The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has urged the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to strengthen coordination with other federal regulators to manage risks associated with blockchain-based financial products. In a letter made public on June 8, GAO recommended that the FDIC develop an ongoing mechanism to help agencies identify, assess, and respond to emerging blockchain-related threats more consistently.

GAO also pressed the FDIC to revisit how it assigns supervisors to institutions, arguing that changes to case manager rotation could improve supervisory independence and reduce the risk that oversight outcomes are compromised. The recommendations arrive as lawmakers and regulators continue to work through the supervisory gaps created by the cross-border and rapidly evolving nature of crypto and stablecoin activities.

Key takeaways

• GAO urged the FDIC to coordinate with other federal agencies through an ongoing mechanism for addressing blockchain risks.
• GAO cited findings from 2023 that regulators lacked a continuous coordination structure while blockchain-related financial services grew significantly.
• GAO recommended rotating FDIC case managers to strengthen supervisory independence.
• GAO linked supervisory questions to the 2023 failures of several crypto-exposed banks, in the aftermath of the FTX collapse.
• Policy developments under the GENIUS Act and proposed broader crypto legislation shape the regulatory context for stablecoin and wider crypto market oversight.

GAO calls for cross-agency coordination on blockchain risk

In its June 8 letter to FDIC Chairman Travis Hill, GAO said it first raised the issue of blockchain risk coordination as a priority matter in May of the prior year. GAO described blockchain technology as an area of concern that it placed on its “High Risk List,” reflecting difficulties regulators face in overseeing blockchain-based financial products and the potential effects on U.S. markets.

GAO’s position is grounded in an earlier assessment it conducted in 2023. The agency found that financial regulators did not have an “ongoing coordination mechanism for addressing blockchain risks,” despite the growing scale of blockchain-related products and services. In practice, GAO argued that without a durable coordination channel, agencies may identify similar risks at different times or respond inconsistently—an issue that becomes more acute when crypto-related activities span multiple regulated entities and regulatory authorities.

GAO maintained that establishing the coordination mechanism it recommended would enable the FDIC and other regulators to collectively identify risks and implement regulatory responses in a timely manner. The emphasis on timeliness is particularly relevant for compliance monitoring: blockchain-linked products can evolve quickly, and regulatory responses often depend on rapid information-sharing across agencies responsible for distinct parts of the financial system.

Stablecoin oversight under GENIUS and the broader legislative push

The FDIC’s role in blockchain-related oversight is closely tied to stablecoins. Under the GENIUS Act passed last year, the FDIC serves as the main regulator for stablecoin issuers that are subsidiaries of banks under FDIC supervision. That framework positions the FDIC as a key gatekeeper for a segment of the crypto market that directly intersects with the banking system.

GAO’s call for coordination therefore has both immediate supervisory implications and longer-term policy relevance. The letter comes as Senate lawmakers consider a bill intended to clarify how federal agencies would regulate the wider crypto market beyond the stablecoin context. As described by Cointelegraph, lawmakers are looking to pass legislation that would outline the regulatory approach across federal bodies—an effort that underscores the current fragmentation problem regulators face when crypto activity cuts across agency mandates.

For institutional stakeholders, the coordination question is not only about enforcement readiness; it also affects compliance design. Firms operating stablecoin-related products, custody services, or other blockchain-based financial offerings may need to map evolving obligations across regulators. A clearer coordination mechanism could reduce the chance of duplicative requests, shifting interpretations, or gaps where risks fall between agencies.

Supervisory independence: GAO urges rotation of case managers

Beyond coordination, GAO recommended a supervisory process change: rotating case managers assigned to banks. GAO said that in 2024 it found the FDIC did not require supervisors to rotate to different banks. According to GAO, a lack of rotation could compromise supervisor independence and interfere with supervision outcomes.

GAO further reasoned that a rotation requirement could mitigate threats to independence. While the specifics of supervisory staffing and governance vary by institution, independence concerns are central to bank oversight. If supervisors become too closely embedded with particular institutions over extended periods, the ability to challenge management assessments and respond objectively to emerging risks may be weakened.

GAO also linked the staffing concern to what it described as unanswered questions raised by bank failures in 2023, particularly whether bank watchdogs took sufficient action to ensure institutions “promptly addressed supervisory concerns.”

Lessons cited from 2023 bank failures tied to crypto exposure

GAO pointed to the collapse of several banks in 2023—Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate Bank, and Signature Bank—as events that raised questions about the robustness and timeliness of supervisory actions. All three failed in less than a week in March 2023, following the bankruptcy of FTX, which contributed to severe disruption across crypto markets.

From a policy and enforcement standpoint, GAO’s emphasis suggests that supervisors may face heightened risk signals when banks have significant exposure to crypto-linked counterparties, custody arrangements, or related liquidity and asset-liability pressures. GAO’s recommendation to strengthen oversight processes—through both improved interagency coordination and enhanced supervisory independence—aims to address systemic vulnerabilities that can surface during periods of market stress.

At the same time, unresolved questions remain. GAO’s findings do not automatically specify what a “blockchain risk response” should look like in every scenario, nor do they replace the need for agency-specific rulemaking or supervisory guidance. For compliance teams, this means expectations may evolve incrementally as regulators operationalize coordination mechanisms and adjust supervisory staffing practices.

What to watch next

GAO’s letter adds pressure for measurable procedural follow-through at the FDIC, including how coordination with other regulators will be structured and how supervisory staffing will be implemented in practice. The trajectory of broader federal crypto legislation will also influence how these recommendations interact with stablecoin-specific oversight and the wider regulatory landscape.

The Bank of Japan (BOJ) raised its policy rate by 25 basis points on June 16, moving the target for the uncollateralized overnight call rate to around 1.0%. 

The new rate takes effect on June 17 after a 7–1 vote by the Policy Board. The move lifted Japanese rates further from the ultra-low levels that shaped local and global markets for years.

“The Bank will encourage the uncollateralized overnight call rate to remain at around 1.0 percent,” the BOJ said in its policy statement. 

The central bank also raised the interest rate on the complementary deposit facility to 1.0% and set the basic loan rate at 1.25%. 1.0% marks Japan’s highest policy rate since 1995. Market participants now watch how the move shapes the yen, bonds, and crypto risk appetite in coming sessions.

Inflation risk drives the BOJ decision

The BOJ said Japan’s economy continues to recover at a moderate pace, even as higher crude oil prices weigh on activity. It said strong corporate profits, better jobs data, and income growth still support the economy. The bank also said government steps to reduce the household burden from energy costs will continue to help demand.

The central bank also pointed to rising price pressure. It said price pass-through from higher crude oil costs has moved at a relatively fast pace in business-to-business transactions. It added that this pressure may spread to consumer prices across many items. The BOJ said underlying CPI inflation may move above its 2% price stability target if medium- to long-term inflation expectations keep rising.

Meanwhile, crypto.news reported before the decision that a move to 1.0% could bring renewed attention to global liquidity and the yen carry trade. The carry trade uses cheap yen borrowing to fund higher-yielding assets. Higher Japanese rates can make that trade less attractive and may push investors to reduce exposure to risk assets.

In addition, that matters for Bitcoin and other digital assets because crypto markets trade around the clock and can react quickly when leveraged positions unwind. Bitcoin fell roughly 3% within hours after the BOJ raised rates to 0.75% in January 2026. The report also said Bitcoin would likely face the first wave of selling because of its deeper liquidity, while smaller tokens may see sharper moves.

Japan’s crypto policy remains active

The rate hike comes as Japan continues to reshape its digital asset rules. Crypto.news reported on June 11 that Japan advanced a bill that would cut crypto gains tax to 20%, open a path for crypto ETFs, and treat digital assets more like stocks. That policy track gives Japan a second crypto story beyond monetary tightening.

In May, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party advanced an AI-blockchain finance plan focused on tokenized deposits, yen stablecoins, and programmable settlement. 

These reforms show that Japan is tightening monetary policy while still building clearer digital finance rules. “The Bank will continue to raise the policy interest rate and adjust the degree of monetary accommodation,” the BOJ said, while noting that future moves will depend on economic activity, prices, and financial conditions.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has responded to four common criticisms of perpetual futures contracts, citing more than 100 public comments submitted during a 2025 consultation process as regulators continue expanding oversight of digital asset markets.

According to a post published on X by CFTC Chair Michael Selig, several misconceptions have emerged around perpetual futures contracts and the agency’s recent approvals of such products, including concerns related to contract duration, leverage, public consultation, and funding rates.

Among the issues addressed was the argument that perpetual futures fall outside the legal definition of a futures contract because they do not have a fixed expiration date. Selig said neither the Commodity Exchange Act nor CFTC regulations explicitly define the term “futures contract” in a way that requires a fixed expiration or delivery date.

Instead, he said the criteria used to determine whether an instrument qualifies as a futures contract come from court decisions and commission interpretations, neither of which requires a contract to expire on a predetermined date.

CFTC defends leverage limits and funding mechanism

Attention has also focused on leverage after some critics claimed the agency had approved a product that would allow U.S. traders to access leverage of up to 250x through the recently approved BTCPERP contract.

Addressing those concerns, Selig said extreme leverage has historically been associated with offshore trading venues rather than the perpetual futures structure itself. Perpetual contracts operating under CFTC oversight, he said, remain subject to the same leverage restrictions that apply to other regulated futures products in the United States.

Questions surrounding industry participation were also raised following the approval process. In response, Selig pointed to an April 2025 request for comment covering both perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading, which drew more than 100 responses from market participants, including numerous firms already registered with the commission.

Funding rates, another frequently debated feature of perpetual futures, received separate attention in the statement. According to Selig, critics have argued that the mechanism creates high costs for traders and encourages harmful market behavior.

His explanation was that carrying a position in traditional futures contracts can generate similar annualized costs once traders account for the expenses associated with repeatedly opening and rolling expiring contracts. He added that funding rates help keep perpetual futures aligned with the underlying spot market rather than encouraging misconduct.

The comments arrive as the CFTC continues to take a prominent role in digital asset regulation while Congress debates legislation that could redefine the responsibilities of the CFTC and SEC.

As previously reported by crypto.news, the commission recently appointed former SEC crypto task force adviser Donald Battle as chief data innovation officer. In announcing the hire, the agency highlighted Battle’s experience in blockchain analytics, financial investigations, artificial intelligence, and data science.

Beyond cryptocurrency markets, the commission has remained active in disputes involving prediction markets and event contracts. Court filings cited by the agency show it recently challenged New Mexico officials over efforts to apply state gaming laws to contracts listed on Kalshi, arguing that federally regulated event contracts fall under CFTC jurisdiction.

At the same time, the regulator is collecting public feedback on a proposed framework for sports event contracts, a process that could influence how federal authorities oversee sports-related prediction markets in the future.

Anthropic’s decision to shut down access to its latest artificial intelligence models after a US order to suspend access to foreign nationals highlights the risks of centralized control in AI, which could increase demand for decentralized alternatives, says Grayscale. 

Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl said in a note on Monday that the order to cut access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 shows “the centralized control of frontier AI technology and drives home the need for decentralized alternatives.”

“We expect demand for decentralized AI, like Bittensor and its TAO token, to continue to rise as investors seek alternatives,” Pandl said.

The US government on Friday directed Anthropic to suspend access to the models for foreign nationals over national security concerns. Anthropic subsequently disabled access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all users to comply with the order.

Pandl noted that in the 12 hours after Anthropic cut access to its latest models, Bittensor’s TAO token climbed 30% as users sought out a decentralized alternative, climbing to a three-week high of $283 on Monday.

TAO has outperformed the wider crypto market over the past week. Source: CoinGecko

Pandl explained that Bittensor offers an “alternative vision for AI based on decentralized principles,” aiming to provide access to AI resources through an open, global, decentralized network. 

“Think of it as Bitcoin for AI.”

“Access to artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly important economic resource,” Pandl added. “As AI capabilities continue to improve, governments and AI labs will play an increasingly important role in determining who can access these tools and under what conditions.”

Anthropic suspension sets a precedent

Colton Malkerson, co-founder of EdgeRunner AI, argued that this event is a breaking point for corporate data independence.

“We’ve been saying for a while that companies are ‘renting’ their intelligence from the big labs, but this is even worse,” he said in a note to Cointelegraph. 

“It’s like renting your intelligence, just like if you’re renting a house and the landlord can cancel your lease whenever they want, kick you out, and look at all your property while you’re a tenant.”

Related: Amazon warning triggered US crackdown on Anthropic AI models: Reports

Tech entrepreneur and author Brett Hurt said in a note to Cointelegraph that the US order for Anthropic to cut off access to its models “was a precedent.” 

“The moment a government can silence a commercial AI model overnight, with no public hearing, no technical disclosure, and no appeals process, every lab in America is now operating under an invisible ceiling.”

Magazine: How AI just dramatically sped up the quantum risk for Bitcoin

Uniswap’s UNI token has been projected to climb from about $2.70 to $100 by the end of 2030 as tokenized assets increasingly enter decentralized finance, according to a new forecast from Standard Chartered Bank.

Standard Chartered Bank initiated coverage of Uniswap (UNI) on Monday and said the decentralized exchange could be one of the biggest beneficiaries of growth in tokenized assets and on-chain financial activity over the rest of the decade.

The bank expects tokenized assets on public blockchains to expand from roughly $340 billion today to $4 trillion by the end of 2028. At the same time, Standard Chartered projects the share of those assets being used in DeFi applications to rise from 3.5% to 30% by the end of 2030. Combined with growth in crypto-native assets, the bank estimates total assets locked in DeFi could reach about $2.7 trillion, nearly 37 times current levels.

Geoffrey Kendrick, Global Head of Digital Assets Research at Standard Chartered Bank, said he sees decentralized finance as the next major wealth-creation opportunity in digital assets. Based on that outlook, the bank believes Uniswap’s liquidity pools could eventually have access to roughly 37 times more assets for trading than they do today.

Under Standard Chartered’s forecast, UNI could reach $6.50 by the end of 2026, $20 by the end of 2027, $40 by the end of 2028, $65 by the end of 2029, and $100 by the end of 2030. The bank also expects UNI to outperform both Bitcoin and Ether during that period.

Fee burns and token supply changes support the thesis

Part of the bank’s optimism comes from changes made to Uniswap’s economic model over the past year. Before December 2025, swap fees generated on the protocol were distributed entirely to liquidity providers. A protocol upgrade known as UNIfication introduced protocol fees and a mechanism that burns UNI tokens, while later governance decisions expanded fee collection across additional liquidity pools.

According to Standard Chartered, Uniswap has generated roughly $21 million in protocol fees since the fee switch was activated and has burned about 5 million UNI tokens, equivalent to an annual burn rate near 1%.

Token supply has also declined. The bank noted that a one-time burn of 100 million UNI, combined with ongoing burns, has reduced total supply from 1 billion to 895 million tokens, while circulating supply has fallen to about 622 million.

Recent activity on the network has reinforced that trend. Earlier this month, the UNI Burn Bot reported a record daily burn of 134,000 UNI through the UNIfication system. The mechanism requires users claiming protocol fees from TokenJar contracts to burn an equivalent value of UNI through the Firepit contract, permanently removing those tokens from circulation.

Uniswap governance has also expanded the burn framework. Proposal 96, approved in May, extended fee collection and UNI burns to BNB Chain, Polygon, and Celo, increasing the number of supported chains to 11.

Alongside those governance changes, Uniswap Labs has rolled out wallet services, cross-chain swaps, portfolio tracking tools, and multichain portfolio views. The company said nearly half of new traders on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base who completed swaps in 2026 made their first transaction through Uniswap.

Bank sees valuation gap with Coinbase narrowing

In its report, Standard Chartered compared Uniswap’s business model with Coinbase and argued that the decentralized exchange remains undervalued relative to the volume it processes.

The bank described Uniswap as similar to YouTube because users create and supply liquidity, while Coinbase was compared to Netflix because it operates and manages its own centralized platform infrastructure.

According to the report, that structure gives Uniswap lower capital requirements since liquidity comes from users rather than the protocol itself. The bank also expects the platform to remain competitive in markets involving closely related assets such as stablecoins, liquid staking tokens, and eventually tokenized real-world assets.

Although Uniswap handles transaction volumes that are comparable to Coinbase, Standard Chartered said the protocol trades at a much lower market capitalization-to-transaction fee multiple. Geoffrey Kendrick said stronger commercialization efforts and partnerships with traditional financial institutions could help narrow that gap over time if Uniswap successfully scales its business.

Risks remain. Standard Chartered warned that specialized decentralized exchanges could develop products better suited for certain markets, while capturing tokenized asset activity will require stronger relationships with traditional finance firms. The bank also noted that Uniswap V4’s hook system has not yet been tested at the scale anticipated in its long-term projections.

Looking ahead, Standard Chartered said regulatory developments such as the expected passage of the U.S. Clarity Act or future guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission could help address some of those challenges and support wider adoption of decentralized finance infrastructure.