The Celsius bankruptcy estate has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York accusing several companies tied to BitMEX of fraud, market manipulation, and wrongful liquidation activity during the March 2020 crypto crash.

According to court filings, the estate alleges that BitMEX liquidated Celsius positions and seized Bitcoin collateral during the sell-off—actions it says were driven by an exchange “liquidation engine” that controlled liquidation trigger prices, executed orders, and received proceeds into an insurance fund. The complaint was filed on Sept. 12 by Celsius entities acting through the estate representative Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium (BRIC), and was submitted just days before BitMEX is scheduled to stop exchange services on Sept. 23.

Key takeaways

• The lawsuit alleges BitMEX liquidated Celsius-related positions on March 12–13, 2020, seizing 1,325.84 BTC and additional collateral linked to an investment fund.
• The estate claims liquidation triggers and order placement on BitMEX were set in ways that produced deeper-than-necessary sell pressure during the crash.
• The filing seeks roughly $490 million in Bitcoin recovery based on the value described at the time of writing, along with various forms of damages and fees.
• BitMEX says it was hit by distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on March 13, a disruption the estate points to as evidence that its forced-selling mechanism suppressed prices.
• The court filing leaves several damages figures to be determined at trial, rather than specifying all claimed amounts up front.

A complaint targeting BitMEX-linked entities

The Sept. 12 complaint names five defendants alleged to be connected to BitMEX: HDR Global Trading, ABS Global Trading, Shine Effort, 100x Holdings, and HDR Global Services. It was filed in the Celsius bankruptcy proceedings and can be viewed in the PDF court docket submission provided with the report: https://cases.stretto.com/public/x191/11749/PLEADINGS/1174909152680000000029.pdf.

In the filing, the estate alleges BitMEX wrongfully liquidated Celsius collateral on March 12, 2020, seizing 1,325.84 BTC. It further alleges that, the next day, BitMEX liquidated 5,034.33 BTC from the investment fund JST. The complaint says JST later assigned related claims to the estate.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of Bitcoin worth nearly $490 million at the time of writing. It also requests actual damages of at least 6,360.16 BTC (or its current equivalent), along with either return of the Bitcoin in kind or payment of an equivalent market value. Additional requested relief includes statutory damages, punitive damages, treble damages where applicable, profits the estate says BitMEX earned from the liquidations, and legal fees and costs. The complaint does not quantify some of these additional claims, stating that amounts should be determined during trial.

Allegations of liquidation mechanics that worsened the crash

A central theme in the estate’s allegations is that BitMEX controlled key parts of the liquidation process. The complaint asserts that BitMEX determined the prices used to trigger liquidations, provided the “engine” that executed them, and managed the insurance fund that received proceeds from certain liquidated positions.

More specifically, the estate alleges that some liquidation sell orders were placed at prices more than 24% below the next-best ask available on the platform. The estate also claims that during the intensified liquidation cycle, Bitcoin traded at a lower price on BitMEX than on competing exchanges.

The court filing argues that these mechanisms contributed to downward price pressure, not merely reflected it. In the estate’s view, the timing of events around March 13, 2020 is particularly telling: it claims liquidation orders stopped when BitMEX became unavailable, and Bitcoin’s price then recovered. That pattern is presented as evidence that the exchange’s forced-selling activity had been suppressing the market price.

DDoS disruptions cited on March 13

The estate points to a March 13 service disruption as part of its argument that BitMEX’s liquidation activity intensified the sell-off. In support of the timing, the filing references statements by BitMEX indicating that the exchange experienced distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on March 13.

As described in BitMEX’s published response at the time, the exchange reported two DDoS attacks occurring at 02:16 UTC and 12:56 UTC on March 13: https://www.bitmex.com/blog/how-we-are-responding-to-last-weeks-ddos-attacks.

For investors and market participants, the practical question embedded in the litigation is straightforward: if exchange liquidation systems were operating in a way that pulled prices lower—potentially more aggressively than the prevailing order book suggested—then the impact of liquidations during crises may not be limited to “necessary” risk reduction. Instead, it could reflect specific matching and execution behavior inside a particular venue.

Why the timing and targets matter

The filing’s timing is notable. The complaint was submitted on Sept. 12, according to the report, and it arrives shortly before BitMEX is scheduled to stop exchange services on Sept. 23. That proximity raises the stakes for the bankruptcy estate, which is attempting to recover assets allegedly lost during a historic stress period for crypto markets.

The case is also not the first legal action tied to BitMEX’s liquidation behavior during the same window. Earlier coverage referenced in the source material noted that, on July 23, BKX Services and David Namdar filed a separate proposed class action alleging combined losses of 622.66 BTC from forced liquidations. That earlier complaint, as described in the source, alleged an internal trading desk could access private customer information and continue trading during server freezes.

In response to the July case, the source states that a BitMEX spokesperson told Cointelegraph the claims were an “opportunistic claim with no basis” and that BitMEX would defend itself. The report also notes that this statement was about the July lawsuit and not a response to the Celsius complaint.

What comes next for the Celsius estate

With the lawsuit seeking both direct recovery of Bitcoin and a broader set of statutory, punitive, and treble damages—while leaving some claimed amounts for trial—the Celsius bankruptcy estate’s next challenge will be substantiating the alleged liquidation mechanics and linking them to specific losses during the March 2020 crash. Market watchers should focus on how the court handles proof related to execution quality during stress periods and whether the alleged price discrepancies and timing around the March 13 disruptions are sufficient to support the estate’s fraud and market manipulation theories.

Upbit has delayed the start of JPYC trading by three hours on Sept. 17, moving the yen-backed stablecoin’s scheduled launch from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. KST across its KRW, BTC and USDT markets.

Upbit said in its Sept. 17 listing notice that the original support plan covered both JPY Coin (JPYC) and PayPal USD (PYUSD), with trading initially set to begin at noon. The exchange updated the notice at 11:50 a.m. KST and changed only JPYC’s start time. Upbit did not give a specific reason for the delay in that update.

At 1:58 p.m. KST, the latest public update reviewed still showed JPYC trading scheduled for 3:00 p.m. KST. Upbit had not posted a second postponement at that point. Public listing trackers had already registered JPYC/KRW, JPYC/BTC and JPYC/USDT as newly added pairs, but the exchange’s notice sets the official start of trading support.

JPYC trading on Upbit moves to 3 p.m. KST

The delay affects all three JPYC markets announced by Upbit. Once trading begins, customers will be able to trade JPYC against the South Korean won, Bitcoin and Tether. Upbit said deposits and withdrawals will use the Ethereum network, with other JPYC networks outside the scope of the listing notice.

Upbit identified the supported Ethereum JPYC contract 0xE7C3D8C9a439feDe00D2600032D5dB0Be71C3c29. The exchange warned customers to verify the network and contract before transferring funds because unsupported deposits may require a lengthy return process.

For pricing controls, Upbit used CoinMarketCap data when setting its initial trading restrictions. Its notice showed JPYC at 8.81 won at 9:40 a.m. KST on Sept. 17, compared with a previous closing reference of 8.78 won. Those figures were reference prices published before Upbit JPYC trading began and do not represent a post-listing market reaction.

Upbit’s general trading guidance explains that new assets do not have a previous Upbit closing price on their first trading day. Once trading starts, the platform uses the first executed price when calculating the day’s change for newly supported assets.

PYUSD schedule remained unchanged after JPYC delay

PayPal USD appeared in the same original listing announcement, but Upbit’s 11:50 a.m. update named only JPYC when changing the schedule. PYUSD therefore retained the noon start time stated in the original notice, with KRW, BTC and USDT markets included.

Deposits and withdrawals for PYUSD are limited to Ethereum under this Upbit listing. The exchange identified the supported token contract as 0x6c3ea9036406852006290770bedfcaba0e23a0e8.

PayPal describes PYUSD as a dollar-denominated stablecoin redeemable 1:1 for U.S. dollars.PayPal’s current PYUSD information says Paxos issues the token and backs it with U.S. dollar reserves and cash equivalents. PayPal’s terms list Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum and Stellar among supported PYUSD networks, though Upbit is accepting only Ethereum transfers for its new markets.

PayPal, M0 and MoonPay had launched the PYUSDx framework, which lets businesses issue customized tokens backed by PYUSD. The report said Saturn, Concrete and Cap were the first projects using the platform.

Upbit limits early orders and Ethereum transfers

Upbit applies several controls during the opening period for newly listed assets. The exchange said buy orders are blocked for roughly five minutes after trading starts. Sell orders priced more than 10% below the previous closing reference are restricted for roughly the same period.

For approximately two hours after launch, only limit orders are available. Upbit blocks other order types and conditions during that window. The rules apply when each asset’s trading support begins, meaning JPYC’s restrictions start from its revised opening time.

Upbit requires customers to use supported virtual asset service providers or personally verified wallet addresses for deposits subject to its travel-rule procedures. Large deposits with unclear origins can lead to requests for information about the source of funds, according to the exchange notice.

The exchange’s trading guide lists minimum orders of 5,000 won in its KRW market, 0.00005 BTC in its Bitcoin market and 0.5 USDT in its Tether market. Upbit calculates its daily market data from midnight UTC, corresponding to 9:00 a.m. KST.

JPYC arrives after Japan’s regulated stablecoin rollout

JPYC Inc. received registration as a funds-transfer service provider under Article 37 of Japan’s Payment Services Act on Aug. 18, 2025. The company lists its registration as Kanto Local Finance Bureau No. 00099.JPYC’s registration announcement said the status allowed it to issue a yen-linked electronic payment instrument redeemable against Japanese currency.

The company formally launched the current JPYC stablecoin and its JPYC EX issuance and redemption service in October 2025. JPYC said the token is designed to track the yen at 1:1 and is backed by yen-denominated deposits and Japanese government bonds.

JPYC has since expanded beyond issuance and redemption. The issuer said on July 10 that on-chain circulation had passed 2 billion yen, while an earlier June update put cumulative JPYC EX account openings above 19,000 and cumulative issuance above 3 billion yen.

Retail payment tests have provided another use case. Japanese convenience-store operator Lawson expanded a stablecoin payment test in August to include JPYC, USDC and USDT at Tokyo stores. The trial used existing point-of-sale systems to process wallet-based payments.

In another JPYC deployment,crypto.news reported in July that AZ-COM Maruwa Holdings planned to use the yen stablecoin for payments involving roughly 2,300 business partners, including transport contractors.

JPYC Inc. says its regulated token is available across Ethereum, Avalanche and Polygon. Upbit’s Sept. 17 support, however, accepts only the Ethereum version for deposits and withdrawals, with JPYC trading scheduled to begin at 3:00 p.m. KST following the three-hour postponement.

Ethereum Classic node operators have been urged to avoid a disputed Core Geth v1.13.0 release after several mining pool nodes briefly adopted the software before returning to the maintained Argos client.

Classix said in a Sept. 16 incident report that the ethereumclassic/core-geth repository released v1.13.0 on Sept. 14 before the @ETC_Network account promoted it as an Ethereum Classic security update and told node operators to migrate. Similar messaging appeared on CoinMarketCap, while mining pools received emails from an ethereumclassic.com address.

The report described the release as a rogue version because the existing Core Geth maintainers had not reviewed it and the maintained etclabscore/core-geth repository had not issued the update. Classix recommended that operators continue using Argos v1.12.23, the current release from the repository that has maintained Core Geth since 2020.

Rogue Core Geth release reached some ETC mining nodes

Development of the disputed version accelerated during the days before its release. According to Classix, 96 commits containing 13,422 added lines and 3,977 deleted lines were pushed within 56 hours directly to the fork’s main branch without pull requests or outside review.

The ethereumclassic/core-geth repository itself had been forked from etclabscore/core-geth in December 2024. Activity increased on Sept. 12, 2026, when v1.13.0-rc1 was tagged. Six more release candidates followed before v1.13.0 was labeled stable at 15:06 UTC on Sept. 14. The @ETC_Network account published the migration request the following morning.

The software reached part of Ethereum Classic’s mining infrastructure before operators reversed the migration. Four 2Miners nodes were running CoreGeth v1.13.0 at 12:09 UTC on Sept. 15, according to node status data cited by Classix. By 23:35 UTC, all four had returned to Argos v1.12.23. Other listed mining pools remained on versions in the 1.12 series.

Some individual nodes continued running the disputed software. Etcnodes.org showed 11 v1.13.0 nodes at 07:33 UTC on Sept. 15, with the number falling to 10 by Sept. 16. Three of the remaining nodes matched bootnode IP addresses hardcoded into the new client, according to the report.

No blocks were lost, no chain reorganizations occurred, no funds were affected and no service interruption was recorded during the incident, Classix said. The report classified the event as high severity but low impact because the software altered consensus behavior while producing no recorded economic or transaction losses.

Ethereum Classic has faced chain reorganizations before. As crypto.news previously reported in its coverage of Ethereum Classic majority attacks, ETC suffered three majority attacks in August 2020, including reorganizations involving thousands of blocks.

Classix disputes v1.13.0 security claims

The v1.13.0 release told operators that every node running v1.12.x should upgrade and claimed each release in that series contained unpatched security issues, including a vulnerability allegedly used against Ethereum Classic bootnodes in March.

Classix challenged that description after reviewing seven security issues cited by the release. Five had already been addressed in maintained Core Geth releases between March and August, while the other two did not affect Ethereum Classic’s peer to peer path, according to the report.

CVE-2026-22862 and CVE-2026-26315 were among the vulnerabilities Classix said had been fixed in Aegis v1.12.21. Hermes v1.12.22 subsequently addressed other cryptographic issues, while Argos v1.12.23 incorporated delayed peer to peer message decoding from go-ethereum to address CVE-2026-26313.

Another listed issue, CVE-2026-22868, concerned KZG proof verification. Classix said it did not apply to Ethereum Classic because KZG proofs are associated with blob transactions introduced through Ethereum’s Cancun upgrade, which ETC has not activated. The report said a separate GraphQL query depth issue was not part of the peer to peer or consensus path and required GraphQL to be enabled manually.

Classix said Core Geth maintainer Diego López León reviewed the remaining differences and found no exploitable flaw in Argos that v1.13.0 corrected.

Core Geth changes included MESS and new bootnodes

Beyond its security claims, v1.13.0 changed how participating nodes could select chains and discover peers.

One modification reenabled Modified Exponential Subjective Scoring, or MESS, by removing the configuration that deactivated it at block 19,250,000. Ethereum Classic introduced MESS in 2020 as protection against chain reorganizations before disabling it through ECIP-1110 after Ethereum moved from proof of work to proof of stake.

Classix warned that different consensus clients could behave differently if only Core Geth nodes used MESS. Besu, Nethermind and Getc do not implement the mechanism, according to the report.

Historical reorganizations remain a particularly relevant issue for ETC. A crypto.news review of blockchain reorganization history described how miner consensus and competing chain histories can determine the outcome of reorganizations on proof of work networks.

The disputed client changed node discovery infrastructure as well. A commit replaced a DNS tree signing key maintained by etclabscore contributors since 2020 and hardcoded three new bootnode IP addresses. Two older discovery trees, blockd.info and etcdisco.net, were subsequently removed.

Three replacement domains were hosted through the same Cloudflare account, according to the report, while the repository acknowledged that an issue affecting the single account could remove all three paths. Operators following the migration instructions were not told who controlled the new signing key, Classix said.

The migration guide separately instructed operators to rotate their P2P node keys, citing CVE-2026-26315. Classix said Aegis had already fixed the underlying issue in March. Rotating a key changes a node’s network identity and forces it to rebuild peer connections through discovery infrastructure.

Ethereum Classic operators urged to return to Argos

Classix recommended that operators avoid ethereumclassic/core-geth v1.13.0 and continue running etclabscore/core-geth Argos v1.12.23. Operators that had already migrated were told to move back, restore their previous node key if it had been rotated and check their MESS configuration.

The report said Ethereum Classic operators should consider running different clients instead of concentrating network hash power on Core Geth. Nethermind, Besu and Getc remain available alternatives.

Client diversity has become a recurring security consideration across blockchain networks. Ethereum development, for example, continues to test upgrades across multiple execution and consensus implementations before deployment. Recent Glamsterdam testnet preparations included another private devnet after testing exposed consensus and execution implementation bugs ahead of the planned Sepolia activation.

Classix asked administrators of the ethereumclassic GitHub organization to tighten repository controls, require proposals and reviews before new repositories are created, protect default branches and identify maintainers for repositories distributing software. It separately requested that ethereumclassic/core-geth be removed or archived, or carry a warning explaining that it is not an official client.

Ethereum Classic itself does not designate an official developer, maintainer, website or client, according to the project’s website disclaimer quoted in the report. Classix said the maintained etclabscore repository derives its standing instead from its six year public history, active maintenance and adoption among ETC nodes.

The report is intended to serve as both an initial notification and an interim incident report. Classix said it would update the document if the remaining nodes are verified, organization maintainers respond or other material developments emerge.

In an interview with crypto.news, Selva Ozelli speaks with RoboTech Frontier Hub founder Denis “Dan” Saklakov about the intersection of artificial intelligence, blockchain and finance, and how his AI assisted investment tool Meijin uses an investor’s risk profile to manage exit strategies for assets including cryptocurrencies.

The discussion also covers using blockchain to create verifiable records of AI decisions, permissions and execution history, as well as Saklakov’s work on AI verification, robotics, human machine interfaces and architectures designed to separate machine intelligence from the authority to act.

Denis “Dan” Saklakov is a lawyer, digital asset manager and applied AI scientist whose work includes digital assets, blockchain technology and artificial intelligence. He previously worked with a cryptocurrency exchange and, since 2024, has served as Managing Partner of RoboTech Frontier Hub, where he develops technologies at the intersection of AI, robotics, finance, human-machine interaction and advanced computing.

Tell us about your professional and educational background.

My background crosses law, mathematical statistics, finance, artificial intelligence and technology. I was originally trained as a lawyer and later moved into corporate finance, investment banking, M&A, private equity and asset management. I earned a master’s degree from Northwestern University and more recently completed the MIT Applied AI Science postgraduate program.

Today I live in New York City and serve as Managing Partner of RoboTech Frontier Hub. I describe much of my current work as AI and AGI architecture: how intelligent systems should use information, make decisions and interact with the real world without allowing computational capability to turn automatically into uncontrolled authority.

That question has practical applications in finance, robotics, AI verification, human-machine interfaces and advanced computing.

I describe my broader architecture for safe AGI in my recent book, Before the Machine Chooses for Us: An AGI Architecture for Freedom, Human Survival, and Shared Consciousness.

The central problem of the book is how to make advanced intelligence extraordinarily capable while preventing capability itself from becoming self-authorized power.

Tell us about your journey to form RoboTech Frontier Hub in 2024, an accelerator focused on advancing robotics, automation, and artificial intelligence technologies, particularly your AI-assisted investment tool Meijin.

RoboTech Frontier Hub grew out of a problem I encountered repeatedly while working with scientific and engineering ideas.

A lot of interesting technology never develops properly because inventors are afraid that explaining the scientific principle will allow somebody to steal the product. So everything remains secret. But when the science itself is hidden, other researchers cannot test it, criticize it, identify its limits or connect it with another field.

We decided to use a different model.

At RoboTech, we try to put real scientific work underneath the technology. Where appropriate, we publish enough of the scientific foundation for other researchers to examine, challenge and develop it. At the same time, we currently protect the actual implementation, algorithms and commercial technology.

In simple terms, we do not want to hide the science just to protect the product. We want the scientific idea to survive examination, and then we build technology on top of what remains valid.

Meijin is one example.

The basic observation behind Meijin is very simple. Investors often spend enormous amounts of time deciding what cryptocurrency, stock or ETF to buy, but devote much less disciplined thought to deciding when to sell it.

Meijin does not choose the asset for you.

You choose Bitcoin, Ethereum, Zcash, Moderna stock, an oil contract or another asset. Meijin starts working after you own it.

We first quantify the level of risk the investor is prepared to accept. The system then continuously monitors the position and manages an exit strategy around that risk profile.

It may reduce or sell a position in stages as conditions change.

The purpose is not to promise the exact highest possible selling price. Nobody can honestly guarantee that. The purpose is to make the sell decision systematic rather than emotional.

Crypto makes this particularly useful because the market operates twenty-four hours a day. The investor sleeps. The monitoring system does not have to.

Another important distinction is that the final execution logic is deterministic and auditable. We can use AI for analysis, but we do not want a language model simply improvising the final decision to move somebody’s money.

Meijin is also only one of our projects.

Awareness Runtime deals with another problem created by modern AI: a model can produce a very convincing answer that is not actually supported by evidence. We are developing a verification layer designed to evaluate what is supported before an AI-generated conclusion becomes a professional decision or an external action. That is particularly important for finance professionals and lawyers.

Theta-Star and the Guardrail work address a different question: even if an AI system reaches the correct conclusion, who gave it authority to act? We separate intelligence from authorization so that the system proposing an action cannot simply create its own permission to execute it. This becomes particularly important in the automation of pilots, drivers and other high-stakes professions where decisions may have to be made extremely quickly.

ActionAtlas takes some of our work into robotics. The idea is to provide robots with compact, specialized information packages that can remain locally available when permanent cloud connectivity, GPS or external infrastructure cannot be assumed. Essentially, it could function as a map for your home robot, for example.

NeuroPhase explores another frontier: interfaces between computational systems and human neurological signals. Our longer-term objective is to move the machine interface closer to the natural information processes of the human brain rather than requiring the human body to become progressively more invasive just to communicate efficiently with machines. In other words, the long-term direction is a merger of human and machine, but one in which we try to move the machine closer to the human rather than forcing the human body to become progressively more machine-like.

We are also researching quantum computing in microgravity and orbital environments. The underlying scientific question is whether certain quantum-computing platforms could benefit from combinations of microgravity, low temperatures and mechanical isolation. Longer term, this could become relevant to the training and operation of future quantum-enabled superintelligent systems in distant orbital environments.

Another direction, Critical Systems, applies analytical and optimization methods to physical supply chains, including identifying real bottlenecks in critical industrial and aerospace manufacturing.

These projects look very different, but they come from the same model: identify the underlying scientific problem, determine where the evidence and mathematics actually support the idea, expose enough of that scientific foundation to examination, and then build a protected technology within those boundaries.

Tell us about the intersection of blockchain and AI.

For me, one of the most useful intersections of blockchain and AI is trust in machine decisions.

This becomes very concrete with something like Meijin.

Suppose an AI system analyzes a crypto position and decides that the investor should reduce it.

The important questions are not only: “What did the AI decide?” or “Was the prediction good?”

We also need to know what information the system used, what state it was in, what rules applied and whether the system was actually authorized to execute the decision.

Blockchain can help with that without running the AI itself on-chain.

The computation can remain on conventional hardware. What can be cryptographically anchored to an independent ledger is the relevant state of the system, permissions, decision conditions and execution history.

The important part is that the AI making the decision should not control the record that is later used to prove what happened.

It should not be able to make one decision, rewrite the history and later claim that it made another one.

Blockchain does not magically make an AI model correct. A false statement can be stored perfectly on a blockchain.

What blockchain can provide is provenance and a record that is difficult for the decision-making system itself to rewrite.

For crypto investors, that distinction becomes increasingly important as AI moves from simply providing market commentary to systems that can potentially interact directly with accounts, exchanges and financial infrastructure.

Imagine the same problem in medical care. You may want a nanorobot to clean your arteries, but you absolutely want to prevent it from doing something that could kill you. You therefore need a bulletproof, externally protected record of the rules defining what that nanorobot is and is not permitted to do. This is exactly the kind of problem for which blockchain or another independently secured cryptographic ledger can become extremely useful.

I think we are moving toward a world in which AI provides analysis at machine speed, while cryptographic systems help establish what state existed, what authority was granted and what action actually occurred.

That is much more interesting to me than simply putting another token around an AI product.

AI has been in the forefront of news lately, with the leaders of the largest AI companies suggesting that development of frontier models should slow down. Any thoughts on this?

AI is developing very quickly, and in crypto the consequences will probably become visible particularly fast because digital-asset markets are already digital, global, automated and open twenty-four hours a day.

I do not think the useful question for a trader is simply whether AI development is “too fast” or “too slow.”

The practical question is what happens when increasingly capable AI systems begin analyzing markets, executing strategies and communicating with financial infrastructure faster than a human being can realistically supervise every individual decision.

That is why I think the next stage is not simply better prediction.

We need better verification.

A very powerful AI that produces a trading recommendation in milliseconds is not particularly useful if nobody can determine whether the underlying information was reliable or whether the system had permission to make the resulting transaction.

This is where I see AI and blockchain becoming complementary.

AI can perform increasingly sophisticated analysis.

Blockchain and related cryptographic infrastructure can help establish provenance, permissions and an independently verifiable record.

Deterministic execution systems can then define what the AI is actually allowed to do.

For the retail investor, all of that should ultimately become almost invisible.

The user should not need to understand the internal architecture.

The practical experience should be much simpler: I selected this asset, I defined how much risk I am willing to accept, the system is watching it continuously, and I can later understand why it acted.

That is the direction we are pursuing with Meijin.

I have previously suggested that the development of AI may become difficult to forecast by conventional methods on a relatively short horizon, potentially around the end of this decade. I do not treat 2030 as some scientifically established deadline. It is a forecasting horizon.

But even without reaching anything we would call AGI or technological singularity, AI is already becoming capable enough to change how financial decisions are made.

For crypto, that change is not theoretical.

Markets already operate at machine speed.

The challenge now is making machine-speed intelligence trustworthy enough to use.

How can people reach you?

The easiest way to reach me is by email at [email protected].

RoboTech Frontier Hub:

https://www.robotechfrontierhub.com

My website:

https://www.saklakov.com

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/denissaklakov

I also publish scientific work on arXiv and Zenodo, and research and commentary through Medium and saklakov.com.

About the Author:
Selva Ozelli Esq, CPA, is an international digital asset legal expert and author of Sustainably Investing in Digital Assets Globally and an award winning artist.  Her writings are translated into 45 languages and republished in over 200 global publications.  She is recognized as an expert media/TV commentator on global AI,  digital asset regulation, tax, and technology matters.

Bitcoin (BTC) is no longer a target for corporate treasuries as current buyers sit on unrealized losses, new research shows.

Key points:

• Bitcoin corporate treasuries added just 5,900 BTC over three months, a fraction of 2025 acquisition rates.
• Previous buyers remained in unrealized losses on their holdings, with their aggregate cost basis at $80,500.
• Analysis shows fresh investor capital inflows stalling this week.

BTC price action refuses to let Bitcoin treasuries break even

Onchain analytics platform Glassnode reveals that in 2026, listed companies bought around 5,900 BTC — less than 7% of their purchases in July 2025 alone. During that month, companies bought 89,000 BTC, even as BTC/USD traded above $100,000.

Glassnode notes that for extant corporate treasuries, profitability remains conspicuously lacking.

“Their average entry, the Corporate Treasury Cost Basis, sits at $80.5K, about 6% above spot, so the group as a whole is under water,” it commented in the latest edition of its regular newsletter, The Week Onchain.

Data shows that 2026 has only seen two attempts to reclaim that cost basis, both of which were ultimately unsuccessful as price failed to hold above it.

“A buyer that has stopped buying and holds a paper loss is not support,” it continued.

“A reclaim of $80.5K would put the treasuries back in profit and remove one layer of overhead supply; until then their entry is one more ceiling.”

Business intelligence company Strategy, which holds the world’s largest Bitcoin treasury, made its most recent BTC purchase at the end of August, adding 4,603 BTC in its first acquisition in two months. The cost basis of its 845,050 BTC holdings is currently $75,412.

Glassnode sees “market in waiting” as capital dries up

The trend highlights the changes in sentiment that have accompanied Bitcoin’s ongoing bear market, with current macro conditions leaving investors uncertain about BTC price strength going forward.

Related: Bitcoin Coinbase Premium hits monthly low as CLARITY Act vote squeezes US demand

On Wednesday, the US Federal Reserve enacted its first interest-rate hike since July 2023, marking the potential start of a cycle of policy tightening that traditionally presents a headwind for crypto market liquidity. 

Buyer appetite for Bitcoin exchange-traded products remains sensitive to short-term price fluctuations. US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw net outflows of $462.7 million in the five trading days through Sept. 11, reversing a trend that saw three consecutive weeks of net inflows.

Glassnode attributes the ETF performance to a “market in waiting.” In addition, Bitcoin’s realized cap — the cumulative price at which the supply last moved onchain — has begun to fall as of Sept. 15, indicating a lack of fresh buyer appetite at current prices. Realized cap currently sits at around $1.069 trillion.

“A return to positive daily Realized Cap changes would say the buyers are back; a run of outflows while price sits under the mean would mean the range’s buyers have started to give up,” it concluded.

House lawmakers have advanced a major crypto tax proposal as Bitcoin trades near $76,370 after a sharp market setback. The Ways and Means Committee approved the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act by 38-5. Meanwhile, the Senate’s separate CLARITY Act remains stalled after failing to clear a procedural vote.

House Advances Crypto Tax Bill as Senate CLARITY Act Stalls

The Ways and Means Committee approved H.R. 10357 after more than a year of bipartisan negotiations. The measure would create specific federal tax rules for digital assets and simplify several existing requirements. It now moves toward consideration by the full House, although further approvals remain necessary.

The proposal would remove gain or loss calculations for qualifying network and transaction fees of $10 or less. However, the exemption would begin in 2028 and would not cover ordinary crypto purchases. The bill would also establish simpler accounting treatment for qualifying dollar-pegged stablecoin transactions.

The legislation would maintain wash-sale and constructive-sale provisions for digital assets. It would also establish broker reporting requirements and a voluntary disclosure program for eligible taxpayers. Therefore, the measure combines targeted tax relief with additional compliance requirements.

Bitcoin Holds Above Recent Lows

Bitcoin traded around $76,370 on Sept. 17 after falling below $75,000 following the Senate’s CLARITY Act vote. The decline followed a 49-50 procedural vote that failed to reach the 60 votes required for cloture. Ethereum also weakened during the market reaction before trading around $2,437 on Sept. 17.

The Senate setback added pressure to a market already facing tighter financial conditions. The supplied report records more than $670 million in liquidations across nearly 120,000 accounts after the decline. However, the House tax vote created a separate legislative path for digital assets.

The proposed tax rules could affect everyday crypto activity more directly than broader market-structure legislation. Small qualifying transaction fees would receive simpler treatment, while stablecoin transactions would gain specific tax rules. At the same time, wash-sale provisions would limit certain loss-deduction strategies involving digital assets.

Ethereum and Broader Crypto Tax Rules

Ethereum traded near $2,437 on Sept. 17, according to current market data. The asset closed the previous session near $2,416, while its Sept. 17 range extended from about $2,414 to $2,445. These levels show that Ethereum also faced substantial volatility during the legislative developments.

The tax bill would classify mining and staking rewards as ordinary income under its framework. It would also allow certain investment trusts to stake digital assets without losing their tax status solely because they stake. However, an earlier proposal for broader tax deferral on mining and staking rewards did not remain in the measure.

The bill would also address qualifying crypto loans by preventing them from automatically receiving sale treatment. Eligible taxpayers could use a new disclosure program to correct certain past tax returns. These provisions would expand the federal framework without removing existing reporting obligations.

The House action follows another major crypto legislative development involving the proposed Bitcoin reserve framework. The House Financial Services Committee reportedly advanced the U.S. Reserve Modernization Act by 28-21. The measure would seek to place the strategic Bitcoin reserve into statutory law rather than relying only on executive action.

Under the supplied proposal, the government would lock qualifying Bitcoin holdings for at least 20 years. The Treasury would also provide quarterly reserve disclosures and independent verification of holdings. However, the proposal still needs approval from both chambers before reaching the president.

The crypto tax bill therefore represents progress on one part of the broader U.S. digital-asset agenda. However, committee approval does not guarantee final enactment because House and Senate approval remain necessary. The next stage will determine whether lawmakers can convert the tax proposal into federal law.

Hyundai Card has moved its Avalanche-based stablecoin payment experiment toward a new scale-testing phase after completing a live $20,000 corporate transfer between Hyundai Motor entities in the U.S. and Mexico.

Avalanche said on Sept. 16 that Hyundai Card’s next task is proving the payment infrastructure can operate at a larger scale, quoting Heejung Nam, head of payments and business development at Hyundai Card, as saying: “We have to prove the entire operation model works at scale.” Nam added, “What happens if we can scale up? Then the economic model works.”

The statement does not establish a launch date or confirm that Hyundai Motor Group has approved routine production use. Hyundai Card’s original July announcement said the company planned to examine whether stablecoins could support settlements and fund transfers across the group’s overseas entities after completing its first proof of concept.

Hyundai Card now wants to prove the model can scale

Hyundai Card’s latest comments focus on operational scale after the first transaction showed that a real intercompany payment could travel through stablecoin infrastructure. The initial test involved a relatively small amount, leaving transaction volume, treasury complexity and repeatability for later testing.

Nam’s comments, distributed by Avalanche, indicate that Hyundai Card is assessing whether the structure can support more demanding corporate payment activity. The company has not disclosed a target number of transactions, a larger test amount or performance thresholds that would need to be reached before commercial adoption.

Hyundai Card had already said in July that it had prepared the system to a level where real use between overseas Hyundai Motor entities was technically possible. Its official release described the first test as extending beyond a basic technology demonstration because the transaction corresponded to an actual intercompany settlement requirement.

A commercial deployment would still require Hyundai to operate the system repeatedly across corporate treasury processes and jurisdictions. Hyundai Card said during the first pilot that it handled regulatory review, accounting, tax checks, internal controls and the structure of the remittance process before the funds moved.

Avalanche handled the $20,000 USDT payment

During the first pilot, Hyundai Motor America converted $20,000 into Tether’s USDT stablecoin before transferring the tokens through Avalanche to Hyundai Motor Mexico. The receiving entity then converted the USDT back into U.S. dollars.

Hyundai Card said the complete process, including remittance and verification, took an average of around seven minutes. The company compared that result with three to four hours or more for a traditional interbank transfer using its existing process. The timing comparison is Hyundai Card’s measurement from the pilot and should not be treated as a universal benchmark for bank transfers.

As crypto.news previously reported, the transfer involved genuine corporate funds and was tied to an intercompany payment need, distinguishing it from a transaction executed entirely with test assets. Hyundai Card said it was the first stablecoin-based cross-border remittance pilot of this type completed by the company.

Tether provided the dollar-linked stablecoin, while Avalanche supplied the blockchain used for the on-chain portion. Axiym, a blockchain payments infrastructure company, took part in the payment setup. Avalanche describes Axiym as a liquidity and settlement infrastructure provider for cross-border payment companies.

The company name is Axiym, not “Axiom,” as some secondary coverage has written it. Hyundai Card’s original release identifies Axiym alongside Tether and Avalanche as a participant in the first pilot.

Hyundai planned a second stablecoin test in Europe

After completing the U.S.-Mexico transfer, Hyundai Card said it intended to extend testing to Hyundai Motor’s European entities. The July plan called for a second proof of concept using real transfers based on currencies other than the U.S. dollar, with Circle and Visa participating.

That phase was designed to examine foreign-exchange costs and the economics of using stablecoins when the sender and receiver do not rely on the same fiat currency. Hyundai Card said the first U.S.-Mexico transaction did not test that variable because dollars were used at both ends.

Crypto.news reported in July that the Europe test was expected to involve Hyundai Motor subsidiaries, Circle and Visa while examining local-currency settlement. The report followed Hyundai Card’s announcement that the next experiment would expand beyond the dollar-only structure used in North America.

The latest Hyundai Card newsroom materials reviewed on Sept. 17 do not contain a public announcement confirming completion of that European pilot. Avalanche’s Sept. 16 statement instead returns to the question of proving that the operating model can work at scale. No transaction amount, completion date or performance figures for the European phase were provided in the latest update.

Visa has continued building stablecoin settlement infrastructure separately. In related crypto.news coverage, Visa said more than 160 stablecoin-linked card programs were operating globally during its fiscal second quarter, while its annualized stablecoin settlement volume had exceeded $20 billion. Those figures cover Visa’s global activity and are not Hyundai-specific.

Hyundai has not set a commercial deployment date

Hyundai Card has said it intends to study stablecoins for settlement and treasury transfers among Hyundai Motor Group entities around the world, but neither the July announcement nor the Sept. 16 update provides a timetable for group-wide use.

The latest comments therefore describe another testing stage. Hyundai Card still needs to demonstrate that the infrastructure can handle transaction volume and operating requirements beyond the $20,000 proof of concept before any routine treasury deployment is publicly confirmed.

Nam framed the next stage around economics as well as technical capacity. Her comment that “the economic model works” if the system can scale represents Hyundai Card’s assessment of what the company still needs to prove; no detailed cost comparison or projected savings from a larger deployment accompanied the statement.

Hyundai Card’s July release was similarly careful about future use. The company said it planned to explore stablecoins across international remittance, settlement and payment infrastructure after completing the first PoC, without committing to production deployment.

Stablecoins have meanwhile continued appearing in corporate treasury tests outside Hyundai. As crypto.news reported in August, payments company Decta began using USDC for international treasury settlement through OpenPayd, while other companies have been testing stablecoins for cross-border liquidity and corporate payments.

For Hyundai, the publicly confirmed activity remains the live $20,000 U.S.-Mexico payment, the previously announced European testing plan and the Sept. 16 statement that the company now needs to demonstrate that its operating model can work at scale.

Following the initial March 2022 hike, bitcoin rallied roughly 18% over the following 12 days before subsequently falling around 50%. That raises the possibility that another relief rally could give way to a prolonged bear market. However, one comparable cycle offers limited evidence, and bitcoin’s decline in 2022 coincided with losses across equities, bonds and metals, alongside turmoil within the crypto industry.

The reasons the Fed hiked rates on Wednesday was due to inflation, annual headline inflation has remained above 2% for over five years, although core inflation, which excludes food and energy, has eased to 2.4%, its lowest level in five years. So progress is being made.

However, that progress has now been faced with an energy shock. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have pushed both WTI and Brent crude well above $100 a barrel, threatening to reignite inflation and squeeze growth. Global bond yields have also climbed, with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield reaching 5%, adding further pressure to financial conditions and risk assets.

Bitcoin’s bear market is approaching the one-year mark. Could a new rate-hiking cycle prolong the downturn?