XRP Healthcare has begun closing its normal operations after a Sept. 3 wallet incident reportedly affected 4,011 accounts and caused losses estimated at approximately $452,000.

XRP Healthcare said on Sept. 10 that the incident increased financial and operational pressure after three years of spending on development, infrastructure and product delivery. The company cited a prolonged bear market and the cost of an unsuccessful public-listing process among the factors behind its decision.

The company is coordinating the removal of XRPH and XRPHAI from trading platforms. Each exchange will set its own trading closure, deposit suspension and withdrawal deadlines, leaving holders responsible for checking notices issued by the venue where their tokens remain.

No bankruptcy filing, liquidation petition or court-supervised insolvency process accompanied the announcement. XRP Healthcare described the action as an “operational wind-down,” which does not by itself establish the company’s legal status or how creditor claims would be handled.

XRP Healthcare is ending normal operations

The wind-down covers the company’s regular business activities but does not close its response to the wallet incident. XRP Healthcare said it would continue pursuing available recovery routes for the affected assets.

Its team plans to cooperate with exchanges, online platforms, authorities and other parties involved in tracing or recovering the funds. Technical records and transaction data connected to the incident will be preserved, according to the statement.

XRP Healthcare did not identify the authorities contacted, the jurisdictions involved or the exchanges assisting with the investigation. No police report, court filing or official enforcement announcement had been published with the wind-down notice.

The company said its intellectual property and international trademark portfolio would remain under separate management. It did not explain which legal entity would hold those assets, whether they could be sold or how any proceeds might be treated during the closure.

After operating for close to three years, XRP Healthcare said continuing its regular business was “no longer sustainable.” The statement did not publish its assets, liabilities, cash position, employee count or outstanding obligations to customers and contractors.

Costs from a planned public listing contributed to the financial strain, the company said. XRP Healthcare did not name the proposed exchange, disclose how much the process cost or identify the advisers involved.

Wallet incident reportedly reached 4,011 accounts

Unauthorized transactions began on Sept. 3, according to information previously released by XRP Healthcare. The company later reported that 4,011 XRPH Wallet accounts were affected and estimated the missing assets at nearly $452,000.

As crypto.news reported, the incident involved 267,664 XRP and native project tokens. The estimate came from XRP Healthcare and should not be treated as an independently audited loss figure.

The company has not published a complete list of affected addresses, transaction hashes or recovered balances. Without that information, outside researchers cannot fully reproduce the total or determine whether every transfer formed part of the same incident.

XRP Healthcare took its wallet applications offline after detecting the unauthorized activity. Its website currently says digital services remain unavailable while security and recovery work continues.

The latest notice confirms that the XRPH Wallet applications will stay offline during the wind-down. Users should not assume that an application carrying similar branding is an authorized replacement unless the company identifies it through an official channel.

No restoration date was provided. The company has not announced a migration tool, replacement wallet or formal claims portal for users reporting losses.

Technical claims point to the wallet application

Independent developers cited by U.Today attributed the compromise to how the XRPH Wallet generated and handled recovery phrases. Their claims focused on application code and did not identify a flaw in the XRP Ledger consensus protocol.

One allegation stated that the wallet used insufficient randomness when creating seed phrases. Low entropy can reduce the number of possible recovery phrases, allowing an attacker to search the remaining combinations offline and derive private keys.

A separate claim based on decompiled application code said the software transmitted users’ seed phrases over a network connection. XRP Healthcare said it learned of the alleged transmission only after the incident and had trusted the developers hired to build the application.

Neither XRP Healthcare nor the cited researchers have released a complete public forensic report with reproducible code analysis. The reported cause therefore remains a technical claim, although the company has not disputed that a defect in the wallet software exposed users.

Former Ripple developer Matt Hamilton and XRP Ledger community contributors Vet and Hazard Cookie said they had raised concerns about the project before the September incident. Vet stated that he rejected grant requests tied to the project because its documents contained what he described as inaccurate partnership claims.

Past criticism of the project does not independently prove the cause of the wallet losses. The security findings require separate assessment from earlier disputes involving XRP Healthcare’s business model, documentation or token structure.

The available evidence does not indicate that the XRP Ledger itself was compromised. Transactions authorized with exposed private keys can remain valid under a blockchain’s rules even when the keys were obtained through defective wallet software.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported how a Liquid Network cache flaw enabled unbacked Bitcoin withdrawals. The XRP Healthcare incident differs technically because published accounts point toward compromised wallet credentials instead of a consensus or bridge-accounting failure.

Exchanges will determine XRPH withdrawal deadlines

XRP Healthcare said XRPH and XRPHAI would be removed through an orderly process coordinated with exchange partners. The company told holders to rely on notices from each exchange for the applicable dates and procedures.

At the time of the wind-down statement, XRP Healthcare had not published a consolidated list of participating exchanges or deadlines. Searchable reports from Bitget and KuCoin described the closure, but exchange-specific withdrawal schedules were not clearly available in the cited notices.

XRPHAI began trading on BitMart in July 2026, according to the project’s launch announcement. Holders with tokens on BitMart must wait for or locate a notice from the exchange before relying on any withdrawal date attributed to the project.

A token delisting normally ends trading on one venue but does not automatically destroy tokens held in private wallets. Continued transferability depends on the underlying network, available liquidity and whether other services keep supporting the asset.

XRP Healthcare has not promised compensation for affected wallet users. Its commitment covers recovery efforts, cooperation and material incident updates, without specifying a reimbursement amount or timetable.

No verified recovery total has been disclosed. The company has not identified frozen exchange deposits, returned funds or arrests connected to the unauthorized transactions.

Canada’s banking regulator has clarified that tokenized deposits are not legally different from traditional deposits, giving federally regulated financial institutions a clearer path to develop deposit products using blockchain and other digital technology.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions said financial institutions and their third-party providers have been developing new financial products as digital finance advances, including tokenized and other digitally represented deposits. OSFI said its latest statement was intended to clarify how existing federal financial institution laws apply when banks use new technology to offer such products.

Under the regulator’s technology-neutral approach, the technology used to build or deliver a financial product does not determine its legal nature. OSFI said it looks at what a product or service is instead of the technology behind it.

“Tokenized deposits are, for example, not legally distinct from traditional deposits,” the regulator said.

The position means a deposit does not become a separate type of financial product simply because it is represented digitally or uses blockchain infrastructure. The institution offering the product remains responsible for meeting the laws and regulatory requirements that apply to the underlying banking activity.

OSFI treats tokenized deposits as existing bank deposits

OSFI’s clarification places the legal focus on the underlying financial claim, leaving banks free to use different technical systems as long as the product remains within their permitted activities.

Financial institutions must ensure that products built with new technology comply with applicable laws and regulations, including when outside companies perform parts of the service on their behalf. OSFI specifically pointed banks to its B-13 guideline covering technology and cyber risk management and B-10 guideline for third-party risk management.

Banks considering novel products or services are expected to contact their OSFI lead supervisors before launch. The regulator encouraged institutions to seek legal advice where appropriate.

The approach separates the technology used to represent a deposit from its legal status, a distinction that has become more relevant as banks experiment with blockchain-based settlement systems.

A tokenized deposit remains a commercial bank deposit represented on digital ledger infrastructure and issued by the bank holding the underlying funds. The money remains a liability of the commercial bank instead of becoming a separate reserve-backed token issued outside the bank.

Stablecoins can use similar blockchain infrastructure but are structured differently. Their legal treatment depends on the issuer and the framework governing the asset, while OSFI’s latest clarification specifically concerns deposits issued by federally regulated financial institutions.

Tokenized bank deposits move into live payment tests

Banks outside Canada have moved beyond early experiments with tokenized deposits during 2026, with several projects testing how existing commercial bank money can move through blockchain infrastructure.

In July, Swift launched a blockchain ledger with 17 banks across six continents preparing to test tokenized deposit payments for round-the-clock cross-border settlements, as crypto.news previously reported. Participating institutions included HSBC, Citi, BNP Paribas, UBS, Standard Chartered, ANZ and DBS.

The system was developed over nine months and was designed to coordinate payments involving bank-issued digital deposits while retaining the compliance, risk and control processes used by financial institutions.

That work moved into a live transaction in August when HSBC and Standard Chartered connected their independently operated tokenized deposit platforms through Swift’s shared ledger.

HSBC recorded its payment obligation through its Tokenised Deposit Service, while Standard Chartered used its own infrastructure. Swift’s ledger matched and netted the obligations before settlement took place through existing banking systems.

The transaction did not require both banks to issue deposits on the same tokenization platform. Instead, the shared ledger coordinated instructions between their separate systems, providing a model for interoperability between bank-operated digital deposit networks.

Swift has not disclosed a deadline for moving the system from its controlled rollout into production-scale use. Its participating banks are expected to test more institutions, currencies and operating conditions as the project develops.

Banks are testing different tokenized deposit structures

Other banking projects have taken different approaches to putting commercial bank deposits on blockchain networks.

In June, Custodia Bank and Vantage Bank unveiled a dual-purpose token designed to function as a bank deposit while held inside their Hazel banking network and become a stablecoin when transferred outside the consortium.

The Ethereum-based system had been operating since March and was being tested by participating banks ahead of a planned fourth-quarter 2026 launch. The companies designed Hazel to work alongside existing core banking software, payment systems and ledgers instead of requiring participating institutions to replace their current infrastructure.

Another model has focused on moving commercial bank money across public blockchain networks. LayerZero and Keeta announced a system in July intended to make tokenized commercial bank deposits transferable across Ethereum, Solana, Base and the Keeta Network.

The planned service covers nine currencies, including the Canadian dollar, U.S. dollar, euro, British pound, Japanese yen and Hong Kong dollar. Commercial bank deposits held through Bivo and its partner-bank network back the tokens, while issuers retain control over contracts, transfers and compliance requirements.

Canada is developing separate rules for stablecoins

Canada’s treatment of tokenized deposits is developing alongside a separate regulatory process for fiat-backed stablecoins.

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said in December 2025 that stablecoins should be pegged one-to-one to central bank currency and backed by liquid government assets so users can redeem them for cash at par. He said issuers should provide clear information about redemption terms, fees and timing while maintaining sufficient operational resilience.

Canada’s 2025 federal budget included provisions for a new stablecoin regulatory framework, with the Bank of Canada expected to receive C$10 million over two years beginning in 2026 to administer the regime.

The planned legislation would amend the Retail Payment Activities Act to cover payment service providers handling stablecoin transactions and include national security safeguards for fiat-backed tokens.

Canadian-dollar digital assets are already being developed under existing regulatory structures. Tetra Digital Group’s CADD gained institutional custody support from Anchorage Digital in May after being structured as a Canadian-dollar stablecoin backed one-to-one by Canadian dollars held at a licensed Canadian trust company.

OSFI’s latest statement deals specifically with deposits offered by federally regulated financial institutions. Banks developing novel products remain expected to consult their lead supervisors before launch and comply with the regulator’s existing technology, cyber and third-party risk requirements.

Kalshi has prepared to seek U.S. regulatory approval for approximately 60 perpetual futures linked to stocks and exchange-traded funds, including Tesla, Apple and Nvidia.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Sept. 10 that the prediction-market operator wants to offer the products around the clock. Approval would give U.S. traders access to regulated single-stock perpetual futures without using offshore crypto exchanges.

Kalshi has not published its proposed product list, leverage limits, margin requirements or launch timetable. No related filing was publicly identified in the report, leaving the plan subject to a formal regulatory submission and review.

The proposal enters a dispute involving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, CME Group and Citadel Securities. Each disagreement concerns how perpetual contracts should be classified and which regulator should oversee products linked to U.S. securities.

Kalshi would bring 24/7 perps to U.S. stocks

Perpetual futures let traders take long or short positions without a fixed expiration date. Traditional futures expire on scheduled dates, requiring traders to close or transfer their positions into later contracts.

Perps use recurring payments between long and short traders to keep contract prices near their reference assets. When a perpetual contract trades above the reference price, long traders commonly pay short traders. The payment direction can reverse when the perp trades below its reference.

Leverage allows users to control positions larger than their posted collateral. Gains can increase when the market moves in the trader’s favor, while adverse movements can trigger forced liquidation.

Kalshi’s proposed products would track stocks including Tesla, Apple and Nvidia, according to the Journal. ETFs would form part of the planned group, though the report did not identify specific funds.

Around-the-clock trading would let a Tesla perp continue moving after Nasdaq closes and during weekends. The stock itself generally trades during established exchange sessions, with limited activity available through extended-hours systems.

No company has endorsed a Kalshi contract linked to its shares. A derivative tracking Tesla or Nvidia would not represent ownership in either company, provide voting rights or entitle holders to dividends.

Kalshi would need to establish a reference price, funding mechanism and procedures for corporate actions. Stock splits, dividends, mergers and trading suspensions can change the price or structure of an underlying security.

The company has not said how its contracts would process such events or how prices would be calculated while the primary stock market is closed.

CFTC approval covered Bitcoin, not individual stocks

The CFTC approved Kalshi’s BTCPERP contract on May 29 after the company submitted it for review one day earlier. The contract gave eligible U.S. traders regulated access to leveraged Bitcoin exposure without an expiration date.

As crypto.news previously reported, Kalshi launched its Bitcoin perpetual contract following CFTC approval. The authorization applied to the submitted Bitcoin product and did not grant automatic approval for perps tied to other asset classes.

The regulator said perpetual futures linked to different types of assets may require individual assessment. Kalshi’s stock products would therefore need separate review because their reference assets fall within securities markets overseen by the SEC.

Kalshi later extended its perpetual-futures business to gold and silver. The company has pursued another contract tracking West Texas Intermediate crude oil, though regulatory authorization for a commodity product does not resolve the treatment of single-stock perps.

The distinction has produced a jurisdictional question. Futures generally fall under CFTC authority, while stocks and securities-based products sit within the SEC’s mandate. Some products can involve both agencies depending on their legal structure.

Single-stock futures have previously operated under a joint SEC-CFTC framework. Kalshi’s planned contracts would differ by carrying no expiration date and using funding payments to maintain their relationship with the underlying shares.

The CFTC has not announced approval of the planned equity products. Kalshi’s reported intention to apply should not be described as authorization or evidence that trading will begin.

Citadel warns of a parallel equity market

Citadel Securities told the SEC and CFTC that perpetual contracts tied to publicly traded companies should remain within securities regulation. Its Sept. 10 letter responded to a joint request concerning how the agencies define and divide financial products.

The trading firm warned that placing equity-linked perps outside SEC oversight could create a “parallel shadow market.” Citadel argued that the contracts would still draw their economic value from securities even if they were structured as futures.

Existing securities surveillance connects activity across stocks, listed options and related instruments, according to the firm. Trading a perp through a separate regulatory system could limit regulators’ ability to compare orders and positions across connected markets.

Citadel cited insider trading as one potential concern. An employee holding unreleased earnings information could trade a company-linked perp while the stock exchange was closed, subject to the platform’s controls and applicable law.

Trading halts present another issue identified in the letter. A stock can be suspended after a major announcement or because of unusual activity, yet an independently operated perpetual contract might continue changing hands unless both venues coordinate their procedures.

Citadel said SEC rules already address order handling, market access and trading suspensions for securities. Comparable safeguards would not necessarily apply in the same form if the CFTC classified a single-stock perp as an ordinary futures contract.

Its letter presents Citadel Securities’ regulatory position, not a binding interpretation. The SEC and CFTC have not issued a joint decision covering Kalshi’s planned products.

In related coverage, ESMA warned that prediction markets can raise insider-trading and manipulation risks. The European regulator’s report concerns prediction platforms and EU access, while Citadel’s letter focuses on U.S. equity-market surveillance.

CME lawsuit could affect Kalshi’s expansion

CME Group sued the CFTC and Chairman Michael Selig in June over the agency’s approval of perpetual futures for Kalshi and Coinbase. The case remains a separate challenge from Citadel’s request for SEC oversight of stock-linked products.

CME argues that perpetual futures qualify as swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act. Its complaint asks a federal court in Washington, D.C., to overturn the CFTC’s May 29 decision approving Kalshi’s Bitcoin contract and the agency’s related policy.

The exchange operator claimed the approval caused competitive harm by allowing Kalshi and Coinbase to reach retail derivatives traders under different rules. Kalshi and Coinbase are not named as defendants in the case.

A CFTC spokesperson described the action as “frivolous,” while Kalshi said the dispute concerned competition. The quoted responses state the parties’ positions and do not resolve the legal classification at issue.

Perpetual-futures trading volume increased 29% to $61.7 trillion during 2025, according to CryptoQuant data cited by Reuters. The figure mainly represents global crypto derivatives and does not measure expected demand for U.S. stock perps.

The federal court has not issued a final ruling determining whether the approved Bitcoin product is a future or swap. A decision against the CFTC could affect the legal foundation Kalshi would use when seeking permission for its stock and ETF contracts.

Even if the CFTC accepts Kalshi’s applications, SEC involvement may depend on the final product structure. Neither agency has announced a deadline for reviewing the proposed contracts, and Kalshi has not stated when it expects to file them.

In this week’s edition of the weekly recap, a withdrawal of nearly 4,000 BTC forced Liquid Network to suspend transactions before operators began a limited restart. The U.S. CLARITY Act faced fresh doubts ahead of a Sep. 15 Senate vote, while spot Bitcoin ETFs lost $462.7 million over four trading sessions.

Liquid Network restarts blocks after $320 million withdrawal

• An actor created unbacked L-BTC and withdrew approximately 3,996 BTC through an authorized peg-out service, according to crypto.news’ report on the Liquid Network incident. The withdrawal, first reported on Sep. 6, removed roughly 95% of the Bitcoin held in the sidechain’s federation wallet at the time. Liquid stopped transactions and peg operations while developers addressed a proof-verification flaw in its Elements software.
• Liquid said on Sep. 10 that its nodes had resumed producing blocks following an emergency update. Transactions and peg operations remained suspended. The actors returned 3,400 BTC, leaving about 598 BTC outside the federation wallet. Liquid called them “purported white-hat hackers,” reflecting the actors’ claim rather than confirming they had authorization.

CLARITY Act faces a 60-vote Senate test

• Republican senators warned that the CLARITY Act might lack the votes to advance when the Senate holds a procedural vote on Sep. 15. The measure needs 60 votes to open debate. With Republicans holding 53 seats, supporters would need at least seven Democrats or independents if every Republican backed the motion.
• Sen. Cynthia Lummis blamed Democratic demands for the impasse, while other lawmakers pointed to unresolved ethics provisions involving government officials’ crypto interests. Stablecoin rewards and protections for decentralized finance developers also remained disputed. A successful procedural vote would begin Senate debate; it would not pass the bill or make it law.

Bitcoin ETFs lose $462.7 million as Ether funds gain

• U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $462.7 million in net outflows from Sep. 8 through Sep. 11, according to Farside Investors data cited by crypto.news. Monday’s Labor Day closure left four trading sessions, and the funds posted outflows in each. Thursday’s $282.7 million loss was the largest of the week.
• Ethereum ETFs finished the period with $196.9 million in net inflows after attracting $216.4 million on Friday. Solana funds gained $9.7 million. The fund data showed a split between Bitcoin and Ether allocations as investors assessed U.S. inflation and the Federal Reserve’s Sep. 15–16 meeting.

DOJ restrains more than $52 million in crypto

• The U.S. Department of Justice restrained more than $52 million in cryptocurrency while targeting wallets and online channels linked to the Xinbi Guarantee network. Tether said authorities seized two wallets that had received about $12 million in payments and sought restraints against 47 more wallets associated with suspected money laundering.
• U.S. authorities and blockchain researchers described Xinbi as a marketplace connecting alleged scam operators with payment, laundering, and other services. Tether said it assisted the enforcement action. The wallet restraints are a confirmed step in the investigation; allegations concerning the marketplace and its users remain attributed to the authorities.

Ethereum Foundation ranks 62 Hegotá proposals

• The Ethereum Foundation graded 62 proposed changes for its planned Hegotá upgrade. About 60 protocol specialists contributed 397 assessments. Transaction inclusion lists and Frame Transactions received the highest “must ship” ranking, while other proposals were assigned lower priorities or declined.
• The rankings describe the foundation’s development priorities, not a decision to deploy all 62 changes. Its Protocol Cluster also stated a goal of making Ethereum’s base layer resistant to quantum attacks by December 2029. Developers and community members can discuss the Hegotá list at a Sep. 16 Reddit session.

Harmony proposes ending its blockchain

• Harmony proposed retiring its layer-1 network and issuing ONE balances as Ethereum-based tokens after a final snapshot. The project announced the plan on Sep. 6 and asked users to leave smart contracts before Sep. 10 because liquidity pools, multisignature vaults, and applications would not transfer with wallet balances.
• Harmony reserved $1.372 million for eligible validators and delegators, with proposed payments over four quarters. Its plan followed an August exploit that created forged ONE tokens. The final network block and Ethereum token distribution had not been confirmed in the linked report.

Bitcoin reacts to inflation before the Fed meeting

• Bitcoin fell below $78,000 on Sep. 10 after U.S. producer inflation exceeded forecasts, touching about $76,676 in crypto.news market data. The drop followed repeated failures to hold gains above $80,000 earlier in September.
• BTC recovered above $78,000 on Sep. 11 after U.S. consumer inflation met headline forecasts. Consumer prices rose 3.4% from a year earlier, while core prices increased 0.3% from July. Polymarket traders priced an 81% chance of a quarter-point Fed rate increase, according to the report.

Ripple urges senators to hear crypto holders

• Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty asked undecided and opposing senators to meet crypto holders before the CLARITY Act vote. He cited a National Cryptocurrency Association estimate that about 67 million U.S. adults hold digital assets.
• Crypto.news reported that supporters of Stand With Crypto contacted lawmakers nearly 50,000 times during August, citing Reuters. Banking groups also pressed senators over stablecoin rewards and their possible effect on deposits. Those competing appeals added to the legislative dispute, but neither established how senators would vote.

Robinhood reports 61% rise in monthly crypto volume

• Robinhood’s August crypto trading volume reached $17.5 billion, up 61% from July, according to operating figures released during the week. Bitstamp processed $10.1 billion, while the Robinhood app handled $7.4 billion.
• Despite the monthly increase, combined volume was 38% below August 2025. The comparison separates a rebound from July’s quieter trading from a year-over-year recovery, which Robinhood had not reported.

U.S. agencies propose revised bank vendor guidance

• The Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and National Credit Union Administration proposed new third-party risk guidelines that would let banks and credit unions adjust oversight to each outside relationship. If finalized, the nonbinding guidelines would replace the 2023 and 2024 frameworks.
• Federal Reserve Governor Michael Barr dissented, warning of possible gaps in supervision. The proposal is relevant to institutions assessing outside financial-technology providers, including digital-asset service firms, but it does not itself approve any crypto activity.

Brazil’s banks expand customer access to crypto

• Brazilian banks added digital assets to customer platforms while reporting no virtual assets on their own balance sheets in March filings reviewed by Folha de S.Paulo. Itaú offered 15 crypto assets, and Nubank listed 28.
• Banco do Brasil reported processing more than R$11 million in customer crypto transactions since January. The distinction between facilitating customer trades and buying tokens for a bank’s own account matters as Brazilian crypto firms prepare to meet licensing requirements later this year.

Flare reports 21.5 billion FLR staked

• Staked FLR increased from about 16 billion to 21.5 billion tokens after Flare changed its network economics, according to DefiLlama Research. The FIP.16 upgrade cut annual inflation from 5% to 3%.
• DefiLlama also reported that transaction-fee burns had risen to more than 10 times their earlier level. The figures measure activity after the upgrade; they do not prove the rule changes alone caused every increase in staking.

UniCredit considers broader digital-asset services

• Italy’s UniCredit is exploring crypto custody and brokerage infrastructure, according to people familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg. The bank is also considering tokenized investments and stablecoin services, but has not selected a final product lineup or announced a launch.
• UniCredit previously offered professional clients a product linked to BlackRock’s U.S. Bitcoin ETF and issued a tokenized minibond. Its latest discussions remain at an early stage and could change before any customer service begins.