In the event that quantum computers one day become capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography, roughly 1 million BTC attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the Bitcoin network, could become vulnerable to theft.

At today’s price of about $67,600 per bitcoin, that stash alone would be worth approximately $67.6 billion.

But Satoshi’s coins are only part of the story.

Estimates circulating among analysts suggest that roughly 6.98 million bitcoin may be vulnerable in a sufficiently advanced quantum attack, Ki Young Ju, the founder of CryptoQuant, recently wrote on X. At current prices, the total amount of coins currently exposed represents roughly $440 billion.

The question that is now becoming increasingly prevalent in and outside bitcoin circles is simple and, at times, quite controversial

Why some coins are exposed

The vulnerability is not uniform. In Bitcoin’s early years, pay-to-public-key (P2PK) transactions embedded public keys directly on-chain. Modern addresses typically reveal only a hash of the key until coins are spent, but once a public key is exposed through early mining or address reuse, that exposure is permanent. In a sufficiently advanced quantum scenario, those keys could, in theory, be reversed.

Neutrality vs. intervention

For some, freezing those coins would undermine bitcoin’s foundational neutrality.

“Bitcoin’s structure treats all UTXOs equally,” said Nima Beni, founder of Bitlease. “It does not distinguish based on wallet age, identity, or perceived future threat. That neutrality is foundational to the protocol’s credibility.”

Creating exceptions, even for security reasons, alters that architecture, he said. Once authority exists to freeze coins for protection, it exists for other justifications as well.

Georgii Verbitskii, founder of crypto investor app TYMIO, raised a relevant concern: the network has no reliable way to determine which coins are lost and which are simply dormant.

“Distinguishing between coins that are truly lost and coins that are simply dormant is practically impossible,” Verbitskii said. “From a protocol perspective, there is no reliable way to tell the difference.”

For this camp, the solution lies in upgrading cryptography and enabling voluntary migration to quantum-resistant signatures, rather than rewriting ownership conditions at the protocol layer.

Let the math decide

Others argue that intervention would violate Bitcoin’s core principle: private keys control coins.

Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, suggested that allowing old coins to reenter circulation, even if through quantum breakthroughs, may be preferable to altering consensus rules.

“Any bitcoin in lost wallets, including Satoshi (if not alive), will be hacked and put back in circulation,” he continued. “Any inflationary effect from lost coins returning to circulation would be temporary, the thinking goes, and the market would eventually absorb it.”

Under this view, “code is law”: if cryptography evolves, coins move.

Roya Mahboob, CEO and founder of Digital Citizen Fund, took a similar hardline stance. “No, freezing old Satoshi-era addresses would violate immutability and property rights,” she told CoinDesk. “Even coins from 2009 are protected by the same rules as coins mined today.”

If quantum systems eventually crack exposed keys, she added, “whoever solves them first should claim the coins.”

However, Mahboob said she expects upgrades driven by ongoing research among Bitcoin Core developers to strengthen the protocol before any serious threat materializes.

The case for burning

Jameson Lopp said that allowing quantum attackers to sweep vulnerable coins would amount to a massive redistribution of wealth to whoever first gains access to advanced quantum hardware.

In his essay Against Allowing Quantum Recovery of Bitcoin, Lopp rejects the term “confiscation” when describing a defensive soft fork. “I don’t think ‘confiscation’ is the most precise term to use,” Lopp wrote. “Rather, what we’re really discussing would be better described as ‘burning’ rather than placing the funds out of reach of everyone.”

Such a move would likely require a soft fork, rendering vulnerable outputs unspendable unless migrated to upgraded quantum-resistant addresses before a deadline — a change that would demand broad social consensus.

Allowing quantum recovery, he adds, would reward technological supremacy rather than productive participation in the network. “Quantum miners don’t trade anything,” Lopp wrote. “They are vampires feeding upon the system.”

How close is the threat?

While the philosophical debate intensifies, the technical timeline remains contested.

Zeynep Koruturk, managing partner at Firgun Ventures, said the quantum community was “stunned” when recent research suggested fewer physical qubits than previously assumed may be required to break widely used encryption systems like RSA-2048.

“If this can be proven in the lab and corroborated, the timeline for decrypting RSA-2048 could, in theory, be shortened to two to three years,” she said, noting that advances in large-scale fault-tolerant systems would eventually apply to elliptic curve cryptography as well.

Others urge caution.

Aerie Trouw, co-founder and CTO of XYO, believes “we’re still far enough away that there’s no practical reason to panic,”

Frederic Fosco, co-founder of OP_NET, was more direct. Even if such a machine emerged, “you upgrade the cryptography. That’s it. This isn’t a philosophical dilemma: it’s an engineering problem with a known solution.”

In the end, the question is about governance, timing and philosophy — and whether the Bitcoin community can reach consensus before quantum computing becomes a real and present threat.

Freezing vulnerable coins would challenge Bitcoin’s claim of immutability. Allowing them to be swept would challenge its commitment to fairness.

TLDR:

• Crypto markets absorbed repeated tariff escalations in 2025, unlike the mass liquidations seen in October 2024.
  
• October’s crash was driven by overleveraged positioning and thin liquidity, not solely by the tariff headlines alone.
  
• Analysts note forced sellers have largely exited, leaving a cleaner and less one-sided market structure today.
  
• Price reaction to negative news, not the news itself, remains the strongest signal for gauging crypto market health.

The crypto market is responding differently to macroeconomic pressure compared to months prior. Analysts and traders are noticing a sharp contrast in price behavior.

Where escalating tariff headlines once triggered mass liquidations, buyers are now stepping in instead. This shift in market reaction is drawing attention from seasoned observers who track positioning and market structure over narrative-driven explanations.

October’s Flush Versus Today’s Absorption

The crypto market experienced a violent downturn around October 10th. Tariff news hit, and the reaction was immediate and brutal.

Mass liquidations swept through exchanges, and prices dropped sharply. The explanation at the time seemed straightforward — tariffs broke crypto, and that was that.

Analyst Justin Wu pointed this out in a recent post on X. He noted, “Back on October 10th the entire timeline agreed on one thing: Tariffs just broke crypto.”

The difference today, however, tells another story. Tariff escalation continues, yet the crypto market is absorbing the pressure without cascading lower.

Wu attributed October’s severity to the market structure at that time, not the news itself. Leverage was elevated, long positions were overcrowded, and liquidity was thin. Those conditions made the market fragile before any catalyst even arrived.

Once that unwind started, it fed on itself. Liquidations triggered more liquidations, bids disappeared, and the narrative became the explanation rather than the actual cause.

Positioning Has Quietly Shifted Below the Surface

The crypto market today appears to be operating from a cleaner base. Forced sellers from the October episode are largely gone. Leverage has cooled across major exchanges, and positioning is far less one-sided than before.

Wu noted that stronger buyers are now willing to step in where panic once ruled. This is typical behavior following a proper cleanup phase in any asset class. The market stops reacting to bad news the same way once the weak hands have exited.

Negative headlines are still hitting the tape regularly. However, price action is no longer following the same script. That kind of divergence between news and reaction is often a leading signal worth watching closely.

Wu wrapped his analysis with a clear point of focus. He wrote, “Most people focus on the story. The better signal is always the reaction.”

The crypto market reaction right now is notably different from what it was during the October flush. Whether this leads to a sustained move higher remains to be seen.

Still, the structural condition of the market today appears more stable. Traders tracking positioning rather than headlines are finding a more measured picture beneath the surface noise.

Bitcoin slid back toward $67,000 in Sunday trading as trade uncertainty resurfaced, with investors weighing fresh tariff escalation against a shifting legal backdrop in the U.S.

BTC was trading around $67,526, down about 1.4% over the past 24 hours and roughly 2.1% on the week. The move follows President Donald Trump’s decision to raise the worldwide tariff rate to 15% from 10%, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that invalidated earlier emergency trade measures.

The court’s decision had briefly appeared to limit Washington’s ability to deploy sweeping tariffs ahead of Trump’s planned March 31 visit to Beijing. Instead, the administration responded by lifting the global rate, keeping pressure on trade partners even as the legal footing remains contested.

China now faces the same 15% levy applied to U.S. allies, with that rate set against a 150-day window. Markets are left navigating both escalation and ambiguity, a combination that tends to dampen appetite for risk.

Losses were broad acorss crypto majors. Ether slipped 1.8% to $1,951 and is down 2.5% over the past week. XRP fell 4.4% on the day and 8.4% across seven days to $1.39. Solana dropped 3.8% in 24 hours to $83.25, while Dogecoin shed nearly 5% on the day and more than 11% on the week. Cardano declined 4.3%, and BNB eased 2.3%.

Trade friction is not confined to Asia. European lawmakers are signaling hesitation over advancing the so-called Turnberry Agreement, saying they want clearer commitments from Washington on trade policy before moving forward.

For now, crypto remains tightly linked to macro headlines. Until tariff policy finds firmer footing, digital assets are likely to move with broader risk sentiment rather than on purely crypto-native catalysts.

TLDR:

• Elliptic links five crypto exchanges to structured routes used for Russian sanctions evasion through P2P and broker networks.
• Wallet sharing between Russian and non-Russian platforms allows sanctioned funds to mix with compliant trading activity.
• Cash-to-crypto services now support cross-border trade payments and access to restricted foreign digital services.
• Blockchain data shows direct financial exposure between these exchanges and multiple sanctioned entities.

Russia-linked crypto services continue to create pathways around international sanctions, according to new blockchain intelligence findings. Several exchanges still provide transaction routes that bypass traditional banking oversight through cryptoasset conversions.

These platforms allow ruble-based funds to move across borders with limited visibility. The activity persists despite increasing regulatory scrutiny on Russia-focused crypto trading.

Five Crypto Exchanges Help Russia Evade Sanctions via Trading Networks

Data published by Elliptic shows that several crypto exchanges maintain financial links to sanctioned Russian entities. These services convert rubles into crypto assets and route them abroad through peer-to-peer and broker networks.

Bitpapa operates as a P2P exchange registered in the UAE but primarily targets Russian users. 

U.S. authorities sanctioned the platform in March 2024 for supporting sanctions evasion. Elliptic reports that nearly 10 percent of Bitpapa’s outgoing crypto flows reached sanctioned entities, including direct exposure to Garantex.

Blockchain data also indicates that Bitpapa rotates wallet addresses to avoid detection by transaction monitoring systems. 

This strategy obscures the Russian origin of funds when they reach overseas services. The approach complicates compliance checks for counterparties receiving those assets.

Another exchange, ABCeX, facilitates both order-book and P2P ruble trading. It operates from Moscow’s Federation Tower, previously linked to sanctioned platforms. 

Elliptic estimates ABCeX processed at least $11 billion in crypto assets, with substantial transfers to Garantex and Aifory Pro.

Wallet Sharing and Cash-to-Crypto Routes Raise Compliance Risks

Elliptic also examined the operational structure of Exmo, which claimed to exit the Russian market after 2022. 

The company stated that its Russian business transferred to a separate entity, Exmo.me. On-chain data, however, shows both platforms use the same custodial wallet infrastructure.

Deposits from both services pool into identical hot wallets, while withdrawals originate from the same addresses. This structure allows Russian-facing flows to mix with Western-facing operations. 

Elliptic identified more than $19.5 million in direct transactions between Exmo-linked wallets and sanctioned entities, including Grinex and Chatex.

Rapira, incorporated in Georgia but operating from Moscow, also appears in the dataset. Elliptic reports that Rapira moved over $72 million in crypto assets to and from Grinex. 

Russian authorities reportedly raided its Moscow offices during a capital flight investigation tied to Dubai transfers.

Aifory Pro specializes in cash-to-crypto services across Moscow, Dubai, and Türkiye. It acts as a payment agent for foreign trade, including transactions between Russia and China. 

The firm also offers virtual and Apple Pay-enabled cards funded by USDT balances to access blocked services like Airbnb and ChatGPT.

Elliptic further identified financial links between Aifory Pro and Abantether, with nearly $2 million in cryptoassets transferred. These flows highlight growing intersections between Russian and Iranian crypto networks.

XRP has just logged its largest weekly realized loss spike since 2022, a sign that panic selling may have reached an extreme.

On-chain data shows roughly $1.93 billion in realized losses in a single week, meaning coins moved at prices below their original purchase levels. The last time losses of that magnitude were recorded, about 39 months ago, XRP went on to rally 114% over the following eight months.

Realized losses measure actual losses, not paper drawdowns. They spike when holders capitulate, choosing to lock in losses rather than wait for a rebound. Unlike unrealized losses, which can vanish if price recovers, realized losses represent final decisions.

That absorption piece matters.

For realized losses to surge into the billions, there must be aggressive selling pressure, but there must also be buyers willing to take the other side. Large capitulation events often coincide with liquidity stepping in at lower levels. Historically, these moments tend to cluster near market bottoms because much of the weaker positioning gets cleared out in one move.

When weak hands are flushed, the composition of holders shifts. The coins that change hands during capitulation typically move from short-term, emotionally driven traders to longer-term buyers with stronger conviction or better cost bases. That redistribution can create a more stable foundation for price.

However, context is key. The 2022 spike came after a prolonged drawdown and broader crypto deleveraging. Today’s environment includes macro uncertainty, shifting regulatory narratives and still-elevated volatility across majors. A realized loss spike increases the probability that sellers are exhausted, but it does not eliminate macro headwinds.

Another variable to watch is follow-through. In prior cycles, sustained recoveries required not just a single capitulation print but stabilization in spot demand and declining sell pressure in the weeks that followed. If realized losses remain elevated or quickly re-accelerate, that would suggest distribution is not finished.

For now, the data points to emotional extremes. Historically, that has been fertile ground for rebounds. Whether it becomes a durable trend shift depends on what happens after the panic subsides.

TLDR:

• SegWit’s soft fork structure detached signatures from transactions but increased protocol complexity for long-term maintenance.
• Developers argue soft forks restrict the range of upgrades compared with direct hard fork protocol changes.
• The debate reflects tension between backward compatibility and Bitcoin’s need for technical evolution.
• SegWit’s activation still influences how governance decisions are framed inside the Bitcoin community.

A long-running debate over Bitcoin’s SegWit upgrade has resurfaced after a developer published a detailed critique on X. The post challenges both the technical design of SegWit and the governance philosophy behind its activation.

It argues that the upgrade added complexity while restricting future network changes. The remarks have renewed discussion about how Bitcoin evolves and who controls that process.

SegWit criticism focuses on soft fork design and technical complexity

In a tweet, Calin Culianu described SegWit as an unnecessarily complicated solution to transaction signature handling.

He said the upgrade detached signatures from transactions through what he labeled extension blocks, increasing structural overhead for nodes.

According to his account, a direct redesign using a hard fork would have delivered a simpler and cleaner transaction format. He argued that the chosen method forced developers to rely on backward-compatible tricks instead of straightforward protocol changes.

SegWit activated in 2017 through a soft fork tied to Bitcoin Core version 0.13.1, according to historical release records.

The soft fork approach allowed older nodes to remain operational without recognizing the new rules.

Culianu said this design introduced long-term technical debt and made future upgrades harder to implement. He framed SegWit as a symbolic test that normalized complex upgrades rather than transparent protocol changes.

Bitcoin governance dispute centers on hard forks and network scalability

The post also criticized what it called a cultural shift toward rejecting hard forks entirely within Bitcoin development circles.

Culianu claimed this position emerged to preserve compatibility rather than to improve performance or transaction throughput.

He argued that soft forks limit the scope of possible upgrades, including those aimed at higher transaction capacity.

His comments linked SegWit’s design to broader resistance against expanding block space or altering core rules directly.

The developer suggested that avoiding hard forks reduced the risk of chain splits but also constrained innovation. He said this model made large-scale changes politically difficult, even when technical needs grew.

Community reactions on social platforms showed mixed responses, with some defending SegWit’s role in fixing transaction malleability.

Others echoed concerns that governance priorities had shifted away from scalability and toward strict conservatism. The discussion reflects ongoing tension between stability and adaptability in Bitcoin’s development path.

It also highlights how past technical choices continue to shape present debates over decentralization and network capacity.

ProShares’ new ETF built for the fast-growing, $300 billion world of stablecoins had a massive launch, fueling speculation that one major stablecoin issuer may be involved.

The fund, called the ProShares GENIUS Money Market ETF (IQMM), is designed to hold short-term U.S. Treasuries and meet the reserve requirements laid out in the GENIUS Act, a federal law regulating stablecoin issuers in the U.S. It’s the first ETF structured specifically to fit those rules, and that positioning may have caught the attention of some of the largest players in crypto.

The ETF logged a whopping $17 billion in trading volume on its first day, suggesting that some large players were allocating to the fund. For context, BlackRock’s spot bitcoin ETF — one of the most anticipated launches in many years— saw $1 billion in first-day volume.

Circle moving funds or internal shuffle?

The massive volume has left analysts speculating about the source of the inflows.

Nate Geraci, president of The ETF Store, said in an X post that the heavy flows might signal a deal with a major U.S.-based stablecoin issuer. “Looking at assets, believe that would only leave Circle,” he said, referring to the company behind the $74 billion USDC token.

However, Circle’s main reserve fund for USDC, managed by BlackRock, hasn’t shown any major changes so far. It held nearly $64 billion in assets as of Friday, up from $59 billion at the end of January, data shows.

What’s more likely is that the initial volume came from ProShares’ own funds moving assets for cash management purposes.

Ben Johnson, head of client solutions for asset management at Morningstar, noted that one of ProShares’ leveraged ETFs, QTTT, moved $6 billion into IQMM on launch day. That kind of internal allocation would explain a large portion of the day-one activity.

Playbook for stablecoin reserves

Still, demand from stablecoin issuers is a real possibility. With over $300 billion in U.S. dollar stablecoins in circulation, a significant portion of those reserves could eventually be allocated to ETFs like IQMM.

Markus Thielen, founder of 10x Research, wrote in a Friday report that IQMM is “currently the only purpose-built tool” that meets the GENIUS Act rules while providing high-speed liquidity.

That could make it a go-to choice for U.S.-based issuers like Circle, Paxos and BitGo — and even for banks looking to issue their own tokenized deposits under the new law. Tether, which runs the largest stablecoin in the world with the $184 billion USDT token, has also rolled out a stablecoin with federal bank Anchorage Digital in the U.S. market.

As stablecoins become increasingly regulated with new tokens launching, tens of billions in additional assets could eventually flow into funds like IQMM, Thielen said.

TLDR:

• Bitdeer’s weekly update confirmed zero corporate Bitcoin holdings after selling both new output and reserves.
• The company mined 189.8 BTC and sold 1,132.9 BTC total during the reporting period ending February 20.
• Bitdeer now leads public miners in self-managed hashrate, surpassing Marathon Digital’s internal capacity.
• A $325 million convertible notes deal supported debt refinancing and data center expansion for mining and AI services.

Bitdeer disclosed that it now holds zero Bitcoin after selling its entire treasury position. The move followed a week in which the company mined Bitcoin and liquidated both new output and reserves. 

The update placed Bitdeer at the top of publicly traded miners by self-managed hashrate. The announcement triggered a market reaction and renewed focus on miners’ balance sheet strategies.

Bitdeer Bitcoin holdings fall to zero after full liquidation

Bitdeer reported that its pure Bitcoin holdings dropped to zero as of February 20, 2026. The company clarified that the figure excludes customer deposits and reflects only corporate reserves.

Data shared through its weekly update showed Bitcoin output of 189.8 BTC during the period. Bitdeer sold the same 189.8 BTC and an additional 943.1 BTC from existing reserves.

The company posted the figures on its official X account, accompanied by a line chart. The chart tracked output, sales, net additions, and holdings from late January through February 20.

The update followed a $325 million convertible notes offering earlier this month. The funding aimed to refinance debt and support expansion of mining and AI cloud infrastructure.

Bitdeer linked the decision to higher operating costs and reduced reliance on volatile Bitcoin reserves. The firm has increased focus on liquidity management while scaling its data center footprint.

Self-managed hashrate surpasses Marathon as market reacts

Bitdeer’s self-managed Bitcoin hashrate has now surpassed that of Marathon Digital, also known as Mara. This milestone makes Bitdeer the publicly traded miner with the largest internally operated hashrate.

The company emphasized that self-managed capacity excludes hosted or customer-owned mining machines. This metric reflects only infrastructure controlled directly by Bitdeer.

The mining firm is owned by Jihan Wu, a long-time figure in the mining sector. His company has shifted toward vertical integration of mining and computing services.

Following the disclosure, Bitdeer shares fell about 2 percent to roughly $7.78. The decline reflected investor concern over dilution tied to the recent convertible debt issuance.

Company updates described the Bitcoin sales as part of a broader liquidity strategy. The approach prioritizes funding for energy costs and capital-intensive expansion projects.

Bitdeer continues to report weekly figures on production and asset movements. The firm has positioned transparency as a way to track operational performance in a competitive mining market.

The AI solutions agreed that XRP is currently hunting for a bottom. Also, a few of them put massive price targets for the asset.

Ripple’s cross-border token has been highly volatile since the US presidential elections in late 2024. At the time, it traded at $0.60, exploded to its 2018 all-time high of $3.40 in January 2025, plunged in the following months, before it skyrocketed to a new record of $3.65 in July.

Since then, it has been mostly downhill, with the asset currently sitting below $1.40 – or a 62% decline since the July peaks. Most recently, it was rejected at $2.40 in early January, dumped to $1.11 a month later, but has found some support at the aforementioned level.

Being more than 60% down in just several months puts it in a bearish territory. Consequently, we decided to ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Perplexity how long it would take for XRP to reignite its bull run and head for new records.

Find a Bottom First

Before even having a theoretical chance of reversing its trend, XRP would need to bottom out first. OpenAI’s platform noted that the token is currently searching for it, which could happen by April, but before it does, it could face even harsher declines if history is any indication:

“Historically, February has been weak for XRP, and 2026 is no exception. The asset has posted losses in most Februarys, averaging declines and severe drawdowns in prior cycles.”

Nevertheless, ChatGPT and Perplexity agreed that several factors have aligned to suggest that XRP’s bottom might be rather close – a 50% month decline from January 6 to February 6 was met with immediate buying pressure, funding rates reached deeply negative levels, a development that preceded rallies in the past, and panic selling appears to have subsided.

Recovery and Run Reignition

Gemini and Grok were somewhat optimistic that XRP could indeed locate a bottom by spring 2026, which would open the door for the next phase – “base building and recovery.” In this neutral-to-cautiously bullish stage, XRP could regain some traction by the beginning of the summer season.

Gemini was even more specific, indicating that the asset would need to reclaim the 50-day EMA, currently located at around $1.80, to signal the traditional exit from bearish territory.

You may also like:

ChatGPT agreed to an extent, but warned that most of the highly anticipated bullish catalysts from the past few years, such as the SEC lawsuit resolution and the approval of spot XRP ETFs, are already behind the token, so it might be in search of new ones. As such, it was rather conservative in predicting a target for the summer, putting a base case around the $2.40 range.

“If XRP reclaims $2, the market will likely consider the bear phase technically over,” said Grok.

All AIs noted that a full-on bull phase wouldn’t start by at least Q3 of this year, most likely in Q4. Once it begins, though, they added that XRP is positioned to benefit a lot, indicating some massive targets for the longer-run.

“$8 by year-end 2026 in aggressive institutional adoption scenarios,” said ChatGPT

“$8-13 long-term consolidation breakout targets,” – noted Perplexity.

Advertisement

TLDR:

• SBI will issue Security Token bonds through blockchain instead of traditional depository systems used in Japanese capital markets.
• Retail investors can trade the bonds on a digital exchange platform starting in March 2026.
• Eligible bondholders will receive XRP benefits tied to their subscription and interest payment dates.
• The project supports Japan’s push to merge regulated finance with token-based settlement systems.
  

SBI Holdings has unveiled plans to issue its first Security Token bonds aimed at individual investors in Japan. The offering marks a shift from traditional bond management toward blockchain-based issuance and settlement. 

Trading will begin on a digital marketplace designed for retail participation. The move signals a broader push to integrate tokenized assets into regulated capital markets.

Security Token bonds enter Japan’s retail market

SBI Holdings filed an amended shelf registration with the Kanto Local Finance Bureau to prepare the bond sale. The bonds will carry the nickname SBI START Bonds and operate under a digital transfer registration system.

Unlike conventional bonds recorded through Japan Securities Depository Center, the issuance will rely on blockchain infrastructure. SBI will use the ibet for Fin platform developed by BOOSTRY to manage the full lifecycle.

The digital system will handle issuance, administration, and redemption electronically. SBI said this approach removes paper-based processing and reduces reliance on legacy settlement workflows.

Retail trading will start on March 25, 2026, through the proprietary trading system START. The platform is operated by Osaka Digital Exchange and will allow individual investors to buy and sell the bonds in an open market.

XRP rewards and blockchain settlement model

Investors who purchase the Security Token bonds will receive XRP benefits linked to their subscription amounts. SBI confirmed that only domestic residents and corporations qualify for the incentive.

To receive the XRP, bondholders must open an account with SBI VC Trade and complete required procedures by the stated deadline. Distribution will occur on each interest payment date through 2029.

The company framed the reward structure as part of its broader digital asset strategy. SBI has expanded its blockchain operations through partnerships, investments, and proof-of-concept trials across Japan.

The group said tokenized bonds support its vision of an economy where transactions and settlements occur directly on blockchain networks. Officials also stated that growth in the Security Token bond market could help modernize Japan’s capital markets.

According to the company’s disclosure, the issuance will not materially affect consolidated financial results. SBI positioned the project as an infrastructure experiment rather than a revenue driver.

The bond launch follows a wider trend among Japanese financial firms to test tokenized securities under existing regulatory frameworks. 

SBI described the initiative as a step toward linking traditional finance with on-chain settlement systems while keeping investor protections intact.