Crypto World
Pi coin halving explained: the mining rate math
Pi Network borrowed crypto’s most powerful word and built a very different machine behind it.
Summary
- Pi’s mining-rate halvings are real, but they affect new emissions rather than the larger unlock flow already pressuring price.
- Around 6.5 million PI entering circulation daily makes unlocks more important than fresh mining emissions in 2026.
- The real supply debate is not only 100 billion PI, but how much eventually migrates, unlocks, and becomes sellable.
- Protocol upgrades and ecosystem growth may help demand, but utility must absorb recurring supply rather than one-time hype.
The full supply math runs from the 3.1415926 starting rate to the unlock schedule that now swamps it, and that math defines what the price can realistically do. Few words in crypto carry the weight of “halving.” Bitcoin built a 16-year religion around it: a clockwork cut to new supply, every four years, that has preceded every major bull market the asset has had.
So when Pi Network describes its own mining system in halving language, and when its team points to halvings as the reason a 100 billion token supply will not drown the price, the word does a lot of persuading on its own. That persuasion needs an audit. Pi does have halvings, real ones, with a history and a schedule of sorts. It also has a supply system in which those halvings are close to irrelevant for the question holders actually care about.
The tokens pressuring the price in 2026 were not mined yesterday at the current rate. They were mined years ago at far higher rates, and they are arriving on the market through a different door entirely. With PI trading near $0.12, down from a $2.99 peak in the first days of open trading, the gap between the scarcity story and the supply reality has become the most important piece of math in the ecosystem. What follows walks the math from the beginning: the original mining formula, the milestone halvings, the switch to monthly supply caps at mainnet, the unlock schedule that now dominates everything, and what would have to change for the halving narrative to start mattering.
The math in one paragraph
For readers who want the conclusion before the derivation: Pi’s halvings cut the rate of new mining, which in 2026 is a trickle, while the supply that moves the market comes from the migration and vesting of roughly 100 billion pre-allocated tokens, of which only about 9 billion circulate today. Around 6.5 million PI in newly unlocked tokens reach the market every day, a flow that dwarfs fresh mining emissions and adds tens of millions of dollars in potential sell pressure every month at current prices. Halving the mining rate slows the filling of a reservoir that is already 91% full of committed water behind the dam. Both the mechanics and the overhang are real; the overhang is bigger, for years to come, under every published version of the schedule.
Where the rate began: 3.1415926 per hour
Pi’s original mining design has a certain mathematical charm. When the network launched on March 14, 2019, Pi Day, every Pioneer mined at a systemwide base rate of 3.1415926 Pi per hour, the first digits of the constant the project is named for. The rule attached to that rate was simple and aggressive: each time the network of engaged Pioneers grew by a factor of ten, starting from 1,000 users, the base rate would halve. Growth came fast, so the halvings came fast.
Five halvings have occurred, triggered at the 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1 million, and 10 million engaged Pioneer milestones, each cutting the base rate in half. The next milestone on the original schedule sits at 100 million engaged Pioneers, and the December 2021 whitepaper noted the network was then above 30 million engaged users. The whitepaper also kept open a more drastic option: stopping mining altogether once the network reached a size the team never specified. Two things about this design separate it from the halving everyone knows.
Bitcoin halves on a fixed clock, every 210,000 blocks, roughly every four years, with a date the entire market can calculate years in advance. Pi halves on a growth milestone, which means the timing depends on user acquisition, the metric is “engaged Pioneers” as measured by the team, and nobody outside the company can verify how close the trigger is. A halving you cannot date is a halving the market cannot front-run, and front-running is most of what gives Bitcoin’s halving its price relevance. The second difference is direction of causality: Bitcoin’s halving rewards existing holders as adoption grows, while Pi’s milestone design was built to keep early mining generous enough to recruit, then throttle issuance as recruitment succeeded.
What each Pioneer actually mines
The base rate is only the floor of an individual’s mining speed, and the multiplier system matters for the supply math because it determines how unevenly the rewards have accrued. Every active Pioneer earns at least the systemwide base rate. On top of it stack bonuses: rewards for security circle connections, a referral team bonus for each invited member mining concurrently, node operation rewards for those running the desktop software, app usage rewards, and lockup bonuses that pay extra mining speed in exchange for voluntarily freezing balances for periods from two weeks to three years. A well-connected early Pioneer with a large referral tree, a node, and a long lockup could mine at many multiples of the base rate.
Today’s market carries the distributional consequence. The cheapest Pi ever created sits in the oldest and largest accounts, the ones with the deepest referral trees, and those balances have been migrating to mainnet and unlocking through 2025 and 2026. When the price chart shows persistent selling into every bounce, the mining formula’s history says who has the most room to sell profitably at any price above zero. It is the cohort the formula was designed to enrich first.
The metric nobody can audit
Before leaving the milestone system behind, one of its quietest problems needs daylight: nobody outside the company can measure the number that triggers the halving. Pi’s public figures come in layers that do not reconcile from outside. The project has claimed more than 60 million users at its peak messaging, recent coverage cites over 18 million KYC-verified accounts, and the halving trigger uses a third measure entirely, “engaged Pioneers,” defined by activity criteria the team applies internally. The December 2021 whitepaper placed that figure above 30 million.
Where engaged Pioneers stand in mid-2026, after a year of price collapse that has surely thinned daily check-ins, is not published on any dashboard a holder can refresh. The 100 million milestone could be two years away or could effectively never arrive if engagement has plateaued, and the difference between those worlds is invisible from the outside. Contrast the information environment around the halving everyone else means by the word. Any Bitcoin holder can compute the next halving to the block, watch the countdown on a dozen public sites, and verify the issuance change in the chain data the moment it happens.
The event’s power comes from this common knowledge: everyone knows that everyone knows, so positioning starts months ahead and the narrative compounds. Pi’s milestone halving offers the market nothing to coordinate around. It will be announced when the team says the threshold was crossed, verified by the team’s own definition, on data only the team holds. Whatever else that is, it is not an event a market can price in advance, which removes the one channel through which halvings have historically moved anything.
The pattern repeats across Pi’s supply system. The numbers that matter most, engaged users, migration completion, KYC attrition, and discretionary release timing, are exactly the numbers held privately. A project that wants its scarcity mechanics taken seriously could publish every one of them tomorrow. Choosing not to tells the market something, and the market has been pricing it all year.
The mainnet switch: from halvings to a supply budget
In December 2021, new whitepaper chapters quietly retired the pure milestone model and replaced it with something more corporate: a fixed maximum supply of 100 billion Pi, divided by allocation, with new mining drawn from a budgeted pool. The split honors the original 80/20 principle between community and core team. Of the 100 billion: 65 billion is reserved for mining rewards to past and future Pioneers, 10 billion for community organizations and ecosystem building, 5 billion for liquidity, and 20 billion for the core team. The team’s allocation unlocks proportionally to community migration, a design meant to prevent the company from cashing out ahead of its users.
Within the 65 billion mining pool, issuance follows declining monthly supply limits, with the systemwide rate adjusted dynamically so that each month’s total new mining fits inside an exponentially decreasing budget. This was the moment Pi’s halving story changed character. The milestone halvings still exist on paper, with the 100 million Pioneer trigger still ahead, but the binding constraint on new supply became the monthly budget formula, which declines smoothly instead of in dramatic halves. There is no future Pi halving event that will cut flowing supply in half overnight the way Bitcoin’s does, because the system no longer works that way.
Out of the redesign also came the number that now towers over everything else: the difference between 100 billion allocated and roughly 9 billion circulating. As of early 2026, only about 9% of the eventual supply trades. The other 91% exists as a claim: unmined pool, unmigrated balances awaiting KYC, locked tokens serving out their bonus terms, and team and foundation allocations vesting on their schedules. Every one of those categories resolves, eventually, into circulating supply, while mining rate math governs only the first and smallest of them.
The unlock flow versus the mining trickle
Now the arithmetic gets concrete, because this is where the argument in the title gets settled. Through 2026, the dominant source of new circulating Pi has been unlocks: previously mined balances exiting their lockup terms, migrated balances clearing the pipeline, and scheduled releases tied to the allocation model. Tracking through the spring put the average at roughly 6.5 million PI entering circulation per day, which compounds to just under 200 million tokens a month. At a $0.12 price, that is over $20 million in potential monthly sell pressure; at the prices holders are hoping to return to, the dollar figure scales up with the dream.
The schedule reflects the same monthly pressure the market struggled with earlier in the year, and the struggle shows. The token broke below $0.13 support in early June on sustained selling volume, with technicians eyeing $0.10 next. Fresh mining must be placed beside that flow. The base rate has been halved five times from its 2019 starting point, and the monthly budget formula throttles it further across a user base where most participants mine at low multipliers.
Fresh emissions in 2026 are a small fraction of the unlock flow, and cutting them in half again at the 100 million Pioneer milestone would change the total monthly supply growth by a rounding error. That is the core asymmetry: halvings act on the flow of newly created tokens, while Pi’s price is set by the flow of previously created tokens reaching the market. Bitcoin never had this problem because Bitcoin had no pre-mined reservoir; every coin that exists was mined into the market at the prevailing rate, so cutting the rate cut the only supply source there was. Pi’s halving cuts the smaller of two pipes and leaves the larger one untouched.
A holder can check this logic against the chart. Bitcoin’s halvings preceded rallies because they measurably tightened the daily balance between new supply and steady demand. Pi’s five halvings have already happened, the monthly budget already declines, and the price fell more than 95% from its peak anyway, because none of that machinery touches the unlock schedule. The scarcity mechanics are real enough, just aimed at the wrong pipe.
The lockup machine and what it defers
Lockups need a closer look, because they are the one mechanism that actually removes supply from the market today, and they do it with a catch. A Pioneer who locks tokens for a longer term mines faster, which means the system pays users in future tokens to withhold present ones. In the short run this works exactly as designed: a meaningful share of migrated balances sits frozen, the daily sellable float shrinks, and the price gets a reprieve. In the long run, every lockup is a deferral, not a removal.
The locked tokens return to the float when their term expires, and they return accompanied by the bonus tokens the lockup earned, which means the mechanism converts present supply relief into amplified future supply. A three-year lockup opened in the post-mainnet enthusiasm of early 2025 matures in early 2028 carrying its rewards with it. None of this makes lockups bad design; deferral has real value, and a project buying time to build utility is making a defensible trade. But the supply math has to count both sides of it.
The unlock flow of 2026 is partly the echo of lockups chosen in 2022 and 2023, and the lockups being chosen today at depressed prices are writing the unlock schedule of 2028 and 2029. The reservoir does not drain through this mechanism. It sloshes. That is why the lockup system can reduce immediate sell pressure while still expanding the future supply problem.
The case that 100 billion never arrives
Inside the community circulates the strongest counterargument to everything above, and it deserves a fair hearing rather than dismissal. It runs as follows: the 100 billion figure is a ceiling, not a destination. The 65 billion mining pool pays out only for mining that actually happens, at rates that keep declining, across a user base whose growth has slowed. Tokens allocated to balances that never clear KYC may never migrate, and the team has tied portions of its own allocation to community migration that may never complete.
Run those leakages forward and several community analysts project a practical circulating supply stabilizing somewhere between 30 billion and 40 billion Pi, far short of the full hundred. If true, the effective dilution ahead is roughly a third of what the headline number implies. The projection is plausible, and the serious objections to it concern knowability, not direction. The variables that determine where supply stabilizes, including KYC completion rates, migration policy, the unspecified mining stop option, and the team’s release decisions, all sit inside the company’s discretion and outside public verification.
An asset whose terminal supply ranges from 30 billion to 100 billion depending on unpublished operational choices is an asset the market will discount for uncertainty, and the discount shows up as exactly the chart Pi has. Bitcoin’s supply schedule earns a premium not because 21 million is a small number but because no one can change it. Pi’s schedule carries a penalty not because 100 billion is large but because the real number is unknowable from outside. Scarcity that requires trusting an issuer is, in market terms, a different and weaker product than scarcity enforced by code.
There is a constructive version of this point. If the practical-supply argument is right, the cheapest credibility upgrade available to the core team is publication: audited migration statistics, a binding schedule for the team allocation, and a hard answer on the mining stop. The gap between 30 billion and 100 billion is worth more to the price, closed, than any halving. That is the kind of disclosure that would let the market price scarcity instead of guessing at it.
Why the team refuses to burn
Every few months the community’s favorite alternative resurfaces: burn the supply down. Petitions have circulated asking the team to destroy 10 billion or 20 billion tokens outright, importing the deflationary mechanics that other projects use to manufacture scarcity. The core team has rejected the idea explicitly, stating that supply discipline will come from halvings, the declining mining rate, and KYC gating instead. It has also argued that the large supply exists to keep the network accessible to a global user base instead of expensive for late arrivals.
The refusal is more defensible than frustrated holders allow, and less sufficient than the team implies. It is defensible because burning community-allocated tokens to lift the price for existing holders would invert the project’s stated purpose, and because burns at this scale would mostly reward the same early whales the mining formula already favored. It is insufficient because the stated alternatives do not address the overhang, as this piece has shown, and because “trust our discretion” is the exact posture the market is already discounting. Other ecosystems have shown a middle path that Pi has so far declined: mechanical, revenue-linked buyback or burn programs, transparent and rule-bound, that tie supply reduction to actual ecosystem usage instead of decree.
Pi has no protocol revenue to commit yet, which is its own answer about sequencing: utility first, then mechanics. The chart records how long the market is willing to wait. This is why burns remain a tempting but incomplete answer. Without recurring demand or transparent supply policy, a burn would change the headline number faster than it changes the underlying confidence problem.
What the math permits the price to do
Put the pieces side by side and the supply half of Pi’s price equation reads roughly like this for the next several years. Close to 200 million new tokens a month arrive from unlocks and scheduled releases, a flow that no halving touches. Fresh mining adds a small increment on top, declining on its budgeted curve. Lockup maturities add lumpy surges with their bonus amplification.
Against all of that stands whatever organic demand exists: grassroots commerce, speculative accumulation near lows, ecosystem hopes pinned to the protocol upgrade ladder, and the smart contract functionality promised around version 26. None of this math forbids recovery; it prices it. For PI to hold any level, monthly demand must absorb the monthly flow at that level, which at $0.12 means finding over $20 million of genuine new buying every month just to stand still, and proportionally more at higher prices. That is the core of what the numbers actually permit the price to do.
Catalysts that create one-time demand spikes, an exchange listing, a Pi2Day announcement, or a protocol release, lift the price into a heavier supply schedule and then hand it back to the flow. Catalysts that create recurring demand, real applications with real token sinks and fee burn from actual usage, are the only kind the supply schedule cannot defeat. They are also the kind that takes years. This is the same lesson the divergence between corporate progress and token price has taught holders of much larger assets this year, played out with a supply overhang several times more aggressive.
The halving milestone at 100 million engaged Pioneers will arrive eventually, and when it does, the announcement will borrow Bitcoin’s vocabulary one more time. Holders who have followed the math to this point will know what to check before celebrating: not the new mining rate, but the month’s unlock total beside it. That comparison is what decides whether the event matters. Until the larger pipe slows, the smaller pipe is not the story.
A schedule is not a slogan
Pi Network did not lie about its halvings. Five of them happened, the rates fell, the monthly budget declines, and the team can point to every mechanism it promised. What the project borrowed, without earning, is the meaning the market attaches to the word: the Bitcoin-trained reflex that halving equals scarcity equals appreciation. That reflex was built on a system with no reservoir, no discretion, and no door between allocation and circulation except mining itself.
Pi has all three, and they, not the mining rate, write its supply story. One honest path remains for making the scarcity language true. Drain the uncertainty rather than the supply: publish the migration math, bind the discretionary releases, define the mining endgame, and let utility grow into the float that exists instead of promising that the float will stop growing. The day the practical supply becomes a number the market can verify is the day Pi’s halvings start to mean something.
Until then, the most important rate in the ecosystem is not 3.1415926 divided by thirty-two. It is 6.5 million per day.
As of June 11, 2026. Supply figures and unlock rates change monthly; verify current data before trading. This article is information, not investment advice.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup drove $20 billion in blockchain-based prediction market volume and $24 million in digital collectible trades, with more than 400,000 wallets participating in blockchain-based betting, according to a report from blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis.
The $20 billion figure includes trading before and during the tournament, with bettors placing roughly $5.7 billion in wagers over the five-week World Cup itself. World Cup-related markets accounted for about 63% of all prediction market activity during that period, the report said.
According to Chainalysis, users from every continent except Antarctica participated in World Cup prediction markets, with the United States and China generating the highest attributable trading volumes, followed by Canada, Thailand and the United Kingdom.
Despite the scale of betting activity, illicit participation remained limited. Chainalysis said fewer than 1% of wallets participating in World Cup prediction markets had ties to illicit actors, though it identified roughly $5.4 million in flows originating from sanctioned entities and other illicit sources.
The report also highlighted growing adoption of blockchain-based digital collectibles. Fans traded about $24 million worth of FIFA Collect NFTs during the tournament, while more than 100,000 match tickets were distributed through the platform. Wallets linked to sanctioned entities accounted for less than 0.01% of FIFA Collect users, which Chainalysis attributed in part to the platform’s identity verification requirements.
Chainalysis said the findings suggest blockchain will play a growing role in major global events and underscored the importance of compliance measures as platforms attract broader participation.
Strategy reported an $8.33 billion second-quarter operating loss after Bitcoin’s 27% decline this year drove a sharp reduction in the value of its digital asset portfolio.
Summary
- Strategy recorded an $8.32 billion unrealized digital asset loss during the second quarter.
- Its 843,775 BTC were worth $54.77 billion, below their $63.69 billion acquisition cost.
- The company posted an $8.22 billion net loss, equal to $24.45 per diluted share.
- A $3.75 billion dollar reserve provides 2.1 years of preferred dividend coverage under Strategy’s policy.
Strategy’s Bitcoin decline drives $8.33B loss
Bitcoin traded near $64,700 following Strategy’s earnings announcement, down from approximately $88,400 at the end of 2025. That decline left the company’s holdings valued below their aggregate purchase cost.
Strategy recorded an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on digital assets during the quarter, contributing to an operating loss of $8.33 billion. The results reversed the $14.05 billion unrealized gain recorded in the same quarter a year earlier.
The company reported a net loss of $8.22 billion, or $24.45 per diluted common share. Strategy posted net income of $10.02 billion, or $32.60 per share, during the comparable period last year.
Strategy shares were mostly unchanged in after-hours trading following the earnings release, suggesting investors had largely expected Bitcoin’s decline to weigh on the results.
Bitcoin holdings fall below Strategy’s acquisition cost
Strategy held 843,775 BTC as of July 26, an increase of 25% since the start of the year. The position had an original cost of $63.69 billion, including fees and expenses, and a market value of $54.77 billion.
Its average purchase price stood at approximately $75,476 per Bitcoin. With BTC trading near $64,700 after the report, the company’s position was about $10,776 underwater per coin based on its average acquisition cost.
The gap placed the total portfolio roughly $8.92 billion below its original cost. However, the reported quarterly loss was largely unrealized, meaning it reflected changes in Bitcoin’s market value rather than losses from selling the full position.
As crypto.news reported earlier, Strategy made no Bitcoin purchases between July 20 and July 26. Its total holdings remained unchanged at 843,775 BTC during that period.
The company has nevertheless sold approximately $218.4 million in Bitcoin this year to help fund preferred stock dividends. Those sales remain small relative to its overall digital asset reserve but show that Strategy is using part of the portfolio to meet financing obligations.
Strategy raises cash while reducing convertible debt
Strategy’s core software business generated quarterly revenue of $122.4 million, up 6.9% from $114.5 million a year earlier. Gross profit reached $81.6 million, representing a margin of 66.6%.
The company raised $17.06 billion through its capital markets programs during the year and reported a Bitcoin yield of 4.5%. That internal metric measures the change in Bitcoin held per assumed diluted share and does not represent a conventional investment yield.
Strategy also cut its convertible debt by 18% to $6.71 billion after repurchasing $1.5 billion of notes at a discount. The move reduced part of the company’s debt burden as lower Bitcoin prices placed pressure on its balance sheet.
Its U.S. dollar reserve rose by $525 million to $3.75 billion. Strategy said the reserve provides 2.1 years of coverage for preferred stock dividends under its current policy, although the calculation does not guarantee payments under every market condition.
Separate $1 billion repurchase programs have also been established for Strategy’s common shares and digital credit securities. The programs give the company the option to buy back securities but do not require it to use the full authorized amounts.
What the results mean for US investors
Strategy remains one of the largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holders, giving U.S. investors indirect exposure to BTC through its securities. Its shares can respond to Bitcoin prices as well as debt costs, equity issuance, preferred dividends and changes in the company’s capital structure.
The second-quarter loss shows how Bitcoin volatility can produce large swings in reported earnings. Strategy moved from a $14.05 billion unrealized digital asset gain a year earlier to an $8.32 billion unrealized loss this quarter.
Its increased cash reserve and lower convertible debt provide additional financial flexibility, but Bitcoin remains below the company’s average purchase price. Further declines could deepen unrealized losses, while a recovery above $75,476 would move the portfolio back above its aggregate acquisition cost.
Strategy (MSTR), the world’s largest corporate bitcoin holder, reported Thursday an $8.2 billion second-quarter net loss after the cryptocurrency’s price decline erased billions of dollars from the value of its digital asset holdings.
The quarterly loss was driven almost entirely by an $8.32 billion unrealized markdown on its bitcoin holdings under fair-value accounting.
The company held 843,775 bitcoin as of July 26, up 25% from the start of the year. At current prices, the stash is worth roughly $54.8 billion, compared with an acquisition cost of $63.7 billion.
The report came after a period of growing investor scrutiny on the firm over whether it can sustain an increasingly complex capital structure built around multiple classes of preferred stock, common equity and convertible debt.
The company raised $17.06 billion through at-the-market stock offerings this year, repurchased $1.5 billion of convertible notes at an 8% discount and expanded its U.S. dollar reserve to $3.75 billion, enough to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and interest expenses.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced new federal legislation aimed at creating an “Anti-Corruption Bureau” with the power to investigate, enforce, and prevent executive-branch corruption. The proposal also folds into a wider political fight over cryptocurrency ethics and market-structure reform, as Schumer’s remarks directly referenced President Donald Trump’s financial ties to crypto.
According to Schumer’s office, the bill—called the Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act—would establish a new agency designed to replace what he described as a fragmented system of oversight bodies. Schumer and cosponsors presented the effort as a targeted response to conflicts of interest they say stem from public office and lucrative crypto-related investments.
Key takeaways
- Schumer introduced the Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act, proposing a dedicated US agency to investigate, enforce, and prevent executive-branch corruption.
- The bill’s rationale ties to alleged Trump-linked financial gains, including references to crypto exposure mentioned in Schumer’s Thursday notice.
- Schumer’s proposal would consolidate multiple ethics and oversight functions, grouping entities including the Federal Election Commission and other government ethics offices “under one roof.”
- Supporters position the bureau as a “real teeth” enforcement mechanism, while passage could still face hurdles in the House and Senate—and a potential veto by Trump.
- The timing overlaps with ongoing uncertainty around the Senate’s handling of the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a major market-structure effort backed by many in the industry.
A new enforcement-focused anti-corruption bureau
In a Thursday press notice, Schumer said he introduced the Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act. He described the agency as one with enforcement authority, designed to “investigate, enforce, and prevent executive branch corruption.” The legislation also sets out “Congress’ findings” that Schumer claims include disclosures about Trump’s earnings from investments and additional crypto exposure connected to foreign governments through a family fund, as referenced in Schumer’s notice.
Schumer framed the proposal as an institutional fix. In remarks shared through a Public Citizen forum about the bill, he characterized the bureau as having “real teeth” and argued it would help harmonize enforcement across institutions that currently operate with overlapping or inconsistent authority.
The bill’s structure, as described in connection with the forum, calls for a bipartisan group of seven members to be confirmed by the Senate. It also includes mechanisms intended to allow private citizens and state authorities to seek recovery of funds they allege were stolen through corruption, according to descriptions tied to the proposal.
How crypto ethics enters the political equation
For Democrats weighing support for comprehensive crypto market structure legislation, President Trump’s business ties have become a central flashpoint. Many lawmakers, despite White House agreement to certain ethics provisions in the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, have argued that the offered safeguards do not fully address potential conflicts of interest.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that debates around the CLARITY Act have kept ethics provisions at the center of discussions, with lawmakers saying the measures fall short. Schumer’s new anti-corruption bill adds a separate enforcement pathway to that same broader argument: that oversight should be strengthened to prevent public office from translating into private financial benefit, including in crypto-related business interests.
Consolidating enforcement and ethics offices
A notable feature of the anti-corruption proposal is its intent to gather multiple oversight functions under one organizational umbrella. As described in the coverage, the legislation would place the US Federal Election Commission, the Office of Government Ethics, and the Office of Special Counsel “under one roof” within the new bureau.
Supporters argue the consolidation would reduce the gaps they believe exist across current watchdog systems. Schumer’s messaging emphasized replacing “a broken patchwork of watchdogs” with a single agency capable of acting “anywhere, anytime corruption strikes.” Critics of the current system—particularly those focused on ethics enforcement—often point to jurisdictional complexity and uneven prioritization across agencies; this bill attempts to address that by reorganizing responsibilities rather than relying solely on incremental reforms.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive an immediate response regarding the proposal.
Cosponsors, vote math, and what happens next
The bill was introduced by Schumer and has cosponsors including Senators Andy Kim, Alex Padilla, and Jeff Merkley. Passage would require Republican support in the House and Senate, where the party holds a slim majority.
Even if it advances before 2028, the president would have veto power. If Trump vetoed the legislation, Congress would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override it, according to the rules typically governing federal veto overrides.
The timing is also important because the Senate is approaching a break. As described in the coverage, the Senate had just over a week left before lawmakers planned to leave for a month-long state work period. That looming calendar could affect the speed at which both ethics-related and market-structure measures move in the upper chamber.
CLARITY Act uncertainty persists alongside the anti-corruption push
While Schumer’s anti-corruption proposal targets executive-branch conduct, it arrives in the midst of unresolved negotiations around the CLARITY Act, which many see as a key step toward a clearer US framework for digital assets.
As of Thursday, the Senate had not scheduled a vote on the CLARITY Act, despite pushes from Republican lawmakers and industry stakeholders. Cointelegraph previously highlighted that ethics provisions remain a sticking point for some Democrats, and this week’s status underscores how procedural timing may be just as decisive as policy design.
According to remarks attributed in the coverage to former SEC official John Reed Stark, after a public forum hosted by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Van Hollen, it was unclear whether lawmakers would move the CLARITY Act during the available window. The same report cited statements from Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong referring to the bill nearing a critical stage, alongside continued advocacy from Senator Cynthia Lummis for a vote.
The political sequence matters for market participants: if crypto market structure legislation is delayed by calendar constraints, lawmakers may re-focus on broader political disputes about ethics and enforcement, potentially reshaping what “safe enough” looks like for legislators and regulators. Conversely, if the CLARITY Act advances, it could clarify the legislative pathway for industry—while leaving ethics and anti-corruption reforms to run in parallel.
For now, investors and builders should watch two developments closely: whether the Senate schedules and votes on the CLARITY Act before its break, and whether Schumer’s anti-corruption bureau proposal gains traction early enough to overcome House and Senate vote hurdles and any eventual veto risk.
Ripple-backed Evernorth Holdings has advanced its public market plans after updating its SEC registration. The company completed executive employment agreements and submitted another amended Form S-4 filing. Meanwhile, the latest disclosures also outlined compensation packages, merger progress, and financial impacts linked to recent XRP price weakness.
Ripple-Backed Evernorth Completes Leadership Agreements
Evernorth Holdings submitted Amendment No. 5 to its Form S-4 registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing completed employment agreements for the remaining members of the executive leadership team. As a result, the company has finalized compensation arrangements before its proposed public listing.
The agreements cover Chief Legal Officer Jessica Jonas, Chief Business Officer Sagar Shah, and Chief Operating Officer Meg Nakamura. Each executive will receive a base salary, annual bonus eligibility, employee benefits, and restricted stock units. The compensation packages follow the company’s 2026 Omnibus Incentive Plan.
Jonas received the largest equity award among the newly announced executives. Her initial equity package carries a value of $4.5 million under the agreement. Meanwhile, Shah and Nakamura each received equity awards valued at $2.8 million, subject to shareholder and compensation committee approval.
Evernorth Advances Merger With Armada Acquisition Corp II
The latest filing follows earlier agreements with Chief Executive Officer Asheesh Birla and Chief Financial Officer Matt Frymier. Those agreements already established executive salaries, bonuses, equity awards, and vesting schedules. Consequently, Evernorth has now completed employment terms across its senior leadership team.
The company continues preparing for its planned business combination with Armada Acquisition Corp II. Arrington Capital sponsors the special purpose acquisition company leading the proposed transaction. Following completion, the combined company intends to trade on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol XRPN.
Evernorth has secured more than $1 billion in gross proceeds from strategic backers supporting the transaction. Funding has come from Ripple, Arrington Capital, SBI Holdings, Pantera Capital, and Kraken. The company has also assembled a board featuring senior executives from blockchain, finance, and technology organizations.
Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty will serve on the board after the merger closes. Other directors include Asheesh Birla, Ted Janus, Robert Kaiden, and Derar Islim. The proposed public company, therefore, combines experienced leadership from digital assets and financial services.
The transaction supports Evernorth’s strategy to establish one of the largest publicly traded XRP treasury companies. Corporate treasury models have gained attention as several firms increase exposure to digital assets. As a result, Evernorth aims to expand institutional participation through a publicly listed structure backed by XRP holdings.
XRP Price Weakness Leads to Impairment Charge
Evernorth also disclosed financial effects resulting from recent XRP market performance. The company reported a $38.4 million impairment tied to declining XRP valuations during the past four months. Consequently, the value of its combined XRP holdings fell to approximately $640 million.
XRP traded between $1.05 and $1.09 during the latest market session. The token changed hands near $1.07 after declining during the previous 24 hours. In addition, XRP has recorded losses exceeding 5% during the past week while trading activity weakened.
Daily trading volume also declined by approximately 10% during the latest session. Market sentiment remained under pressure as regulatory developments continued affecting cryptocurrency prices. Meanwhile, delays surrounding the CLARITY Act added another challenge for digital asset markets.
Armada Acquisition Corp II shares also recorded a modest decline during recent trading sessions. However, the stock maintained its broader year-to-date gains despite the latest movement. At the same time, Evernorth continued progressing toward its planned merger while strengthening executive leadership before entering public markets.
The updated SEC filing marks another milestone in Evernorth’s listing process. Executive agreements, governance appointments, and merger preparations now appear substantially complete. As a result, the company has strengthened its organizational structure before completing its proposed Nasdaq debut and expanding its XRP treasury strategy.
Crypto World
Up 439%, Then Margin-Called: Did Leopold Aschenbrenner’s Situational Awareness Actually Blow Up?
Situational Awareness made 439% in six months. Then margin calls took its entire stock book in one trade. Ken Griffin’s Citadel bought it.
A quarter of that fund’s last reported stock holdings were Bitcoin miners. That was not an accident, and it is why crypto investors are reading this story closely.
Who Is Leopold Aschenbrenner?
OpenAI hired him for its Superalignment team in 2023 and let him go in April 2024. He has said he was pushed out for raising safety concerns.
In June 2024 he published an essay series called Situational Awareness. Its central claim was blunt.
“AGI by 2027 is strikingly plausible,” Leopold Aschenbrenner, in his essay series Situational Awareness, June 2024.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
AGI means software that matches humans at most tasks. But the essay did more than predict it. One chapter argued the real bottleneck would be physical. Power contracts, transformers and electricity supply, not chips.
He then built a hedge fund on that idea. Its first stock disclosure, covering December 2024, listed six holdings worth $254.8 million.
Every one was a power or chip company. Not one was crypto. That changed quickly.
What Happened to Situational Awareness This Week
July went badly. The fund owned memory chip makers like SK Hynix, which fell hard in the AI memory stock selloff.
It had also bet against software firms such as Adobe. That trade pays off when a stock drops. Those shares rose instead. The wider market went the same way. The Nasdaq-100 fell 10% from its early June peak.
Borrowed money turned a bad month into a forced one. The fund had used loans to hold more stock than its own cash could cover.
When prices fell, its lenders wanted more money behind those loans. That demand is a margin call.
CNBC named Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase as the brokers involved. It also reported the fund had grown to $45 billion by the start of July.
Then it unwound every public stock position, CNBC said. Griffin’s Citadel hedge fund agreed to buy them. Millennium Management and Jane Street looked and passed, Bloomberg reported.
Where Do Bitcoin Miners Come In?
Crypto readers mostly missed this part. Situational Awareness became one of mining’s larger shareholders, and it happened fast.
Big US funds must list their stock holdings every three months on a form called a 13F. Five exist for this fund. Read in order, they show a bet being built.
The latest filing lists 29 holdings worth $5.52 billion. Miners and their data center arms make up $1.38 billion of it.
Core Scientific was the largest at $418.7 million. IREN came next at $328.6 million, then Applied Digital at $278 million.
Cipher Mining, Riot Platforms, Hut 8, WhiteFiber, Bitdeer, CleanSpark and Bitfarms made up the rest.
The whole disclosed book grew nearly 22 times in a year. The mining share went from nothing to a quarter of it.
So the AGI fund became a mining fund by design. His essay said the bottleneck was power. Miners own power, land and cooling, which is why miners became AI powerhouses.
There is a catch for shareholders. Anyone holding these stocks in July shared the trade with a fund facing margin calls. No mining company knew, so none of them said so.
Did Citadel Engineer This?
One theory spread fast. It says Citadel scared the market about rate hikes, waited for Leopold to break, then bought his stocks cheap.
The first part is true. Frank Flight, who runs macro strategy at Citadel Securities, published a note on July 27. He wrote that he now expected a rate hike at the July meeting.
Bloomberg reported the call added to market nerves. Two days later, a Griffin firm bought the stock book.
Four things break the theory.
- First, there are two Citadels.
Citadel Securities buys and sells stocks for other people. Citadel is the hedge fund. They are separate firms.
- Second, Flight had company.
PGIM and Wrightson ICAP also called for a hike. Bond veteran Harley Bassman wanted one twice as big.
- Third, the fear came first.
Bloomberg tied it to oil prices rising after the US and Iran clashed again, plus a strong job market.
- Fourth, the Fed did not hike.
It held rates steady, and three of its 12 voting members wanted a quarter-point rise.
That last detail matters. It was the first time since September 2016 that three officials dissented in the same direction. The pressure to raise rates was real, and it sat inside the Fed.
What Nobody Can Answer Yet
Did Citadel get a bargain? Nobody outside the deal knows. Neither firm will say what it paid.
Some think the forced selling mattered anyway. On CNBC, Jim Cramer argued it looked like a clearing event that could mark a bottom for the AI trade.
The tape says something simpler. Microsoft reported strong results on Wednesday night and rose about 15%.
Chip stocks jumped the next day. One big chip index rose 6.7% and snapped a five-day losing streak.
One block trade does not move a whole chip index. An earnings report can.
Six days before all of it, Aschenbrenner had told his investors to add money.
“PS. At times we call out opportunities that seem like a particularly good time to add funds, if you have been waiting for one,” Leopold Aschenbrenner, in the July 24 investor letter as reported by the Financial Times.
He got the direction right. He just did not own the stocks anymore.
The fund is not dead. It still holds private stakes, including Anthropic, which filed confidential IPO paperwork on June 1.
Miners spent 10 years being called a curiosity. It took one AI fund’s margin call to make them matter.
The post Up 439%, Then Margin-Called: Did Leopold Aschenbrenner’s Situational Awareness Actually Blow Up? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Strategy (MSTR), the world’s largest corporate bitcoin holder, reported Thursday an $8.2 billion second-quarter net loss after the cryptocurrency’s price decline erased billions of dollars from the value of its digital asset holdings.
The quarterly loss was driven almost entirely by an $8.32 billion unrealized markdown on its bitcoin holdings under fair-value accounting.
The company held 843,775 bitcoin as of July 26, up 25% from the start of the year. At current prices, the stash is worth roughly $54.8 billion, compared with an acquisition cost of $63.7 billion.
The report came after a period of growing investor scrutiny on the firm over whether it can sustain an increasingly complex capital structure built around multiple classes of preferred stock, common equity and convertible debt.
The company raised $17.06 billion through at-the-market stock offerings this year, repurchased $1.5 billion of convertible notes at an 8% discount and expanded its U.S. dollar reserve to $3.75 billion, enough to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and interest expenses.
Amazon shares surged in after-hours trading on Thursday after the company delivered a blowout second-quarter earnings report, beating Wall Street expectations across revenue, AWS sales, operating income, and earnings per share.
The results reinforced investor confidence that Amazon’s massive AI infrastructure spending is translating into accelerating cloud growth and stronger profitability.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Amazon Beats Wall Street Across Key Metrics
Amazon reported Q2 net sales of $200.6 billion, comfortably above analyst estimates of approximately $197 billion. The company also posted operating income of $27.46 billion, exceeding expectations of around $23.6 billion, while operating margin expanded to 13.7%, above the expected 12%.
Perhaps the biggest surprise came from earnings. Amazon reported earnings per share of $5.75, far ahead of the consensus estimate of $1.82, highlighting significantly stronger profitability than analysts anticipated.
The earnings release immediately fueled investor optimism, sending Amazon shares from a regular-session close of $235.50 to roughly $251 in after-hours trading, representing a gain of more than 6.5% after the closing bell.
AWS Growth Shows Amazon’s AI Spending Is Paying Off
The strongest signal from the report came from Amazon Web Services.
AWS generated $42.23 billion in revenue during the quarter, surpassing expectations of roughly $40.57 billion. Cloud revenue grew approximately 37% year-over-year, marking AWS’s fastest expansion in roughly 18 quarters.
For investors, AWS remains Amazon’s most closely watched business because it serves as the company’s primary AI infrastructure engine.
Chief Executive Andy Jassy has repeatedly defended Amazon’s aggressive capital investment strategy, maintaining plans to spend roughly $200 billion during 2026 to expand AI data centers, networking infrastructure, and custom silicon capabilities.
The latest earnings suggest those investments are beginning to translate into accelerating customer demand rather than simply higher expenses.
Investors Reward Amazon’s AI Strategy
Heading into earnings, investors questioned whether Amazon could match the strong cloud performance recently reported by Microsoft while justifying its enormous AI capital expenditures.
Instead, Amazon exceeded expectations across nearly every major operating metric.
The combination of stronger AWS growth, expanding operating margins, and better-than-expected profitability eased concerns that AI spending would pressure near-term earnings. Investors instead viewed the results as evidence that Amazon’s infrastructure investments are already supporting faster revenue growth.
Although some of the earnings benefit included non-operating gains, the company’s underlying operating performance remained well ahead of Wall Street forecasts.
What’s Next for Amazon?
Attention now shifts toward Amazon’s second-half execution as management continues rolling out AI infrastructure and expanding AWS services.
Investors will closely monitor whether AWS can maintain its accelerated growth trajectory while Amazon continues one of the largest capital investment programs in corporate history. Future earnings will also provide a clearer picture of whether AI-driven demand can continue supporting margin expansion and justify the company’s long-term spending plans.
If AWS momentum remains intact, Amazon could further strengthen its position in the increasingly competitive AI cloud market alongside Microsoft and Google.
The report also arrives at a pivotal moment for the AI investment race, with Microsoft and other tech giants raising the bar on cloud performance. Amazon’s latest numbers suggest its AI strategy is beginning to generate tangible financial returns.
The post Amazon AI Bet Pays Off as Q2 Earnings Crush Expectations: How Will Stock React? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
When Liz Gumbinner first noticed a twinge in her right shoulder, she assumed she’d pulled a muscle. It was during the pandemic, when many exercise studios were closed, and Gumbinner, a writer who teaches advertising at Boston University, had been doing a lot of yoga and dance at home.
But the pain, mild at first, gradually became excruciating, shooting down her arm whenever she extended it. “We’re talking worse than labor contractions,” she says.
Pretty soon, Gumbinner couldn’t zip up a dress, turn off a light switch on the wall, or even hold hands with her boyfriend. The only way she could sleep was flat on her back with her arms at her sides. “That’s when I realized it wasn’t a pulled muscle,” she says.
A few months later, she was diagnosed with adhesive capulitis, colloquially known as “frozen shoulder,” a condition in which the shoulder capsule—a fibrous sheath which surrounds the joint—becomes thick and inflamed. It usually develops in three phases: the freezing stage, which can last several months and cause severe pain; the frozen stage, during which the shoulder becomes stiffer and difficult to use, often for up to a year; and the thawing stage, when mobility finally begins to improve.
Hyperscale Data has sold about 100 Bitcoin and secured a BTC-backed credit facility to finance construction of its artificial intelligence data center in Michigan.
Summary
- Hyperscale Data sold about 100 BTC to fund construction and equipment purchases.
- Its Bitcoin-backed credit facility carries a variable rate of approximately 4.5% to 5%.
- A 10-year AI services agreement could generate more than $1.2 billion if fully exercised.
- Hyperscale Data retains about 1,006 BTC, ranking 44th among public corporate holders.
Hyperscale Data converts Bitcoin into AI funding
Hyperscale Data disclosed the Bitcoin sale and financing agreement on Thursday as it accelerated work on its Michigan AI campus.
Proceeds from the sale will fund construction and purchases of critical infrastructure and equipment with long delivery times. The company did not disclose the dollar value of the transaction or the lender behind its Bitcoin-backed credit line.
Its new facility is expected to provide financing at a variable interest rate of roughly 4.5% to 5%. The arrangement allows Hyperscale Data to raise additional capital against its remaining Bitcoin rather than selling a larger share of its holdings immediately.
Bitcoin Treasuries data shows the company retains approximately 1,006 BTC after the sale. That position makes it the 44th-largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder tracked by the platform.
Formerly called Ault Alliance, Hyperscale Data adopted its current name in 2024 as it shifted more attention toward AI infrastructure. However, the company has continued operating its Bitcoin mining business.
Michigan AI contract could exceed $3 billion
Construction at the Michigan campus supports an earlier master services agreement with an unnamed AI infrastructure provider. The initial phase covers approximately 20 megawatts of computing capacity.
The agreement has a 10-year term and includes two optional five-year extensions. Hyperscale Data estimates the contract could produce more than $1.2 billion in revenue if the customer exercises all options attached to the initial capacity.
The customer can also request another 32 MW within the first two years. If that expansion proceeds and remains active throughout both extension periods, Hyperscale Data expects the contract’s total value to exceed $3 billion.
These projections depend on the customer taking the available capacity and exercising its extension rights. Hyperscale Data has not identified the customer or provided a final timeline for completing the full 52 MW buildout.
Bitcoin miners expand into US AI infrastructure
Hyperscale Data’s financing decision adds to a wider shift among U.S.-listed Bitcoin miners seeking revenue from AI computing and data centers.
Hut 8 recently signed a second 15-year lease valued at $9.8 billion for its Beacon Point AI campus in Nueces County, Texas. IREN separately announced $2.8 billion in new multi-year cloud contracts and increased its year-end 2026 annualized revenue target to more than $4 billion.
Mining companies already control power connections, land and data center infrastructure that can be adapted for high-performance computing. AI contracts may offer steadier revenue than Bitcoin mining, where income depends on network difficulty, energy costs and the market price of BTC.
The transition is not without risk. Poolin filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. on July 22 with roughly $173 million in prepetition obligations. The Singapore-based mining company and two U.S. subsidiaries plan to sell their Texas assets through a court-supervised process rather than restore the business.
Hyperscale Data’s Michigan investment gives the trend a direct U.S. infrastructure angle while also showing how corporate Bitcoin reserves can serve as a source of construction capital.
GPUS shares rise after financing announcement
Hyperscale Data shares, traded on NYSE American under the GPUS ticker, gained more than 5% in late-morning trading Thursday, according to Yahoo Finance data.
The market reaction followed the company’s financing update and its projections for the Michigan contract. Investors will now watch construction progress, the AI customer’s expansion decision and any further changes to Hyperscale Data’s Bitcoin holdings.
Using BTC as both a saleable reserve and loan collateral exposes the company to Bitcoin price movements while it funds a capital-intensive data center project. Future disclosures on the facility’s collateral requirements and the campus delivery schedule may provide a clearer view of that risk.
CEMATRIX Corporation (CEMX:CA) Q2 2026 Earnings Call Transcript
World Cup Prediction Markets Hit $20B as NFT Trading Reached $24M
UEFA votes to boycott World Cup over FIFA investor plan
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Sports4 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business1 day agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Tech4 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Crypto World5 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Politics3 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Entertainment6 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
Politics3 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
News Videos4 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Fashion7 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Sports7 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
Business2 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World5 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
News Videos10 hours agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Politics4 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Entertainment2 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
Crypto World2 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Entertainment5 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
-
News Videos2 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
You must be logged in to post a comment Login