Crypto World
Ripple fought SWIFT for a decade. Now it wants in
Ripple built its identity on replacing SWIFT, the bank-messaging network that moves roughly $150 trillion a year, with XRP as the bridge that would kill slow correspondent banking. A decade on, the banks kept SWIFT, adopted Ripple as a fast lane beside it, and the disruptor is learning to integrate. What that pivot means for XRP is the real question.
Summary
- Ripple built its identity on replacing SWIFT, the messaging network linking roughly 11,000 banks and about $150 trillion in annual flows, with XRP cast as the bridge that would end slow correspondent banking.
- A decade later, banks have kept SWIFT and adopted Ripple as a fast lane alongside it, not a replacement, and Ripple’s posture has shifted from disruption toward integration.
- Signals now point to Ripple working with SWIFT-connected infrastructure rather than purely against it, a pragmatic maturation of its original pitch.
- Rival Chainlink has already connected SWIFT to blockchains through its cross-chain messaging layer, showing that integration, not replacement, is where the institutional money is flowing.
- For XRP, the open question is whether it ends up as a settlement layer beneath SWIFT messaging or gets sidelined as banks keep messaging on SWIFT and settle in stablecoins.
For most of its existence, Ripple defined itself by a single enemy: SWIFT, the global messaging network that connects roughly 11,000 banks and underpins the movement of something like $150 trillion a year.
Ripple’s founding pitch was that SWIFT was slow, antiquated plumbing, that moving money across borders through it took days and trapped capital in pre-funded accounts around the world, and that XRP could replace all of that by acting as a neutral bridge asset that settled value in seconds.
The company’s executives spent years framing the contest in exactly those terms, as a young, fast technology coming to take the lunch of an aging incumbent.
A decade later, the scoreboard tells a more complicated story. SWIFT is still standing, still carrying the world’s bank messaging, and the banks that adopted Ripple mostly did so as a fast lane running alongside SWIFT rather than as a replacement for it.
And now, in a quiet but telling shift, Ripple appears to be moving from trying to replace SWIFT to looking for ways to plug into the world it once vowed to dismantle.
This piece examines that reversal, why it happened, and the question it raises for XRP holders, which is whether the token has a place in an integrated future or gets left out of it.
The arc matters because it is really a story about how disruption meets entrenched infrastructure, and how the ambitious narratives that sell a token in its early years collide with the slower reality of how global finance actually changes.
Ripple’s evolution from would-be SWIFT killer to prospective SWIFT partner is not a humiliation; it is a maturation, and arguably a smart one. But it scrambles the original thesis that many XRP holders bought into, the one in which the token replaces a $150 trillion network and captures the value of doing so.
This guide traces the original pitch, what SWIFT actually is and why it survived, what really happened when banks adopted Ripple, the pivot toward integration, how a rival already executed that integration, and what the whole shift means for the token at the center of it.
The original pitch: replace SWIFT
To appreciate the reversal, you have to remember how absolute the original ambition was.
Ripple was sold, for years, as the technology that would render SWIFT obsolete. The argument was concrete and, on its own terms, compelling.
When money moves across borders through the traditional system, it does not actually travel. Instead, banks send messages to one another through SWIFT and settle through a chain of correspondent banking relationships, in which each bank holds pre-funded accounts in foreign currencies at other banks.
This system is slow, taking days for some transfers, and it is capital-intensive, because trillions of dollars sit idle in those pre-funded accounts around the world. That money cannot be used for anything else.
Ripple’s pitch was that XRP could eliminate all of it by serving as a bridge asset: a bank could convert its currency into XRP, move the XRP across the world in seconds, and convert it into the destination currency on the other end, with no need for pre-funded accounts and no multi-day delay.
In that vision, XRP was not a speculative token but the grease in a new global settlement machine, and its value would rise with the volume of cross-border payments it bridged.
Ripple’s leadership leaned into the rivalry, repeatedly casting SWIFT as the slow, outdated incumbent and Ripple as the disruptor coming to replace it.
For holders, this was the heart of the bull case, and it was intoxicating precisely because the prize was so vast. If XRP became the bridge for even a meaningful slice of global cross-border value, the implications for its price were enormous.
The entire thesis rested on replacement, on XRP supplanting the old rails rather than complementing them. That framing shaped how a generation of holders understood what they owned.
It is also the framing that reality has spent the past decade quietly dismantling.
What SWIFT is, and why it did not die
The flaw in the replacement thesis was an underestimation of what SWIFT actually is and how hard it is to displace.
SWIFT is not a settlement system that moves money. It is a messaging standard, a secure, standardized language that banks use to instruct one another to move funds.
Its power comes not from technology but from its network: roughly 11,000 institutions all speaking the same language, with decades of trust, integration, and regulatory acceptance built around it.
Replacing a network like that is categorically harder than building a faster alternative, because the value of SWIFT to any one bank is that every other bank is already on it.
A faster technology does not automatically overcome that. A bank cannot unilaterally switch to a system the rest of the world is not using.
SWIFT also did not stand still. Faced with the threat from blockchain-based challengers, it modernized, rolling out faster services and adopting new global messaging standards designed to carry richer data and move more quickly, narrowing the speed advantage that challengers like Ripple had built their pitch around.
The combination, an entrenched network effect plus a modernizing incumbent, proved far more durable than the disruptor narrative allowed.
Banks, it turned out, had little appetite to rip out the messaging standard that connects them to every other bank on earth in favor of a system built around a volatile cryptocurrency, however fast it settled.
The result was not the replacement Ripple had promised but something the original pitch did not really contemplate: coexistence. SWIFT kept doing what it does, and Ripple’s technology found a narrower role beside it.
What actually happened: banks kept both
The reality that emerged is that banks adopted Ripple’s technology selectively, as a fast lane for specific corridors and use cases, while keeping SWIFT for the vast bulk of their messaging.
Hundreds of financial institutions came to have some relationship with Ripple’s network, and its on-demand liquidity service, which uses XRP as a bridge to avoid pre-funded accounts, found genuine adoption in particular remittance corridors where it offered real advantages.
But this was adoption as a complement, not a conquest. A bank might route certain payments to certain countries through Ripple while continuing to handle the rest of its global business through SWIFT, treating Ripple as one specialized tool in a kit instead of as the new foundation of cross-border payments.
This coexistence is the crucial fact that the replacement narrative obscured. XRP did not become the bridge for global finance; it became a useful option for slices of it, valuable in specific corridors but nowhere near the universal settlement asset the original pitch envisioned.
And even within Ripple’s own growing business, the company increasingly leaned on its dollar stablecoin instead of XRP for the cash leg of institutional settlement, because a stable, dollar-denominated instrument suits banks and treasurers better than a volatile token.
As previously reported, that is the coexistence reality now defining Ripple’s 2026: bank partnerships can deepen while XRP still waits for direct demand.
So the decade did not deliver the dramatic replacement of SWIFT by XRP. It delivered a more modest reality in which SWIFT remained the backbone, Ripple’s technology served as a fast lane for particular needs, and even Ripple’s own institutional ambitions came to rest as much on its stablecoin as on its token.
That is the landscape into which Ripple’s strategic pivot arrived, and it is why the pivot makes sense.
The quiet pivot from replacement to integration
Against that backdrop, Ripple’s posture has shifted in a way that would have been hard to imagine in the company’s combative early years.
Instead of positioning itself purely as SWIFT’s replacement, Ripple has increasingly built itself into the institutional financial system as it actually exists: adopting the new global messaging standards that SWIFT uses, pursuing banking charters and regulated custody, expanding a dollar stablecoin designed to fit institutional settlement, and signaling interest in connecting to, instead of only competing with, the SWIFT-based infrastructure that banks already run.
That is Ripple’s integration-ready stack: banking access, custody, stablecoin rails, and the XRP Ledger sitting beside the traditional system rather than outside it.
The disruptor that once vowed to dismantle the old rails is learning to plug into them.
This pivot is pragmatic, and it reflects a hard-won recognition. If you cannot persuade 11,000 banks to abandon the messaging standard that connects them, the smarter play is to become the layer that their existing messaging can trigger, the settlement and tokenization infrastructure that sits beneath SWIFT instead of in opposition to it.
In that model, a bank does not stop using SWIFT. It keeps sending SWIFT messages, and those messages reach into a faster settlement or tokenization layer where companies like Ripple operate.
Ripple’s whole banking and stablecoin build, its charter, its custody business, its regulated rails, positions it to be exactly that kind of layer.
That is also why Ripple USD becoming available in Japan through SBI after JFSA approval matters. It shows Ripple building a regulated settlement asset inside one of the markets most important to XRP’s history and liquidity.
The shift from replacement to integration is not an admission of defeat so much as a recalibration toward how global finance actually adopts new technology, which is by addition and connection, not by wholesale demolition.
It is a more realistic strategy. The question it raises is what role the token plays in it.
Chainlink already did it
The integration path is not hypothetical, because a rival has already walked it, and watching that rival clarifies where the institutional money is flowing.
Chainlink, the oracle and interoperability network, built its institutional strategy around connecting SWIFT to blockchains instead of replacing SWIFT. It advanced that integration to a pre-production stage in which banks can send their familiar SWIFT messages to trigger smart-contract actions across blockchains, without tearing out their legacy systems.
That is the rival that integrated first. The model is precisely the integration thesis made concrete: SWIFT stays, the banks keep their existing messaging, and a crypto-native infrastructure layer connects that messaging to the on-chain world.
The banks do not have to choose between the old system and the new one, because the new one plugs into the old.
That a major competitor reached this integration first is instructive for Ripple and for XRP holders, because it shows both the viability and the competitiveness of the integration approach.
The institutions tokenizing assets and modernizing settlement are not looking for a single technology to replace their entire stack. They are looking for connective infrastructure that links what they already use to the blockchain rails they are starting to explore.
That is the opportunity, and it is a crowded one, with Chainlink, Ripple, and others all positioning to be the layer that bridges traditional messaging and on-chain settlement.
The race is no longer about who can replace SWIFT, because the market has decided SWIFT is not going anywhere. It is about who becomes the indispensable connector between SWIFT’s world and the tokenized future, and that is a fundamentally different competition than the one Ripple originally framed.
Why integration beats replacement
It is worth dwelling on why the integration strategy is the right one, because understanding that explains both Ripple’s pivot and the constraints on XRP.
Global finance does not adopt new infrastructure by abandoning the old. It adopts by layering the new on top of the existing, connecting them, and migrating gradually as trust and standards develop.
A bank evaluating blockchain settlement is not going to disconnect from the network linking it to every other bank on earth. It is going to look for a way to use blockchain capabilities while keeping that connection intact.
Any strategy that demands wholesale replacement is fighting the fundamental way the system changes, which is why the SWIFT-killer pitch, however exciting, was always going to struggle against the slower reality.
Integration, by contrast, works with that reality. By becoming the settlement and tokenization layer that existing messaging can reach, a crypto-native firm makes itself useful without asking banks to take the impossible step of abandoning their core infrastructure.
This is why Ripple’s evolution toward regulated banking, institutional custody, a fitting stablecoin, and connection to existing standards is a more credible path to relevance than the original replacement dream ever was.
It positions Ripple to capture real institutional business in the way institutions actually adopt technology. The strategy makes sense, and the pivot is wise.
But the very logic that makes integration the right move for Ripple the company also reshapes the role available to XRP. In an integrated world, the cash leg, the part that actually settles value, can be filled by a stable instrument.
That is precisely where the token’s place becomes uncertain.
What it means for XRP
Here is the question the whole reversal forces, and it is uncomfortable for the original thesis.
In the replacement vision, XRP was indispensable: it was the bridge asset that would carry global value across borders, and its necessity was the entire point.
In the integration vision, that necessity is far less clear. If the model is that banks keep using SWIFT for messaging and connect to a settlement layer beneath it, then the critical question becomes what does the settling, and there are two candidates.
One is XRP, used as a neutral bridge asset to move value between currencies in seconds. The other is a stablecoin, used as a steady dollar instrument that banks and treasurers find easier to work with because it does not swing in value.
Ripple has built a capable stablecoin precisely because institutions want that stability, and across its own business the stablecoin has increasingly taken the settlement role.
That is the settlement asset competing with XRP. RLUSD may be good for Ripple’s institutional strategy while making XRP’s direct role less automatic.
This is the heart of the matter for holders. The integration strategy that makes Ripple more relevant as a company does not automatically make XRP more relevant as a token, because the settlement function XRP was meant to perform can be performed by the stablecoin instead, and often is.
XRP retains a genuine potential role as a bridge asset in cross-currency flows where converting through a neutral token is more efficient than holding many stablecoins, and that role is real and not negligible.
But it is no longer the indispensable, central role the replacement pitch promised. It is a contested role, competing for relevance with the stablecoin inside Ripple’s own integrated infrastructure.
The regulatory backdrop still matters here. If the CLARITY Act codifies digital-commodity treatment for XRP, it could make institutions more comfortable using the token where it actually has settlement utility.
But legal clarity alone does not decide the routing question. Banks still have to choose XRP over a stablecoin for actual value transfer, and that is a use-case decision, not just a regulatory one.
So the pivot from fighting SWIFT to plugging into it is good strategy for Ripple and ambiguous news for XRP. It improves the company’s odds of institutional relevance while leaving genuinely open whether the token shares in that relevance or watches the stablecoin capture the settlement role it was built to fill.
The decade in perspective
Stepping back, the arc from SWIFT killer to SWIFT partner is best understood not as a failure but as a lesson in how technological change actually unfolds in finance, and it carries a clear-eyed conclusion for anyone holding the token.
Ripple set out to replace the world’s bank-messaging network and learned, as most disruptors of deeply entrenched infrastructure do, that the incumbent’s network effects are more durable than any speed advantage. It also learned that the path to relevance runs through integration instead of demolition.
The company adapted intelligently, building the regulated, institutional, integration-ready business that actually fits how banks adopt new technology. That adaptation is a strength, and it positions Ripple far better for real institutional adoption than the original confrontational pitch ever did.
For XRP, though, the maturation is double-edged, and honesty requires holding both sides. The good news is that Ripple is becoming a more serious, more credible institutional player, which strengthens the ecosystem the token lives in.
The hard news is that the integrated future Ripple is building does not obviously need XRP the way the replacement future did, because the settlement role the token was created to fill can be, and increasingly is, filled by a stablecoin instead.
The decade did not deliver the dramatic story holders were sold, in which XRP supplants a $150 trillion network and captures the value of doing so.
It delivered a more modest and more realistic story, in which Ripple earns a place inside the existing system and XRP fights for a role within it.
For that role to matter, value still has to enter and exit the rails. That is why how value enters and exits the rails remains central to any serious XRP thesis.
Whether plugging into SWIFT eventually means real demand for the token, or simply real relevance for the company that issues it, is the question the next decade will answer.
The disruptor grew up. Whether its token grows with it remains to be seen.
Frequently asked questions
Did Ripple really try to replace SWIFT?
Yes. For years Ripple’s defining pitch was that SWIFT, the messaging network connecting roughly 11,000 banks, was slow, outdated plumbing, and that XRP could replace it by acting as a bridge asset that settled cross-border value in seconds without the pre-funded accounts that correspondent banking requires. The company’s leadership repeatedly framed the contest as a fast disruptor coming to take the incumbent’s business. That replacement vision, in which XRP became the bridge for global payments, was the heart of the bull case many holders bought into.
Why did Ripple not replace SWIFT?
Because SWIFT’s power is its network, not its technology. Roughly 11,000 banks all use the same messaging standard, and the value to any one bank is that every other bank is already on it, which makes replacement far harder than building a faster alternative. SWIFT also modernized, adopting faster services and new messaging standards that narrowed the speed gap. Banks proved unwilling to abandon the standard connecting them to every other bank in favor of a system built on a volatile token, so instead of replacement, the result was coexistence, with Ripple used as a fast lane alongside SWIFT.
What does it mean that Ripple wants to plug into SWIFT?
It reflects a strategic pivot from replacement to integration. Instead of trying to dismantle SWIFT, Ripple is building itself into the existing financial system, adopting the messaging standards banks use, pursuing banking charters and custody, expanding a stablecoin suited to institutional settlement, and signaling interest in connecting to SWIFT-based infrastructure instead of only competing with it. The idea is to become the settlement and tokenization layer that existing bank messaging can trigger, so banks keep SWIFT while reaching into faster on-chain settlement. It is a more realistic strategy than the original replacement dream.
How did Chainlink connect SWIFT to crypto?
Chainlink built its institutional strategy around connecting SWIFT to blockchains instead of replacing it, advancing to a pre-production stage where banks can send their familiar SWIFT messages to trigger smart-contract actions across blockchains without rewriting their legacy systems. SWIFT stays in place, the banks keep their existing messaging, and Chainlink’s infrastructure connects that messaging to the on-chain world. It is the integration thesis made concrete, and that a major competitor reached it first shows both the viability of the integration approach and how competitive the race to be the connecting layer has become.
Is the pivot bad news for XRP?
It is ambiguous instead of simply bad. In the replacement vision, XRP was indispensable as the bridge asset. In the integration vision, the settlement role XRP was meant to fill can also be filled by a stablecoin, which banks often prefer because it holds a steady value. XRP retains a real potential role as a bridge asset in cross-currency flows, but it is no longer the central, indispensable role the original pitch promised. It now competes with the stablecoin inside Ripple’s own infrastructure. So the pivot strengthens Ripple the company while leaving open whether XRP shares in that relevance.
Does XRP still have a role in cross-border payments?
Yes, but a more contested one than the original pitch suggested. XRP can serve as a neutral bridge asset in cross-currency settlement, where converting through a single token can be more efficient than holding many different stablecoins, and that role is genuine. But within Ripple’s own integrated, institutional business, the stablecoin has increasingly taken the settlement role because its stable value suits banks better. So XRP has a real but no longer indispensable role, competing for relevance with the stablecoin instead of serving as the sole bridge the replacement vision envisioned. Whether it captures meaningful settlement volume is the open question.
This article is information, not investment advice. Cryptocurrency is volatile, and corporate strategies, partnerships, and figures reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, which can change quickly. Verify current data from primary sources before making any decision.
South Korea’s Mirae Asset has completed its acquisition of cryptocurrency exchange Korbit. The financial group plans to increase its existing ownership stake from 92.06% to 97.15%.
The acquisition makes Mirae Asset the first financial group in South Korea to acquire a local cryptocurrency exchange.
Mirae Asset Acquires Korbit
Mirae Asset Financial Group is set to take control of South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Korbit through its affiliate, Mirae Asset Consulting. The latter completed the acquisition of the exchange, bringing its stake to 92.06%. Mirae Asset has also submitted a revised regulatory filing to increase its stake to 97.15%. The acquisition raises Mirae Asset’s cumulative investment in the exchange from 133.5 billion won to 141.4 billion won.
South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission approved the deal earlier this month, determining that the acquisition was unlikely to decrease market competitiveness. Korbit had only a 0.5% share of South Korea’s cryptocurrency market as of 2025.
A Global Investment Platform
The acquisition is part of Mirae Asset Financial Group’s mid- to long-term strategy. The group plans to leverage the exchange and develop a global investment platform that encompasses digital assets and traditional finance. Park Hyeon-joo, Mirae Asset Financial Group founder, stated that Korbit will relaunch as Digital X under the group’s Mirae Asset 3.0 vision.
“Digital X will serve as the most powerful engine for realizing Mirae Asset 3.0.”
Meanwhile, Korbit assured existing users that its services will remain unchanged, and user deposits and virtual assets will be held and managed separately. The exchange added that there will be no changes to how it is used or processed.
“Building on Mirae Asset’s stability and financial expertise, we will further strengthen user protection and service competitiveness and continue to grow as a trusted digital asset platform.”
According to CoinGecko, Korbit is South Korea’s fourth-largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, recording around $4.3 million in the past 24 hours. In comparison, Upbit, the country’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, processed over $224 million.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
Crypto World
BMEX Price Falls 90% As BitMEX Shutdown Hands Market to Binance, Hyperliquid and Rivals
BitMEX is shutting down, and its token crashed with it. The BMEX price fell nearly 90% in one day after the exchange set a September 23 closing date.
The token now trades near $0.0068, according to live data. Its whole supply is worth just $680,000.
BMEX Price Falls With Its Exchange
Exchange tokens live and die with their platform. BMEX is a clear example.
BitMEX launched it in 2022. People who staked the token paid lower trading fees and earned other perks.
Those perks only work while the exchange is open. Once BitMEX confirmed its shutdown, the token lost its point.
BMEX now trades about 98% below its price a year ago. It hit a record low near $0.0033 on Thursday, then bounced back a little.
The Competition Stands to Gain
BitMEX changed crypto trading forever. In 2016 it launched the first perpetual swap, a trade with no end date.
Traders loved it. They could keep positions open as long as they liked, with up to 100x leverage. That multiplied both profits and losses.
Rivals soon copied the design. Perpetuals now drive most crypto trading. But BitMEX could not keep its early lead.
Then regulators caught up. US authorities charged BitMEX in 2020. A year later it paid $100 million to the CFTC and FinCEN over weak controls.
Founder Arthur Hayes even pleaded guilty to breaking US anti-money-laundering rules. While BitMEX dealt with the fallout, rivals raced ahead.
“BitMEX pioneered the perpetual swap and became the world’s #1 crypto exchange. Used by millions, it inspired the exchanges that followed — including Bybit. Regulators came for them, but the product outlived the backlash. Today perps are the beating heart of crypto, going legal in more countries every year (EU, Dubai VARA, HK, and more). End of an era. Respect to the legends who built it,” said Ben Zhou, co-founder and CEO of Bybit.
Today the winners are clear. Binance leads perpetual trading by volume, with OKX and Bybit close behind. Deribit rules crypto options.
On-chain venues are rising fast too. Hyperliquid leads perpetual DEX trading. dYdX draws institutional traders to decentralized markets.
BitMEX had already faded to almost nothing. CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju said it handled about $84 million in Bitcoin (BTC) futures in one day. That was near 0.08% of the market.
Now its traders need a new home. Where they land will show who really won the market BitMEX built.
The post BMEX Price Falls 90% As BitMEX Shutdown Hands Market to Binance, Hyperliquid and Rivals appeared first on BeInCrypto.
A public petition has alleged that foreign-funded groups helped drive India’s Cockroach Janta Party protests. A BeInCrypto audit found no public evidence of a broad crypto-funding wave during the movement’s July escalation.
The available signals moved in the opposite direction. Protest-related Google searches surged about 1,350% above baseline between July 18 and July 22.
Crypto-buying searches fell about 18%. Estimated USDT/INR turnover dropped about 30%, while the premium Indians paid for USDT narrowed by roughly 44%.
The investigation did find crypto activity linked to the protest’s name. Four unofficial Solana tokens generated about $1.48 million in decentralised exchange volume. No public evidence connects their creators, traders or proceeds to protest organisers.
Claims of Foreign Extremist Groups Funding Indian Protests
A public interest petition filed before the Delhi High Court on July 22 requested a National Investigation Agency probe into alleged foreign funding behind the July 20 march on Parliament.
The court agreed to hear the plea on July 24. The allegations remain unproven, and the court has not endorsed them.
Funding rumours had already spread online. A letter presented by several Indian media accounts as proof of support from Bangladesh’s Jamaat-e-Islami was later identified as a forgery by Alt News.
The Cockroach Janta Party began as an online satire movement in May after India’s chief justice compared some unemployed young people and activists to ‘cockroaches.’
It soon became a national protest channel for anger over exam paper leaks, unemployment and government accountability.
The movement’s immediate demand is the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan after the NEET medical entrance exam was cancelled over a question-paper leak.
Tens of thousands tried to march towards Parliament on July 20, where police used tear gas and batons. Protesters have remained at Jantar Mantar since then.
How BeInCrypto Investigation Tested the Claim
BeInCrypto tested public data from May 15 to July 22. The study compared a baseline period, Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike and the five-day escalation that followed his forced hospitalisation.
Crypto Demand Fell as Protest Attention Surged
Google Trends showed a sharp split. Protest searches rose by about 1,350% across India and more than 2,000% in Delhi during the escalation. Searches linked to buying crypto, USDT, and wallets fell by about 18% nationally and 19% in Delhi.
Haryana produced one exception. Its crypto-action search basket rose about 48% from a small baseline. The result remains an open lead and does not establish transactions or protest financing.
Exchange data also weakened. Combined estimated USDT/INR turnover on CoinDCX and WazirX fell about 30% below the baseline. Combined Bitcoin and Ethereum turnover dropped about 23%.
The USDT premium provided the strongest market test. A sudden rush for dollar-linked crypto in India should create scarcity and push USDT above the official dollar-rupee rate. The median premium narrowed by about 44% during the escalation.
No Organiser Wallet Appeared in the Public Trail
The on-chain review covered USDT and USDC transfers touching 637 publicly labelled CoinDCX and WazirX addresses on Dune Analytics.
Average daily stablecoin inflows to the labelled CoinDCX subset fell about 20%, from roughly $1,320 to $1,058. The WazirX labels returned no matched transfer legs.
These results have a large blind spot. Public labels cover only a small share of exchange infrastructure. They cannot see private peer-to-peer trades, over-the-counter desks, unlabelled wallets or crypto held before the protest.
Commercial clustering exposes the public-label blind spot. Sources: Arkham and Dune Analytics.
Labelled global exchange wallets also showed no surge. Stablecoin inflows into the public Binance, Coinbase, Bybit, and KuCoin clusters fell between about 20% and 52% from baseline.
No offshore exchange keeps a public India-specific wallet cluster. Source: Dune Analytics.
The social audit produced the same result. Researchers archived 118 publicly accessible Telegram posts from movement-linked channels and searched them for donation, payment and wallet language.
They found no crypto addresses or payment wallets.
Founder Abhijeet Dipke used a missed-call number to mobilise supporters. One unrelated account posted a UPI payment handle ‘for Jantar Mantar,’ while another promoted an unofficial protest token and described it as community-created.
Neither post established a financial link to the organisers.
Public wallet-label searches for 23 politicians and political organisations also returned no matches.
Separate checks for Wangchuk and five institutions linked to him found no verified public wallet. A missing label does not show that a person owns no crypto. It means there is no authenticated starting point for tracing a payment.
Copycat Tokens Were the Clearest Crypto Activity
Four protest-branded Solana tokens traded during the research period. The largest, named after the Cockroach Janta Party, recorded about $1.39 million in volume across 24,635 trades involving 4,126 traders.
Its supply was highly concentrated. The largest observed holder controlled about 80%, while the top 10 controlled almost the entire supply. Three Wangchuk- or protest-themed tokens added roughly $91,700 in trading volume.
The CJP-branded token was extremely concentrated. Source: Dune Analytics.
The pattern suggests traders are monetising attention around the protests. It does not show fundraising. Organisers have not acknowledged the tokens, and no traced proceeds reached a verified protest wallet.
The identity problem extends to the web. Several CJP-themed domains emerged after the movement went viral, making conflicting claims about donations and official status.
A brand-matching website, QR code, or token should be treated as unverified until organisers publish authenticated payment endpoints.
What the Public Evidence Supports
The movement’s visible support system was more conventional. AP and India Today documented supporters ordering food and water through delivery apps, while organisers said many participants paid their own travel costs.
The public evidence supports a limited conclusion. There was no broad, visible protest-linked crypto funding wave between May 15 and July 22. The data also provides no public support for claims of foreign or China-linked crypto payments.
A private route could still exist outside the tested data. Proving it would require a verified recipient wallet, exchange customer records, bank records or financial-intelligence reports. None has appeared publicly.
Methodology and Disclosure
The audit used public exchange candles, Google Trends exports, Dune labels, 118 Telegram posts, verified X activity and Solana trading data. Public sources cannot identify a trader’s residence or motive and do not cover private groups, peer-to-peer markets or unlabelled wallets.
The findings do not establish illegal, political or foreign financing by any person or organisation. The court petition remains an unproven allegation.
The post Is Crypto Funding India’s Cockroach Protest? We Traced the Money appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Strategy has unveiled the Bitcoin Security Consortium, a new coalition of financial institutions and Bitcoin-focused companies aimed at strengthening the network’s resilience against the potential impact of future quantum computing breakthroughs. In a Thursday announcement, Strategy said the group plans to commit an aggregate $15 million over the next three years toward developer efforts focused on “quantum security” work for Bitcoin.
The initiative adds formal institutional backing to a debate that has been running through the Bitcoin ecosystem for years: how and when (or whether) quantum computers could force a shift in how the network secures transactions. While experts disagree on timelines, the consortium’s creation signals that large players are preparing for long-horizon security challenges rather than waiting for consensus to harden.
Key takeaways
- Strategy says the consortium will fund $15 million over three years to support developer work on Bitcoin’s quantum security.
- Founding members include major asset managers and crypto firms such as BlackRock, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Blockstream.
- Day-to-day coordination will be handled by Mike Schmidt, a volunteer executive director of Brink, a non-profit focused on Bitcoin open-source developers.
- Galaxy pledged up to $5 million in separate grants earlier this week and formed a quantum-advisory council for research on migration solutions.
- Bitcoin’s quantum risk timeline remains contested, with industry estimates ranging from decades away to only a few years.
A consortium built around long-term quantum resilience
According to Strategy’s press release, the Bitcoin Security Consortium brings together financial institutions and Bitcoin companies with the shared goal of supporting work designed to protect the network against a potential quantum-security threat. Strategy’s stated focus is enabling developers to pursue approaches that would help Bitcoin adapt if quantum capabilities reach a threshold that undermines existing cryptographic assumptions.
The consortium’s plan is structured as a multi-year funding pool: $15 million in total commitments over the next three years. While the announcement does not detail specific deliverables or milestones, the emphasis on developer support indicates that the effort is intended to translate research and engineering into practical upgrades and implementation work over time.
Who’s involved, and how the work will be managed
The consortium names a broad set of founding participants. In addition to Strategy, the list includes Anchorage Digital, ARK Invest, BlackRock, Block, Blockstream, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Galaxy, among others.
Strategy also said the consortium’s daily operations will be coordinated by Mike Schmidt in a volunteer capacity. Schmidt is described as the executive director of Brink, a non-profit that supports Bitcoin open-source developers. The operational link to a developer-support organization matters because quantum security work is likely to require sustained engineering capacity—areas like cryptographic tooling, testing, and migration planning often take longer than headline news cycles.
Recent quantum-security funding momentum from Galaxy
In the same broader timeframe, Galaxy Digital separately announced support for quantum security-related development. Earlier coverage noted that Galaxy pledged up to $5 million in grants for developers working on Bitcoin’s quantum security and formed a council of quantum-advisory experts to study quantum-resistant migration options.
While the consortium and Galaxy’s grants are distinct efforts, together they reinforce a pattern: institutional capital is increasingly targeting the “preparation” phase—funding research and engineering before a crisis scenario forces rushed changes.
Disagreement on timelines, but shared urgency on preparedness
Bitcoin’s quantum risk debate is not purely academic. It influences how investors evaluate the durability of the network’s security model and how engineers prioritize long-term roadmap items.
Community concern is tempered by disagreements about when a meaningful quantum threat might arrive. Strategy’s announcement points to the ongoing debate rather than resolving it. In November 2025, Blockstream CEO Adam Back said Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years, according to earlier reporting from Cointelegraph in an article about the topic (“Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years,” Back said).
Other viewpoints compress that timeline dramatically. In April, investment manager Bernstein suggested Bitcoin has roughly three to five years to prepare for a post-quantum security upgrade, as discussed in Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage (Bernstein said Bitcoin has about three to five years to prepare).
This split matters because it shapes what “useful funding” looks like. In a decades-ahead scenario, the priority is gradual research and maintainable upgrades. In a short-window scenario, the emphasis shifts toward accelerating migration planning and ensuring that any transition path can be executed with high confidence.
Institutional backing signals confidence in core development capacity
Alongside the consortium announcement, Strategy’s partner ecosystem includes large traditional finance and crypto incumbents. BlackRock’s involvement, for example, is tied to its view that Bitcoin developers are doing critical work. As stated in the announcement, Robert Mitchnick, BlackRock’s global head of digital assets, said Bitcoin core developers do “incredibly important work” and that BlackRock is pleased to provide “significant additional funding” to support Bitcoin’s long-term security needs.
For investors and market participants, that message carries a specific implication: quantum security is being treated not as a speculative side project, but as a core infrastructure concern worthy of institutional budget lines. Even if the exact timing of quantum risk remains uncertain, multi-year funding structures are better aligned with how protocol security improvements actually get built—through testing, peer review, and coordinated development rather than emergency patching.
At the same time, it’s worth noting the consortium does not claim to settle the timeline question. Instead, it appears designed to fund the unknowns: research gaps, migration options, and implementation readiness that could become valuable under multiple scenarios.
Looking ahead, the key question is how the consortium and parallel grant efforts translate funding into concrete engineering outputs—such as migration research, candidate upgrade work, and developer tooling—while the broader community continues to debate quantum timelines. Observers should watch for updates that clarify priorities and measurable milestones over the consortium’s three-year window.
BitMEX’s utility token (BMEX) has suffered a dramatic collapse following the exchange’s announcement that it will wind down operations. Data from CoinGecko shows the token fell by nearly 90%, dropping to as low as $0.002 from about $0.06, and it was trading around $0.0063 at the time of writing.
The selloff started shortly before the shutdown became public. According to CoinGecko pricing, BMEX began sliding at around 7:00 am UTC—approximately an hour before BitMEX posted its shutdown notice on X, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
Key takeaways
- BMEX lost almost all of its value after BitMEX announced it would cease operations, with CoinGecko data indicating a move from ~$0.06 to near $0.002.
- The token’s drop began about an hour before the public shutdown message on X, suggesting markets were already repricing quickly ahead of confirmation.
- CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju linked the decision to BitMEX’s reduced Bitcoin futures share, citing ~0.08% and about $84 million in daily BTC futures volume.
- Blockchain research firm 10x Research told Cointelegraph the exchange’s owners explored a possible $1 billion sale in 2025 before opting for an orderly wind-down.
What triggered BMEX’s sharp repricing
The immediate catalyst for BMEX’s decline was BitMEX’s decision to wind down. The token’s value had recently traded closer to $0.06, but it then experienced a sudden, sustained fall as the market absorbed the implications of an exchange shutting down.
CoinGecko’s timestamps place the start of the selloff around 7:00 am UTC, roughly an hour before BitMEX’s shutdown announcement on X. That timing matters for traders because it suggests the market had already begun anticipating severe downside—or at least a major operational change—before the message was made public.
BitMEX’s shrinking futures footprint
In explaining the broader context for BitMEX’s exit, CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju pointed to the exchange’s declining position in Bitcoin derivatives. He said BitMEX’s share of the Bitcoin futures market had fallen to about 0.08%, alongside roughly $84 million in daily Bitcoin futures trading volume.
Ju also emphasized the exchange’s historical impact, saying on X that it helped shape the industry and that it was now “passing the torch” to newer platforms that grew out of the model BitMEX pioneered.
BitMEX cofounder Arthur Hayes later echoed the sentiment in a separate X post, writing that it had been “an amazing ride” and that the team had “done something special together.”
Details behind the wind-down: sale talks and operational reality
Beyond the headline closure, 10x Research shared additional context with Cointelegraph: BitMEX’s owners had explored a potential $1 billion sale in 2025 before selecting an orderly wind-down process.
The report suggests the shutdown wasn’t simply an abrupt break with operations, but the outcome of a longer decision cycle—one where finding an acquirer may have been considered, but ultimately did not materialize into a transaction.
This matters to investors in tokenized exchange ecosystems because “utilities” tied to a platform’s activity can lose their economic meaning when the underlying venue stops operating. When wind-down plans advance, holders often anticipate reduced buyback or incentive mechanics (if any existed), weaker demand for token usage, and—most importantly—a fading buyer base for any token that derives value from exchange activity.
A legacy built on perpetual swaps, now ending
BitMEX previously highlighted its industry role by marking its 11th anniversary in November 2025. The exchange credited its influence in creating the perpetual swap—a futures contract structure with no expiration date—that became a cornerstone for modern crypto derivatives trading.
That legacy contrasts sharply with BMEX’s post-announcement price action. The disconnect underscores a key point for market participants: reputational and historical contributions do not automatically translate into ongoing token value once market structure changes, derivatives competition intensifies, and operational costs rise.
Cointelegraph also reported that a restructuring advisor and CEO of investment firm Echo Base, Roshan Dharia, described the closure as part of wider “structural corrections” across digital asset markets. He linked the pressures to a combination of a more competitive environment, increasing regulatory and compliance costs, and reduced tolerance for operational inefficiency.
In other words, BitMEX’s ending appears less like an isolated event and more like an outcome of sector-wide tightening—where exchanges that cannot maintain scale or profitability face limited pathways forward.
Going forward, attention is likely to shift to what happens to BMEX holders as the wind-down proceeds—whether any remaining token incentives, liquidity provisions, or related mechanisms persist, and how quickly markets reprice any residual expectations. With the timeline and final operational steps not detailed in the available reporting here, traders and long-term observers should watch for further updates from BitMEX, plus signals from analytics and on-chain activity that indicate how derivatives volume migrates to competing venues.
Google just revealed it holds about $94 billion of SpaceX stock. The win came from one bet it made back in 2015.
That sounds like a giant new investment, but it is not. Google made this bet more than ten years ago, long before SpaceX got big.
How Google’s SpaceX Bet Started in 2015
In January 2015, Google and Fidelity put $1 billion into SpaceX. Together they got just under 10% of the company. That valued SpaceX at more than $10 billion. Google led the round.
Then SpaceX grew for a decade. It went public in June at about $135 a share. That valued it near $1.77 trillion, the biggest IPO ever. Google’s early bet had grown into a stake worth about 100 times more.
New funding rounds slowly shrank Google’s slice. Today it owns close to 5% of SpaceX.
Why the Windfall Barely Moved the Stock
The gain showed up in Google’s June quarter. Its investments rose about $99 billion on paper. That pushed profit up to $112 billion. Stakes in AI firm Anthropic helped too.
But almost none of it was real cash. Of the $9.11 Google earned per share, $6.26 came from the paper gain. Without it, profit looked ordinary. The gain even brought a $21.9 billion tax bill.
Wall Street shrugged. In its second-quarter earnings report, Google gave the huge gain just one line. It did not even name the companies. The stock still closed down about 1.2%.
Google has done this before. In early 2025, it booked an $8 billion paper gain the same quiet way.
Investors cared more about spending. Google spent $44.9 billion in three months on AI. It even burned through $5.9 billion more cash than it made. That record AI spending worried the market. Analysts had flagged the risk before the report.
Most of the SpaceX Stake Is Locked Up
Here is the catch. Google cannot just sell the shares and spend the money. Its filing shows $80 billion of them are locked for now. The rest is locked for even longer.
The value can also drop fast. SpaceX shares jumped above $200 after the IPO. Then they fell to around $114 by July 23. The first shares unlock in August, when SpaceX reports earnings.
So the $94 billion is a great result, not a payday. It is paper profit, and most of it is stuck for now. The real test comes when the lockups end and Google can finally sell.
The post Google Is Up $94 Billion on SpaceX But Not for the Reason You Think appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Changpeng Zhao (CZ) built the world’s biggest crypto exchange. But he says his biggest mistake had nothing to do with technology.
The Binance executive told the Talking Tokens Podcast that he underestimated law, compliance, and politics. Looking back, he wishes he had learned the rules first.
He Was Just a Tech Guy
Zhao spoke on the Talking Tokens podcast, nine years after Binance began. He started the exchange in 2017 and reached the top within months.
Then came a simple question. What would he tell his 2017 self? He pointed to the law.
“Before like 2017, I was just a tech guy. I was focused on building a better product and protect the users, but I think I misjudged the importance of the legal aspects of it, which is a weak area for me.”
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
CZ’s Biggest Mistake Was Not the Product
Zhao knew how to build products. He did not know the law. That became a problem as Binance grew worldwide.
“I wasn’t very knowledgeable on international laws and how different countries apply laws. Some US laws apply globally. Some. And they also have a very long look back period.”
That gap cost him. His 2023 guilty plea forced Binance to pay $4.3 billion. It was one of the biggest corporate fines in US history.
Zhao stepped down as CEO. He paid a $50 million fine. He served four months in prison.
CZ Also Wishes He Moved Faster
The Binance executive had a second regret. He moved too slowly. He says founders should ship early and learn from real users.
CZ said it is “much better to push a product out early and then have market feedback.”
He used Binance’s own futures launch as an example. “Binance launched futures two years into the journey. If I was to do it again, I would probably launch that much earlier,” he said.
Still, Zhao called this advice, not just hindsight. He now tells other founders to take the law seriously. He even warned Hyperliquid that it needs good lawyers.
His own case ended in 2025 with a presidential pardon. That came about a year after his release from prison. Today he advises governments on crypto policy. It is the very field he once ignored.
The post CZ Says He Got One Thing Completely Wrong Building Binance appeared first on BeInCrypto.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit over its investigations into Ethereum, according to a joint status report filed July 22.
History Associates Inc. and the SEC asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the case after reaching a settlement deal. Under the agreement, the agency will produce the remaining responsive documents and pay the flat fee to cover the plaintiff’s legal fees.
History Associates, which provides professional historical research, writing and archival services to government agencies, filed the lawsuit in June 2024. Working on behalf of Coinbase, the firm had submitted three public records requests the year before. Those filings sought documents on SEC investigations into Zachary Coburn and Enigma MPC, along with records on how Ethereum shifted to a proof-of-stake system.
The lawsuit compelled the SEC to hand over thousands of documents, with the court explicitly ordering the agency to prioritize all records and communications sent, received or evaluated by then SEC Chair Gary Gensler concerning Ethereum’s migration from a proof-of-work blockchain to a proof-of-stake network.
Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has backed the CLARITY Act even as seven Senate Democrats oppose its latest draft and banking groups fight its stablecoin reward rules.
Summary
- David Solomon supports advancing the CLARITY Act despite banking groups’ stablecoin reward concerns.
- Seven Senate Democrats oppose the latest draft over ethics and consumer protection provisions.
- Republicans still need Democratic votes to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
Politico reported that Solomon was “very supportive” of moving the bill forward so the United States could establish a crypto market structure and advance digital asset development. Although he acknowledged that the proposal was imperfect and open to debate, the Goldman chief argued that passing a framework remained more important than resolving every disagreement first.
Solomon told the publication that the legislation could create a level playing field, strengthen market stability and let digital asset markets develop under clearer rules. His endorsement places the head of one of Wall Street’s largest banks alongside crypto executives who have urged Congress to complete the bill, even as banking trade groups seek tighter limits on stablecoin rewards.
The comments separate Goldman’s public position from the campaign led by banking associations against the current draft. Solomon did not directly endorse its reward provisions, but his support for advancing the full legislation contrasts with groups warning that the text could pull deposits from traditional lenders.
Stablecoin rewards keep banks opposed
Under the latest Republican draft, crypto companies could offer rewards tied to customer activity, while payments on stablecoins held in idle balances would remain prohibited. Banking associations argue that this distinction lets crypto platforms compete for deposits through incentives, creating a risk that money moves away from community banks.
In a May letter to Senate Banking Committee leaders, several banking trade groups called for stronger safeguards against deposit flight. The groups argued that funds leaving banks for stablecoin products could reduce credit available to households and businesses, particularly in communities that depend on smaller lenders.
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has also criticized the legislation, adding a prominent Wall Street voice to the industry’s objections. Solomon’s support therefore does not suggest that banks have reached an agreement; it shows that major executives differ over whether the reward dispute should stop the bill.
Earlier this week, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce sent Senate leaders a letter supporting the banks’ concerns. The USHCC warned that deposit losses could hurt small-business lending, community development and economic opportunities in Hispanic communities. It also cited analyses that, according to the chamber, showed net outflows connected to crypto activity at community banks.
Republican concerns have resurfaced despite a compromise negotiated earlier in 2026. Punchbowl News reported that Senators John Curtis and John Cornyn shared the banks’ concerns about deposit flight, while Senator Thom Tillis opposed the current ethics provision. Their objections add internal Republican pressure as party leaders seek enough votes to pass the measure.
Democratic resistance blocks an easy vote
Seven Democratic senators, Catherine Cortez Masto, Angela Alsobrooks, Cory Booker, Ruben Gallego, John Hickenlooper, Mark Warner and Raphael Warnock, have rejected the latest text while keeping negotiations open. In a joint statement, they said provisions covering ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity required more work.
Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren also criticized the draft, arguing that its ethics language did not adequately address President Donald Trump’s crypto business interests. Warren further maintained that the bill lacked sufficient investor and national security protections.
Republicans added restrictions on crypto activity by senior elected officials after Democrats made an ethics clause a condition for continuing talks. Trump accepted the provision earlier this week, but the agreement left enforcement to the Department of Justice and failed to settle Democratic concerns.
Alsobrooks objected to making the DOJ the sole enforcer and described the arrangement as “unserious,” according to reports cited by crypto.news. She said she would oppose the legislation if the language reached the Senate floor unchanged. Her position carries added weight because she was one of two Democrats who helped advance the bill through the Senate Banking Committee in May.
Democratic resistance has cut the bill’s estimated 2026 passage odds by 15 percentage points from their July 21 peak, according to crypto.news. Republicans need Democratic support to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, leaving Solomon, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong pressing lawmakers to act before the August recess.
Garlinghouse endorsed a similar argument from Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty on July 22. Alderoty described the CLARITY Act as a consumer protection measure that would strengthen anti-money laundering and customer-verification rules while giving law enforcement and state authorities clearer tools against misconduct.
With the vote count still short, Goldman’s endorsement gives the legislation another powerful supporter but does not resolve either dispute holding back a Senate agreement.
Kazakhstan has approved a strategic crypto mining framework that grants large-scale miners regulated electricity access in exchange for contributing part of their mined digital assets to a state-backed reserve.
Summary
- Kazakhstan has approved a strategic mining framework that links regulated electricity access with contributions to a state backed crypto reserve.
- Eligible miners must meet strict infrastructure and operational standards before receiving strategic status under the new rules.
- The framework builds on Kazakhstan’s push to expand regulated digital asset infrastructure while strengthening oversight of the crypto industry.
According to Kazakhstan-based news outlet Zakon.kz, the government approved the new rules on July 18 through Government Resolution No. 638, published in the PRG.kz legal database.
The framework introduces a new category known as strategic digital mining, allowing qualifying companies to receive electricity quotas at regulated tariffs after agreeing to transfer a portion of their mined cryptocurrency to Astana Hub, a government-backed technology cluster.
The measure adds another layer to Kazakhstan’s effort to tie its digital asset industry more closely to state-backed infrastructure rather than treating mining as a standalone commercial activity. The rules will take effect on Aug. 1, 2026.
Large mining operators face strict eligibility requirements
Only miners meeting extensive infrastructure standards will qualify for strategic status under the new framework.
As reported by Zakon.kz, applicants must own a digital mining data center with at least 150 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity. Mining equipment deployed at those facilities must also provide a minimum computing power of 150 terahashes per second (TH/s) per unit.
Beyond hardware requirements, companies must employ qualified technical personnel, maintain repair facilities within their mining sites, secure contracts with multiple internet service providers and remain current on taxes and other mandatory payments before receiving approval.
Once approved, operators will be required to sign agreements with Astana Hub’s autonomous cluster fund and purchase electricity from eligible power generation companies designated under the framework.
The resolution also requires participating miners to contribute part of their mined cryptocurrency to a reserve mechanism administered through Astana Hub. Although the government document does not specify the percentage, several local media outlets have reported that the contribution could be set at 10%. Cointelegraph, however, said it could not independently verify that figure.
The arrangement links electricity access directly to participation in Kazakhstan’s state-backed digital asset reserve, creating an incentive for miners willing to commit part of their production under government-approved terms.
Policy builds on Kazakhstan’s digital asset strategy
The latest mining rules arrive after several initiatives that have expanded Kazakhstan’s involvement in regulated cryptocurrency markets.
As crypto.news previously reported, the country launched the state-backed Alem Crypto Fund in September 2025 to build long-term digital asset reserves. Its first investment involved BNB through a partnership with Binance Kazakhstan, giving the fund an initial exposure to digital assets.
Earlier this year, Reuters also reported that Kazakhstan’s central bank planned to allocate up to $350 million from its roughly $69 billion in gold and foreign exchange reserves into crypto-linked investment products.
Instead of directly purchasing Bitcoin or Ethereum, the National Bank said it would invest through funds, index products and digital asset infrastructure companies, making Kazakhstan one of the few countries to dedicate part of its sovereign reserves to the sector.
Regulated crypto payments have also moved forward. Earlier in July, Alatau City Bank partnered with Binance Kazakhstan to launch Crypto Pay, allowing users to make purchases with cryptocurrency through QR codes and point-of-sale terminals connected to the bank’s acquiring network. The rollout formed part of the government’s effort to expand regulated financial services tied to digital assets.
At the same time, Kazakhstan has continued tightening oversight of the industry.
In January, authorities blocked access to more than 1,100 unlicensed cryptocurrency exchange platforms, according to government reports cited by crypto.news. The enforcement campaign directed users toward licensed exchanges while reinforcing the country’s regulated digital asset market.
Kazakhstan strengthens its position as a mining destination
Kazakhstan remains one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining jurisdictions following the migration of miners after China’s crackdown on the industry in 2021.
The Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report published in April 2025 ranked Kazakhstan fifth globally by Bitcoin mining activity, underscoring the country’s continued importance within the mining sector.
Rather than simply expanding mining capacity, the newly approved framework links access to electricity with participation in government-backed digital asset initiatives, placing state reserve development alongside industrial mining policy.
The direction is consistent with other technology projects announced over the past year. Earlier this month, Balaji Srinivasan’s Network School signed a memorandum of understanding with Kazakhstan to establish a new campus focused on education, artificial intelligence, startups and technology research.
The agreement came as the organization encountered regulatory challenges in Malaysia and added another international technology initiative to Kazakhstan’s digital economy plans.
What you need to know
Life sentence for terrorist who plotted with Heaton Park attacker
Oil prices hit $100 for the first time since May
Renter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
No Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
Weekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
MONEY HEIST vs POLICE in REAL LIFE ESCAPE from Police | ACTION FULL STORY POV |2026 POV Movie
XRP JUST MADE TIER 1 BANKING ASSET!!?? (IT’S OFFICIAL?!)
GUESS PAPER | FA-2| FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING | FULL EXPLANATION | SEMESTER-2 OU | @shivanipallela
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Politics5 days agoThe House | The City of London can help the new chancellor deliver growth in every postcode
-
Crypto World5 days agoRipple Payments Joins MiCA With 14 Firms, Does It Mean Anything For XRP?
-
Crypto World6 days agoTwo July Windows Left: The CLARITY Act’s Senate Fight and What Failure Means
-
Politics4 days agoDemocrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
-
Crypto World6 days agoRipple wins EU-wide access as ESMA adds it to MiCA register
-
Crypto World2 days agoGrayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
-
NewsBeat3 days agoUnregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
-
Tech3 days agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Crypto World7 days agoInjective Submits SEC Transfer-Agent Registration to Onchain Ownership Records
-
Tech3 days agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
NewsBeat6 days agoRegistration is now open for March for Men with Kev 2026
-
Business2 days agoNew Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
-
Crypto World7 days agoClaude Fable 5 Slips to Second in AI Coding Leaderboard
-
News Videos6 days agoMoney | Class 12 Economics | CBSE Board Exam 2026-27
-
Business7 days agoBanco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) Discusses Global Macro Environment and Economic Outlook for Core Markets Transcript
-
Crypto World5 days agoKaspersky exposes OkoBot’s 20-module crypto wallet attack
-
News Videos4 days agoBig Money Is Entering XRP
-
Business6 days agoAirlines warn Sunshine Protection Act could disrupt flight scheduling
-
NewsBeat5 days agoDurham County Council to send out electoral registration emails
You must be logged in to post a comment Login