organization and transferred 400 million FOGO to what it described as a “bad actor.”

At the time, the Foundation said the blockchain itself had not been affected and continued operating normally. Exchanges, law enforcement agencies and forensic specialists had been notified as the project began tracing the assets.

That changed the following day when Fogo halted the network while validators prepared an upgrade. The pause was intended to stop further movement of the affected tokens, with the project providing no restart time when it announced the action.

Stolen FOGO represented more than 10% of circulating supply

The 400 million FOGO involved in the incident represented 4% of the blockchain’s 10 billion-token genesis supply and more than 10% of the circulating supply at the time.

FOGO was trading near $0.0075 when the network was halted, putting the value of the affected tokens at approximately $3 million based on DefiLlama data.

Exchange restrictions had started shortly before the Foundation publicly disclosed the compromise. Bitget suspended FOGO deposits and withdrawals around an hour before the first announcement and cited wallet maintenance, while KuCoin later introduced similar restrictions.

Fogo did not disclose which addresses or systems within the Foundation had been compromised, and its latest statement does not identify the attack vector. No complete post-incident report has been released as the investigation continues.

The response follows several security incidents this year in which blockchain projects have worked with exchanges and law enforcement to contain stolen or improperly created tokens.

In August, crypto.news previously reported that Harmony proposed a chain rollback after forged ONE tokens spread across its network. Harmony’s proposed recovery plan would return its two shards to checkpoints recorded on Aug. 11, discarding more than 109,000 regular transactions and 315 staking transactions. One wallet involved in the incident moved 2.385 trillion forged ONE through 477 successful transfers in 106 seconds.

Another network interruption occurred in August when Maya Protocol halted operations after an attacker exploited six linked software flaws. The attacker took an estimated $1.7 million in Bitcoin and other assets, including roughly 20 BTC, before the cross-chain protocol activated a global halt to prevent further losses.

Crypto projects have used network halts after security incidents

Network stoppages have been used under different circumstances when developers or validators identify threats that could affect blockchain operations or assets.

MANTRA Chain resumed block production on Aug. 22 after its mainnet spent roughly 30 hours unable to process transactions because of a Cosmos-EVM vulnerability. Validators deployed version 8.4.0 to patch the issue, while MANTRA said two wallets managed by the project were affected and user balances remained unchanged.

Earlier in the year, Humanity Protocol disclosed a separate security incident involving compromised administrative credentials. A malware-infected developer device exposed seven private keys that had been inadvertently backed up during its June 2025 mainnet launch.

The credentials allowed the attacker to drain 141.2 million H tokens from an Ethereum bridge and mint another 300 million H on BNB Smart Chain. Humanity Protocol said the compromise involved private keys instead of a vulnerability in its smart contracts or bridge infrastructure.

Fogo’s incident remains under investigation, with the Foundation yet to disclose whether compromised credentials, internal systems or another attack method allowed the 400 million FOGO transfer.

Fogo launched its mainnet in January

Fogo launched its mainnet in January 2026 after raising $7 million through a Binance token sale conducted at a $350 million valuation.

The Layer 1 network was built primarily for onchain trading and markets itself around high-speed transaction processing, including a target block time of 40 milliseconds and infrastructure designed to reduce exposure to maximal extractable value.

Before the Aug. 29 interruption, a guide published on Fogo’s website in March said the blockchain had maintained 100% uptime since its launch. The network halt ended that uninterrupted run several months after mainnet went live.

Fogo has not specified how long the network remained offline before the latest restart or detailed the validator upgrades carried out during the interruption.

With 237 million FOGO now recovered and removed from supply, the project said work with centralized exchanges and law enforcement remains focused on the rest of the affected assets. Further information will be released as the investigation continues.

Core DAO has begun coordinating an emergency hard fork after a small group of validators obtained CORE rewards above the blockchain’s intended issuance, prompting several exchanges to restrict token transfers.

Core said on Sept. 1 that it had contained the issue and stopped what it described as “malicious validators” from drawing further excess rewards. The network is now working with validators on a permanent fix through a forward upgrade, meaning previously confirmed transactions will remain unchanged.

“Assets remain safe,” Core said, adding that a full technical postmortem would be published after the response is completed.

The project has not disclosed the amount of CORE distributed through the incident, the number of validators involved, how long they were able to obtain the excess rewards, or whether any of the additional tokens reached the market.

Core DAO hard fork will not reverse transactions

Core first disclosed the problem on Monday, when it said a small number of validators were accruing block rewards significantly above the amount intended under the protocol.

At the time, the project said it had identified the root cause and was working on mitigation measures. Core described the problem as limited to reward issuance and said it had not affected network security or custody of user assets.

By Tuesday, the team said the activity had been contained and moved to coordinate the emergency hard fork with its validator set. Core has not published an activation time for the upgrade or disclosed the technical vulnerability that allowed the excess rewards to be claimed.

The distinction between a forward upgrade and a rollback means the planned fork is intended to change the network rules from a specified point without rewriting transactions already recorded on the blockchain.

Mainnet upgrades can require coordination between validators and other network participants because nodes must run compatible software after new protocol rules take effect. As crypto.news previously reported, hard forks on production blockchains can require validators and users to reach agreement around the updated network rules.

Core has not said whether validators will need to install a specific software release before the emergency upgrade or what level of validator participation will be required for the fork.

Exchanges restrict CORE transfers

The reward problem led several centralized exchanges to restrict CORE deposits or withdrawals while the network investigated the incident.

Coinbase paused sends and receives on the Core DAO network, according to its status page. Trading functions remained available, with buys, sells, conversions and fiat transactions unaffected by the network transfer restriction.

South Korean exchanges Bithumb and Coinone suspended CORE deposits and withdrawals, citing security concerns surrounding the network.

Bitget restricted CORE deposits and withdrawals under what it described as wallet maintenance, while LBank suspended deposits in response to project requirements. The exchanges did not attribute losses of customer funds to the Core incident.

Core has maintained that user assets were not affected and said the problem involved the issuance of validator rewards.

The project has yet to disclose whether the exchanges will need to complete technical work related to the hard fork before normal CORE transfers can resume.

Validator rewards remain under scrutiny

The unanswered questions center on the amount of CORE obtained by the validators and the mechanism that allowed them to receive more than the protocol intended.

Core has not said whether the excess rewards represented newly created CORE, rewards that would otherwise have been distributed at a later date, or another accounting problem within the validator reward system.

The project has likewise not disclosed whether any of the validators sold, transferred or otherwise moved the additional CORE after receiving it. Its planned postmortem is expected to provide technical details about the root cause, though Core has not given a publication date.

Validators form part of Core’s network architecture, which combines delegated proof of stake with Bitcoin-linked security. Core has spent the past several years building its network around Bitcoin staking and decentralized finance applications.

In March 2025, Core integrated with Cobo to expand its dual Bitcoin staking service for institutional users in Asia. The arrangement allowed Cobo users to stake Bitcoin and CORE while earning BTC-denominated yields.

At that point, institutions had used Core to stake more than 6,200 BTC, while more than 150 Ethereum Virtual Machine-compatible decentralized applications had been integrated into the ecosystem. Core’s total value locked stood above $525 million when the partnership was announced.

The network had already become one of the largest Bitcoin sidechains by locked value. Earlier data showed Core with $423 million in TVL while 55% of Bitcoin’s hash rate was helping secure the network. Messari data cited at the time showed Core had 23 validators during the second quarter of 2024.

Core’s validator system plays a direct role in distributing CORE rewards. The current incident, however, remains limited in publicly disclosed technical details because the project has not explained which part of that reward process was exploited.

Emergency upgrade follows other recent hard forks

Core’s planned response comes shortly after other blockchain networks used hard forks to modify protocol rules, though the reasons for those upgrades differed.

BNB Chain, for example, activated its Pasteur hard fork on Aug. 25 after scheduling changes to bridge verification, validator authorization and block capacity.

One of the Pasteur changes addressed a cross-chain verification weakness that could allow duplicate validators to be counted when determining whether an approval had reached the required threshold. BNB Chain said it had not identified an exploitation of that flaw or linked it to asset losses before the correction was deployed.

Cardano completed another network upgrade in July when the van Rossem hard fork moved its mainnet to Protocol Version 11 that introduced changes to Plutus costs while preparing the network for its planned Ouroboros Leios architecture.

Core’s emergency upgrade is being coordinated after the reward problem was detected rather than as part of a previously announced protocol development schedule.

The network has said the excess reward activity can no longer continue under the mitigation already put in place. Core has not disclosed the identities of the validators it described as malicious or whether it plans to take further action against them.

Its forthcoming postmortem is expected to address the technical cause of the incident, while the amount of excess CORE issued and whether any of those tokens entered circulation remain undisclosed.

Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs and 18 other financial institutions committed on Sept. 1 to establish a stablecoin company during the second half of 2026, subject to closing conditions.

The unnamed venture plans to issue a U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoin during the first half of 2027. The group said it may later introduce tokens linked to other G7 currencies, with a euro stablecoin named as its first expansion priority.

The institutions intend to use the token across wholesale, institutional and retail markets. Proposed uses include cross-border payments and settlement for digital asset transactions.

The announcement remains a development plan rather than a completed launch. The group has not disclosed the company’s name, token name, blockchain networks, reserve custodian, governance structure or final redemption terms.

Stablecoin group spans four continents

The consortium comprises banks, asset managers and other financial institutions based across North America, Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Its North American participants are Bank of America, Capital One, Citi, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, PNC Financial Services, Scotiabank, TD Bank Group, Wells Fargo and WisdomTree.

European members include Banco Santander, BBVA, Commerzbank, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds Banking Group, Rabobank and UBS. MUFG Bank represents East Asia, while Sirius International Holding and Standard Bank represent the Middle East and Africa, respectively.

The group said the project would combine the participants’ distribution networks with bank compliance, governance and risk-management systems. Those are company claims about the planned product, which has not yet entered the market.

MUFG confirmed its participation through a separate release dated Sept. 2. BBVA also published the consortium announcement through its corporate news service. No later disclosure had named the operating company or assigned specific roles to individual members.

USD stablecoin plan grew from a 10-bank study

The project follows an October 2025 announcement in which 10 banks said they were studying a 1:1 reserve-backed form of digital money available on public blockchains.

The latest announcement expands that initial group to 21 institutions and moves the project from exploration toward establishing a dedicated company.

However, the consortium has not yet identified which public blockchains it will support. It has also not disclosed whether users will be able to hold and transfer tokens directly or whether access will depend on participating banks and approved service providers.

The product’s proposed user base is also broad. Wholesale use could include transfers between banks or large companies. Institutional uses could involve settlement for tokenized securities and other digital assets. Retail applications could include payments, although the consortium has not released a consumer distribution plan.

The planned token would enter a market currently led by established issuers such as Tether and Circle. The banks may compete through their existing customer relationships, compliance systems and access to payment infrastructure. Those potential advantages remain untested until the venture publishes its operating model and launches the token.

Traditional banks are also considering separate approaches. JPMorgan has held early discussions about a possible stablecoin, although the bank said it had no active launch plan and would assess customer demand and regulation, as crypto.news reported.

GENIUS Act rules remain unfinished before launch

The consortium said the dollar stablecoin “intends” to comply with the U.S. GENIUS Act where applicable. President Donald Trump signed the legislation on July 18, 2025, creating a federal framework for payment stablecoin issuers.

The law establishes licensing and supervision requirements. It also calls for stablecoins to be backed one-to-one by eligible liquid reserves, provides redemption protections and requires regular reserve disclosures. Issuers cannot pay interest or yield solely for holding a covered payment stablecoin.

Several implementing regulations were still unfinished after federal agencies missed a July 18, 2026 rulemaking deadline. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has proposed reporting requirements that include confidential weekly reports and quarterly financial submissions for issuers under its authority.

The OCC is targeting November 2026 for final rules, as crypto.news reported. The statute’s timing could place the federal framework into effect around the period when the bank consortium is preparing its 2027 launch.

That schedule gives the venture time to incorporate final reserve, capital, redemption, custody and compliance requirements into the product. It also leaves uncertainty because several details may change before regulators complete their work.

The Treasury Department is separately developing rules for state regulatory recognition and foreign stablecoin issuers. In related coverage, Treasury requested public feedback on licensing standards and the interaction between federal and state supervision.

A euro token would face MiCA requirements

The consortium also said it “intends” to comply with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation when applicable. MiCA already provides a regulatory structure for stablecoins offered in the bloc.

A token pegged to one official currency, such as the euro, generally falls within MiCA’s electronic money token category. Issuers face authorization, reserve, disclosure and redemption requirements, with additional supervision possible if a token reaches regulatory importance thresholds.

The consortium did not say which legal entity would issue its planned euro token or where that issuer would be licensed. Those choices will determine the relevant supervisory authority and the obligations assigned to participating institutions.

Operating across the U.S. and European Union will also require coordination between regulators. The Financial Stability Board recommends comprehensive supervision and cross-border information sharing for global stablecoin arrangements because their functions can span banking, payments and securities markets.

Ethena has moved beyond synthetic-dollar trading with the launch of Ethena Pay, a crypto-native “global money app” designed to make its USDe stablecoin usable for everyday payments, savings, and cross-border transfers.

Announced in a Tuesday post on X, the self-custodial app is built around holding USDe in a dollar-denominated balance, earning up to 6% annualized rewards, and spending via a payment card. Ethena says fiat access is supported through onboarding tools that convert deposits into USDe.

Key takeaways

• Ethena Pay turns USDe into a wallet-based balance for payments, savings, and transfers, with up to 6% annualized rewards for eligible users.
• In the beta, Ethena will begin with 400 users, expanding access weekly across 48 countries.
• Avalanche is listed as the exclusive settlement layer for payments and transfers.
• The app supports moving money using IBAN details and local-currency rails, but is not initially available in the US, EU, Canada, Taiwan, or South Korea.
• USDe’s market has continued to scale: DefiLlama data cited by Ethena’s report puts USDe at roughly $4.1 billion market cap, while ENA is up sharply in recent weeks.

Ethena Pay: a USDe-focused wallet for spending and transfers

Ethena positions its new product as a “money app” rather than a pure trading interface. According to the Tuesday announcement, users can deposit fiat or crypto, after which funds are converted into USDe (USDe) to create a dollar-denominated balance inside the app.

The product is also designed for external transfers. Ethena says users will be able to use IBAN details to move funds between bank accounts and settle into local currencies. For payment execution, Ethena Pay includes a payment card flow that allows users to spend their USDe balance, while also offering fiat onramps to fund the wallet.

Ethena further notes that MoonPay-owned Iron supplies backend infrastructure for the service.

Where the beta starts—and where it doesn’t

The rollout is structured as a limited beta across broad regions, including Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and parts of Asia. Ethena said the beta spans 48 countries, but access is initially restricted to 400 users, with availability expanding weekly.

There’s also a clear geography boundary for regulatory or operational reasons. Ethena Pay is not initially available in the United States, the European Union, Canada, Taiwan, or South Korea. Ethena indicated it expects to expand into those markets during the beta, subject to regulatory approval.

For investors and users watching stablecoin “real use” narratives, the staged launch matters: it suggests Ethena is testing both product mechanics (on/off ramps, card spend, transfer rails) and compliance constraints in select regions first, rather than attempting a full global release immediately.

Why the settlement choice matters: Avalanche for transfers

A key technical detail in the announcement is settlement. Ethena says Avalanche will serve as the exclusive settlement layer for Ethena Pay’s payments and transfers.

This matters because the user experience of a payments product depends not just on custody and user interfaces, but also on how value is processed behind the scenes—especially for cross-border activity. By naming a single settlement layer, Ethena is effectively narrowing one major variable for the beta: how transfers are finalized and coordinated as transactions scale.

As Ethena expands the app in waves, traders and ecosystem builders will likely watch whether the payment and transfer flows remain consistent in speed and reliability across regions, and whether the company adds settlement options later or keeps Avalanche exclusively for the broader rollout.

USDe and ENA: growth backdrop for the payments push

USDe is the synthetic dollar that underpins Ethena Pay. Ethena describes it as an Ethereum-based protocol designed to keep its value close to $1 without relying on traditional banking infrastructure.

According to the information provided, USDe maintains its peg using crypto collateral and hedging strategies, including derivatives positions. Ethena’s announcement cites DefiLlama data indicating USDe has reached a market capitalization of about $4.1 billion, which it characterizes as making it the sixth-largest stablecoin by market cap.

Ethena also operates ENA, its governance token. The same coverage notes ENA’s market capitalization at roughly $1.5 billion, and says the token has rallied about 68% over the past month, though it remains below earlier highs.

Separately, the Ethena Foundation proposed on Friday directing 95% of the net revenue it receives from Ethena’s core businesses toward ENA buybacks, conditional on USDe’s circulating supply reaching $7.5 billion. Following that proposal, Ethena’s reporting states ENA rose more than 10% and then added 27% over the week.

On the market data side, the article cites CoinGecko for ENA trading information, including a reference trading price around $0.16 on Tuesday. It also references trading volume of about $595 million over the past 24 hours, up 16% from the previous day.

What to watch next

With Ethena Pay moving into a limited, multi-country beta, the key question is whether the app can translate USDe’s stablecoin mechanics into dependable payments and transfer experiences at scale. As access expands weekly and Ethena seeks regulatory approval for additional regions, users and market observers should watch for improvements in coverage, any changes to settlement approach, and how USDe adoption in real-world rails affects demand for both USDe and ENA.

ARK Invest and Glassnode published a joint study on Sept. 1 that found three entities could cross the measured block-production thresholds for both Bitcoin and Ethereum, while Solana required 19.

The 32-page report, titled The Decentralization Spectrum: Design Tradeoffs in Digital Assets, compares the networks across ownership, exit fluidity, verification costs, critical resilience, reconstruction costs and infrastructure distribution.

The findings do not mean three companies control Bitcoin or Ethereum. The metric counts mining pools and staking platforms as entities, even when the underlying hardware, stake or node operators belong to separate participants who may withdraw or redirect their resources.

Bitcoin’s three-pool threshold does not equal ownership

The report applied a 51% hash-rate threshold to Bitcoin. Foundry USA represented 27.27% of the measured hash rate, followed by AntPool at 17.06% and F2Pool at 16.96%. Together, the three pools exceeded 61%.

This produced a Nakamoto coefficient of three, defined as the minimum number of measured entities needed to cross a network’s critical production threshold. ViaBTC controlled another 9.50%, while SpiderPool represented 5.82%.

Mining pools coordinate block construction and distribute rewards, but they do not necessarily own the machines producing their hash rate. Independent miners connect to pools to receive steadier income and can redirect their computing power elsewhere.

That mobility limits how closely pool concentration can be equated with permanent control. The report estimated a Bitcoin miner could switch a 1% hash-rate position in approximately 29 seconds. A coordinated attack or censorship attempt could prompt participants to leave the responsible pools.

Pools still influence transaction inclusion and ordering because they usually provide the block templates miners use. Pool concentration therefore represents an operational risk, even if it overstates the concentration of underlying mining ownership.

The issue is not new. Earlier crypto.news reporting found that two mining pools produced a majority of sampled Bitcoin blocks in late 2022. Pool shares have changed since then, but production continues to be concentrated among several large coordinators.

Ethereum crosses a lower threshold through pooled stake

ARK and Glassnode applied a 33% stake threshold to Ethereum because participants controlling one-third of staked ETH can disrupt finality. This differs from Bitcoin’s 51% majority threshold, so the two coefficients do not describe identical powers.

Lido represented 23.04% of staked ETH in the report’s July data. Binance controlled 8.88%, and Kraken held 6.91%. Those three entities collectively represented approximately 38.8%, taking Ethereum above the selected threshold.

Lido is not a single validator. It distributes stake among multiple node operators, although those operators participate through a common protocol and governance framework. The report therefore treats Lido as shared infrastructure that aggregates economic weight rather than one machine or company directly controlling every validator.

Ethereum’s exit mechanics also restrict validator mobility. The report estimated that exiting a 1% position would take around 14.6 days under current conditions and as long as 55.6 days under heavy congestion. That is much slower than redirecting Bitcoin hash rate.

Client diversity provides another layer of resilience. The study placed Geth’s execution-client share at 34.88%, followed by Nethermind at 26.96% and Reth at 18.98%. Lighthouse represented 54.16% of consensus clients.

Different clients independently implement Ethereum’s rules, reducing the portion of the network exposed to one software defect. The relationship between Ethereum nodes and their software clients means validator concentration alone cannot describe the network’s full failure risk.

Solana’s 19-validator result comes with infrastructure costs

Solana recorded the highest Nakamoto coefficient for the selected block-production threshold. The report found that 19 validators were needed to control more than 33% of delegated stake.

Figment was the largest individual validator at 3.78%, followed by Helius at 3.69%, Jupiter at 2.91%, Binance Staking at 2.81% and Ledger by Figment at 2.16%. The remaining 84.65% was spread across other validators.

One passage in the report says Solana requires 20 entities, but its chart, comparison table and published Glassnode summary all report a coefficient of 19. The table also says the figure increased from 18 in March 2026.

Solana’s validator distribution performed well on this particular measure, but its physical infrastructure was more concentrated. Approximately 100% of the infrastructure measured by the researchers operated in commercial data centers. About 68% was in Europe, while 21% was in North America.

TeraSwitch hosted 30.23% of measured stake, and the top two hosting companies served around 35.7%. Common infrastructure can create correlated failures even when the validator set contains many separate operators.

That risk became visible in August when 102 of 699 Solana validators stopped voting during a TeraSwitch routing problem. Solana continued processing transactions, but the episode showed how one infrastructure failure can affect multiple otherwise independent validators.

The report used Solana geographic data from November 2024, while most Bitcoin and Ethereum infrastructure data came from July 2026. That timing difference limits direct comparisons and leaves room for Solana’s distribution to have changed.

Bitcoin leads infrastructure resilience and auditability

Bitcoin had the least expensive verification requirements in the study. The researchers estimated hardware for a full node at $289, compared with $730 for Ethereum and $21,478 for a Solana RPC node or validator-class configuration.

Its measured full-chain storage requirement was 753 gigabytes. Ethereum required approximately two terabytes for a full archive setup, while reconstructing Solana’s history was estimated at 480 terabytes because historical data is commonly offloaded to external providers.

Bitcoin also had the most distributed hosting profile. Only 16% of measured infrastructure operated in data centers, while 63% of nodes used Tor. Another 15% was residential or self-hosted.

Ethereum placed approximately 49% of execution-layer nodes in cloud environments and 45% in self-hosted settings. AWS alone hosted around 20%, while the top two providers accounted for approximately 27%.

Solana’s higher hardware and bandwidth demands reflect its focus on throughput. The tradeoff is that fewer ordinary users can independently recreate or verify the full network history using consumer equipment.

No single score settles blockchain decentralization

The report ultimately ranked Bitcoin as the most decentralized of the three networks overall, followed by Ethereum and Solana. Bitcoin led in ownership distribution, auditability and geographic resilience.

Ethereum generally occupied the middle across the six dimensions. Solana scored strongly for its critical resilience threshold and validator participation but ranked lower for ownership distribution, verification accessibility and infrastructure diversity.

The methodology remains sensitive to how entities are grouped. Exchanges can hold tokens for many customers, mining pools aggregate independent miners, and staking protocols coordinate multiple operators. Wallet-size bands can likewise combine custodial assets belonging to thousands of users.

The comparison is therefore more useful as a map of separate concentration risks than as a definitive ranking. A network may distribute block production broadly while relying heavily on several hosting companies, software clients or governance organizations.

Future editions could improve comparability by using synchronized data dates, separating pools from underlying resource owners and distinguishing censorship thresholds from thresholds capable of rewriting finalized history.

FAQs

Hyperliquid Strategies expanded its equity financing facility with Chardan Capital Markets from $1 billion to $2.5 billion on Sept. 1, according to a new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The Nasdaq-listed company can raise funds over time by selling newly issued PURR shares to Chardan. Hyperliquid Strategies previously said proceeds from the facility could support general corporate purposes, including potential purchases of HYPE, the native token of the Hyperliquid network.

The $2.5 billion commitment represents the facility’s maximum aggregate capacity. It does not mean the company has received that amount, completed an offering of that size or committed the proceeds to buying HYPE.

Actual proceeds will depend on the number of shares sold and the prices at which transactions occur. Each issuance would also increase PURR’s outstanding share count, creating potential dilution for existing investors.

Hyperliquid Strategies adds $1.5 billion in capacity

Hyperliquid Strategies and Chardan signed the amendment to their ChEF purchase agreement on Sept. 1. The original agreement dates to Oct. 22, 2025.

The amendment raises the total commitment by $1.5 billion. Chardan can purchase newly issued common shares from Hyperliquid Strategies after the company submits qualifying purchase notices under the agreement.

Hyperliquid Strategies controls the timing and amount of individual sales. Its SEC disclosures state that financing decisions will depend on market conditions, PURR’s trading price and management’s assessment of how the proceeds should be deployed.

The arrangement differs from a traditional loan. Selling shares does not create principal repayments or interest expenses. However, the company exchanges equity for cash, reducing the percentage ownership represented by each existing share.

The facility also does not guarantee that Chardan will purchase $2.5 billion in stock. Transactions remain subject to the agreement’s terms, conditions and limitations. The amount ultimately raised could be lower than the maximum commitment.

Potential HYPE purchases remain optional

Hyperliquid Strategies said in its prospectus that proceeds from equity-facility sales were planned for general corporate purposes, including potential HYPE purchases.

That language gives management broad discretion. It does not establish a minimum HYPE allocation, purchasing deadline or fixed token target. The company could also direct proceeds toward operating expenses, transaction costs or other corporate requirements.

The Sept. 1 Form 8-K does not report a new HYPE acquisition. It also does not disclose whether Hyperliquid Strategies has completed share sales using the additional $1.5 billion of capacity.

Hyperliquid Strategies reported holding 29.3 million HYPE as of Aug. 19. Since completing its business combination in December 2025, the company had spent $773.4 million to acquire approximately 16.5 million tokens at an average price of $46.77, as crypto.news reported.

The company also reported $149.9 million in cash at the end of June and said it carried no debt. Its HYPE position had more than doubled from the roughly 12.6 million tokens associated with the company’s creation.

In related coverage, the transaction that formed Hyperliquid Strategies included $305 million in cash alongside the initial HYPE contribution. The company has since used equity financing as a central part of its token accumulation strategy.

Nasdaq rules limit lower-priced issuances

The amendment introduces an exchange cap that becomes relevant after aggregate share sales through the facility reach $1 billion.

After that threshold, Hyperliquid Strategies generally cannot sell more than 42,641,847 shares at prices below $12.02. The limit equals 19.99% of the common shares outstanding immediately before the amendment was executed.

The company can exceed the cap if shareholders approve additional issuances under Nasdaq rules. The restriction may also cease to apply if shareholder approval is not required under an available Nasdaq provision.

At $12.02 per share, 42,641,847 shares would represent approximately $512.5 million in gross proceeds. This calculation excludes fees and assumes every share is sold at the stated price.

The relationship between the share cap and the expanded commitment could restrict access to the full facility when PURR trades below $12.02. Raising the entire $2.5 billion may require higher sale prices, shareholder approval or an applicable Nasdaq exception.

The effect on existing investors will depend on the timing and size of each issuance. Selling shares at lower prices requires the company to issue more stock to raise the same amount of cash, increasing dilution.

PURR closes below the amendment’s threshold

PURR closed at $11.36 on Sept. 1, down approximately 7.3% during regular trading. The stock opened at $11.76 and traded between $11.03 and $12.31. Volume reached about 24.3 million shares.

The closing price placed PURR below the amendment’s $12.02 reference level. However, the market price does not activate the exchange cap by itself. The restriction concerns completed below-threshold sales after cumulative facility purchases reach $1 billion.