Minnesota’s statewide crypto ATM ban took effect on Aug. 1, 2026, stopping operators from offering virtual currency kiosks after residents reported nearly $1 million in related scam losses. 

Governor Tim Walz signed Senate File 3868 on May 5 after the measure cleared the state legislature.

The law covers machines that exchange cash, bank credit or another virtual currency for crypto. It does not prevent Minnesotans from buying, selling or holding digital assets through lawful online services. The ban took effect as scheduled, with physical removal due by year-end.

Minnesota crypto ATM ban stops kiosk transactions

Under the enacted Minnesota law, businesses may no longer install, operate, maintain or make a crypto kiosk available for use anywhere in the state. Existing machines had to stop processing transactions by Aug. 1, although operators have until Dec. 31 to remove them from locations visible or accessible to the public.

The Minnesota Department of Commerce said it is working with licensed money-service businesses to secure compliance. Assistant Commissioner Sara Payne said the department can take enforcement action, including legal sanctions and civil penalties, against operators that continue offering kiosk transactions. The public and retailers may also report machines that remain operational.

The state had about 350 licensed kiosks operated by roughly eight to 10 companies when the Senate approved the measure in April. The new rule focuses first on whether a machine is available for use, not whether its cabinet remains temporarily inside a store.

Scam losses pushed lawmakers past earlier safeguards

The Minnesota Department of Commerce recorded 134 crypto kiosk scam complaints from 2023 through 2025, with reported losses approaching $1 million. In 2025 alone, the department counted 70 cases, more than $540,000 in losses and an average loss of nearly $6,800 per transaction.

Officials said many schemes involved fake family emergencies, romance scams or criminals impersonating government and law enforcement personnel. Victims were often told to withdraw cash, find a kiosk and scan a QR code controlled by the scammer.

Commerce Commissioner Grace Arnold gave residents a direct warning: “If someone is telling you to act quickly and send money through a kiosk … it’s a scam.”

Minnesota had introduced licensing, transaction limits, disclosures and other kiosk safeguards in 2024. However, state officials said scammers adapted by coaching victims through warning screens and arranging deposits to avoid existing protections.

FBI data shows broader scope than state complaints

Separate FBI data recorded 222 Minnesota complaints involving crypto kiosks in 2025, with adjusted losses of $4.07 million. Those figures are not directly comparable with the state’s 70 cases and $540,000 total because the agencies use different reporting systems and complaint scopes.

The FBI also cautioned that its loss totals may include other transaction methods used in the same scam. Nationwide, the agency received 13,460 kiosk-related complaints involving $388.98 million in adjusted losses during 2025. More than half of the complaints involved people older than 50.

Minnesota’s action forms part of a wider state crackdown. Tennessee banned crypto ATMs from July 1, while Georgia imposed transaction limits, warnings and some refund requirements. Indiana had already adopted a statewide prohibition. In related coverage, Delaware and New Jersey lawmakers advanced similar proposals.

The next binding date is Dec. 31, 2026. By then, operators must remove publicly visible or accessible machines. Kiosk-only operators must also pay customers any money or crypto still held or owed because of earlier transactions, unless another lawful access method remains available.

Customers may request payment in U.S. dollars at market value or transfer to a chosen crypto wallet. A wallet transfer must occur within 30 days of the request and be recorded on the relevant blockchain. Operators must retain proof for the Minnesota commerce commissioner.

The state has taken a different approach to regulated financial institutions.Another Minnesota law effective Aug. 1 allows banks and credit unions to provide crypto custody under risk-management, cybersecurity and notice requirements.

Commerce will now test whether operators disable every kiosk, complete removals and process required customer payouts before year-end. Residents can file complaints with the department when they find a machine that remains available for use.

Decentralized exchange spot trading rose to about 24% of centralized exchange volume in July 2026, according to The Block’s current DEX-to-CEX data series. 

The reading was described as the strongest shown in the current series and continued a broader rise in onchain market share since 2024.

The Block calculates the measure by dividing monthly DEX volume by volume on a selected group of centralized exchanges. Its dashboard includes the top 30 decentralized exchanges by volume from DefiLlama. Therefore, the figure does not mean DEXs handled 24% of combined spot trading. It means DEX activity equaled roughly 24% of the covered CEX total.

DEX spot volume ratio reaches about 24% in July

The July figure followed a faster expansion that began in 2025. The ratio remained below 10% for much of 2024 before rising as traders increasingly used permissionless markets for memecoins, newly issued assets and products unavailable on large centralized platforms.

However, the reading also came during a weaker period for centralized spot trading. Talos reported that total exchange spot volume fell 28% quarter over quarter to $2.32 trillion in the second quarter of 2026. Lower CEX activity can lift the ratio even when DEX volume does not reach an absolute record.

Current DefiLlama data shows that activity remains spread across several networks. Its Aug. 2 trailing 30-day rankings listed Solana at about $49.86 billion, BNB Chain at $31.04 billion, Ethereum at $28.84 billion and Base at $22.38 billion in spot DEX volume. Robinhood Chain added another $14.48 billion over the same rolling period.

New chains and wider token access supported onchain trading

Robinhood Chain was one of July’s clearest new sources of DEX activity. Uniswap Labs announced that Uniswap v2, v3, v4 and UniswapX went live on the network on July 2, one day after its public mainnet launch. The deployment supported crypto assets and Robinhood Stock Tokens through Uniswap’s web app, wallet and API.

CoinDesk Data later estimated that Robinhood Chain averaged about $690 million in daily DEX and aggregator volume over a seven-day period. Activity peaked at $943.6 million on July 11, while Uniswap accounted for about 99.5% of the network’s seven-day DEX volume.

The stock tokens were available in more than 120 countries but were not offered to U.S. users. Early trading also included memecoins rather than being limited to tokenized equities and other real-world assets.

As crypto.news reported, Robinhood Chain drove a sharp increase in Uniswap activity and passed $1 billion in cumulative swap volume during its first ten days. However, the role of speculative tokens makes sustained activity more important than launch-week totals.

Other ecosystems entered July with established onchain liquidity. Solana DEX volume exceeded $800 billion during the first part of 2025, while Jupiter remained a major routing layer for trades.

The “record” description needs a methodology caveat

The claim that July produced the “highest level since tracking began in 2019” requires qualification. The Block’s current chart supports the reported July reading, but older reports from the same publisher described higher figures under earlier versions of its data.

In June 2025, The Block reported that DEXs reached 25% of CEX spot volume during May. One month later, it reported a 29% ratio for June. Both historical figures are above July 2026’s roughly 24% reading.

The difference may reflect historical data revisions, changes in the exchanges counted or adjustments to volume filtering. However, the public description on the current dashboard does not explain why its historical readings differ from the publisher’s earlier articles.

A separate CoinGecko study used a different group of exchanges. It placed DEX spot share at 24.5% in June 2025 before the measure returned to about 13%–14% by January 2026. CoinGecko linked the earlier peak partly to Binance Alpha 2.0 routing trades through PancakeSwap.

CoinGecko’s top-20 exchange coverage and The Block’s current top-30-DEX methodology are not directly interchangeable. July can therefore be described safely as the highest reading in the current cited series. Calling it an uncontested market-wide record would go beyond the available methodology disclosures.

What comes next for the DEX-to-CEX ratio

The August reading will show whether the ratio can remain near one-quarter of covered CEX volume after July’s new-chain activity settles. Traders will also watch whether Robinhood Chain retains its early volume and whether Solana, BNB Chain, Ethereum and Base maintain their current pace.

Absolute volume will matter alongside market share. A rising ratio caused mainly by falling CEX activity would describe a different market structure from one driven by growing DEX liquidity, more users and deeper trading pools. Changes to protocol coverage or the exchanges included in the calculation could also revise historical readings.

No verified token-price move can be attributed solely to July’s ratio. The data shows where spot trades occurred, not why individual assets moved. The next completed monthly datasets should provide a clearer test of whether July marked a durable change or a temporary peak connected to new products and network launches.

South Korea’s five major won-based crypto exchanges recorded 560.3 billion won, about $367 million, in net stablecoin outflows to overseas platforms in June 2026.

The figure extended the country’s uninterrupted outflow run to 18 months.The figures came from Financial Supervisory Service data submitted to People Power Party lawmaker Lee Jong-wook and reported by Yonhap News on Aug. 2. Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit and Gopax sent 2.7625 trillion won in stablecoins abroad during June. They received 2.2022 trillion won from overseas exchanges.

South Korean stablecoin outflows reach 560.3 billion won

The latest monthly total continued an uninterrupted net-outflow streak that began in January 2025, when the available data series started. Every month since then, stablecoin withdrawals to foreign exchanges have exceeded deposits returning to the five Korean platforms.

June’s net outflow rose from 477.1 billion won in May but remained below January’s 1.1429 trillion won. The monthly figures show persistent outward movement despite substantial changes in the amounts transferred.

The gap also remained large during the second quarter. Between April and June, net stablecoin outflows reached 1.6872 trillion won. During the same period, Korean retail investors recorded 1.6185 trillion won in net sales of overseas stocks, according to Korea Securities Depository figures cited by Yonhap.

In June alone, overseas stock purchases exceeded sales by $472.54 million, or about 722 billion won using the month’s average exchange rate. Stablecoin net outflows therefore equaled 77.6% of Korean investors’ net overseas stock purchases. However, the comparison does not prove that both flows involved the same investors or strategies.

Overseas derivatives appear to drive stablecoin demand

The report said the transferred stablecoins are “believed to be used mainly” for products unavailable on domestic exchanges. These include crypto and equity derivatives, tokenized real-world assets, decentralized finance services and staking products.

Some overseas platforms offer futures and other leveraged products linked to cryptocurrencies and major Korean stocks, including Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix and Hyundai Motor. However, the FSS figures track transfers between exchanges rather than each wallet’s final activity. The proposed connection to specific products remains an estimate, not a transaction-by-transaction finding.

The overseas shift comes as domestic trading activity has weakened. Crypto.news reported that trading volume across the five major won exchanges fell 54.6% year over year during the first half of 2026. Lower local activity provides context, although the available data does not establish it as the cause of the overseas transfers.

Investor protection pressure meets delayed legislation

Lee called for faster safeguards, saying investors were “being left defenseless against high-risk derivatives on foreign exchanges.” He asked the government to review its investor protection and management framework as more funds move offshore.

South Korea is already working on broader digital asset rules. At a March 4 Virtual Asset Committee meeting, the Financial Services Commission discussed exchange internal controls, security standards, strict compensation duties and possible rules for stablecoin issuers. The commission said it planned further consultations before legislation moved forward.

However, the details remain unsettled. In January, the FSC cautioned that major provisions covering stablecoin issuers and ownership structures had not been finalized.

More recently, as crypto.news reported, the regulator told lawmakers it intended to prepare a consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act covering stablecoins, exchanges, disclosures and operational controls.

The next monthly exchange data will show whether July extended the outflow streak to 19 months. Regulators may also face pressure to distinguish ordinary cross-border transfers from flows connected to leveraged derivatives, DeFi and other higher-risk services.

For now, the June figures document movements between Korean and overseas exchanges. They do not identify individual users, destination platforms or final investments. Any policy response will depend on further regulatory reviews and progress on the Digital Asset Basic Act.

Federal prosecutors are continuing to litigate the fallout from the collapse of FTX, as defense teams push back on what juries can hear and how certain market activities are regulated. In the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Michelle Bond—whose husband, former FTX executive Ryan Salame, is serving a 90-month sentence after pleading guilty in 2023—has asked the court to block references to that guilty plea in a campaign finance case.

At the same time, other SDNY-related crypto-adjacent legal fights are highlighting how prediction markets and event contracts can collide with insider-trading and commodity regulation arguments. Separate actions involving a former congressman’s Kalshi trades and a US soldier accused of making a large Polymarket bet underscore that courts may soon be forced to clarify both evidentiary rules and the legal classification of event contracts.

Key takeaways

• Michelle Bond’s legal team asked SDNY to exclude evidence tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing it has little relevance to Bond’s alleged intent or knowledge.
• In a separate CFTC case, former New York Rep. George Santos was ordered to pay $35,000 over trades on Kalshi’s event contracts, with the regulator citing misleading posts about his planned attendance at the 2026 State of the Union.
• A US soldier accused of earning more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts is seeking dismissal, challenging whether the Commodity Exchange Act can clearly apply to event contracts as “swaps.”
• Across these matters, the central pressure points are evidentiary fairness for defendants and regulatory clarity for prediction-market participants.

Bond seeks to bar Salame’s guilty plea in campaign finance fight

According to a Friday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Michelle Bond’s attorneys asked the court to preclude the government from introducing evidence about Ryan Salame’s guilty plea or any “related plea materials” in her campaign finance case.

Bond faces charges over alleged unlawful campaign funding tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. The prosecution’s theory, as described in the filing, is that contributions supporting Bond’s campaign were partially funded through FTX arrangements facilitated by Salame.

Salame pleaded guilty in 2023 and is currently serving a 90-month sentence connected to conduct arising from FTX’s 2022 collapse. In Bond’s motion, her lawyers argued that Salame’s plea—where he admitted to making political contributions in Bond’s name funded by transfers from accounts associated with an FTX-linked entity—should not be treated as evidence against Bond herself.

“The Court should preclude the government from introducing or referring to Mr. Salame’s guilty plea or any related plea materials, because their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Bond,” the filing states.

Bond’s team further said that the plea materials do not meaningfully bear on Bond’s state of mind. They characterized the plea as an admission of Salame’s own guilt, not proof of Bond’s knowledge or participation in the charged conduct, quoting from the motion: “[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”

How personal litigation could become part of the argument

Bond’s motion also requested that the court allow information connected to her “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.” Her lawyers appear to be positioning that personal context to rebut the government’s characterization of Bond as an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor,” despite her and Salame having divorced before the alleged criminal conduct.

While the filing’s request reflects a broader strategy often used in criminal litigation—attempting to shape how jurors interpret the campaign contributions and the parties’ relationship—the court’s decision will determine what personal-history evidence, if any, is ultimately presented.

CFTC penalizes George Santos for Kalshi event-contract trading

Separate from the FTX-linked litigation, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued an order involving George Santos, a former member of the US House of Representatives who was expelled from Congress in 2023. The CFTC ordered Santos to pay $17,500 in a civil monetary penalty plus $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned through prediction market trading on Kalshi.

According to the CFTC, the relevant trades were tied to event contracts betting on whether Santos would appear at the 2026 State of the Union in Washington, DC. The regulator said Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the event, and that these posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”

The CFTC added that after the posts, contract prices moved in a direction favorable to Santos’ positions, enabling him to earn over $17,500.

As part of the CFTC order, Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years.

The case also sits in the shadow of Santos’ criminal proceedings. Earlier coverage notes Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison in 2025 for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, though he served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump, as reflected in the article’s background.

Polymarket insider-trading allegations tested under “swap” debate

A more direct challenge to prediction-market regulation is underway in another SDNY matter. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier accused of making more than $400,000 trading Polymarket event contracts, is attempting to dismiss the indictment.

As outlined in the background of the case, prosecutors allege that Van Dyke traded using nonpublic information connected to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The US Department of Justice alleges he used that alleged insider information to wager on whether Maduro would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges filed in April.

In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s attorneys submitted a 51-page memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss. Among other arguments, they contend that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) is ambiguous in how it treats event contracts as “swaps,” which is relevant to three of the charges.

Van Dyke’s lawyers argue that the ambiguity affects basic fairness: if the “swap” definition is not clear across Congress, agencies, and courts, ordinary citizens may lack “fair notice” that their prediction-market wagers fall under the CEA.

“If Congress, executive branch agencies, and courts all find the ‘swap’ definition ambiguous, how can ordinary citizens have fair notice that prediction market wagers are covered by the CEA?” the filing asks.

The defense also contrasts with the position taken by the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig, which has argued it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps.” The dismissal motion suggests that—at least for some counts—those jurisdictional assumptions may not survive if the law is too unclear.

Why these cases matter beyond one courtroom

Taken together, the filings point to two urgent fault lines for the crypto-adjacent prediction market space: what evidence courts allow juries to consider when guilt and intent are contested, and whether the regulatory framework—especially the CEA’s treatment of event contracts—offers enough clarity for enforcement.

As courts weigh motions like Bond’s request to exclude plea materials and Van Dyke’s bid to dismiss based on legal ambiguity, traders, builders, and public officials using event-contract platforms may want to watch how judges define relevance, prejudice, and “fair notice.” The next procedural rulings could signal how far prosecutors can stretch existing statutes—and how tightly defendants can force regulators to justify their classification theories.

Holders of Strategy’s (MSTR) high-yielding preferred stock STRC will not see a dividend increase in August.

Led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, Strategy is maintaining the current 12% dividend on the shares.

STRC investors may have been expecting as much as a 50-basis-point hike in the dividend as Strategy has customarily raised the payout anytime the stock traded sizably below its par value ($100) for the month.

As recently as July 1, Strategy had lifted the dividend 50 basis points following June’s plunge in STRC to as low as $71.

While that hike — along with Strategy’s sale of some bitcoin to fund dividends, and a bit of stabilization in the price of bitcoin — helped STRC bounce in July to the current $89.46, that level is still significantly below par.

CEO Phong Le yesterday said Strategy’s Corporate Objective is for STRC to trade at $99-$100 over time.

Nevertheless, the company is under no obligation to raise the dividend and chose not to do so this month.

A Friday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeks to limit what prosecutors can use in the campaign-finance case involving Michelle Bond, the wife of former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame.

Bond’s attorneys argued that evidence tied to Salame’s 2023 guilty plea—while relevant to his own conduct—should not be admitted against her because it carries a risk of unfair prejudice and, in their view, offers little direct proof of Bond’s knowledge or intent. The motion also asks the court to factor in details from Bond’s contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.

Key takeaways

• Michelle Bond wants the court to exclude evidence and “related plea materials” tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing they are not probative of her state of mind.
• Bond’s campaign-finance charges stem from allegations that contributions to her 2022 congressional bid were influenced by FTX-linked activity facilitated by Salame.
• The SDNY motion also requests inclusion of information about Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings, contending she was not an “ordinary” donor.
• Separately, the CFTC ordered former congressman George Santos to pay $35,000 in total—$17,500 in penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement—over trades connected to Kalshi prediction market event contracts.
• A soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts linked to a military operation asked the SDNY court to dismiss charges, citing ambiguity in how “swap” definitions apply to event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Bond asks SDNY to keep Salame’s guilty plea out of her case

Bond faces campaign finance charges tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. According to the criminal allegations, contributions to her campaign were partly funded through FTX-related channels that were facilitated by her husband, Ryan Salame.

In the latest SDNY filing, Bond’s legal team asked the court to preclude prosecutors from introducing Salame’s guilty plea and related plea materials. The filing points to the core logic of the request: Bond is not being tried for Salame’s admissions, and the defense claims the government’s use of those materials would not meaningfully establish Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent.

Bond’s attorneys argued that Salame’s plea is an admission of his own conduct, not evidence about Bond’s mental state or participation in the charged offense. They said the materials’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Bond.

Prosecutors are expected to weigh heavily on the narrative connecting alleged campaign funding to the conduct of individuals tied to FTX’s collapse. Bond’s motion, however, signals an effort to narrow what jurors are allowed to consider—particularly evidence that may influence them emotionally or circumstantially rather than strictly proving the elements of the charges against her.

Why the defense is raising divorce and custody proceedings

Alongside the evidentiary dispute over Salame’s plea, Bond’s filing also requested that the court include information related to Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings that were underway around the same time as the alleged crime.

Bond’s lawyers’ position is that the circumstances of her family life affect how her campaign-related donor status should be viewed. The filing argues that Bond should not be treated as an ordinary individual donor solely because she is facing personal charges in connection with her political bid, even if she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged conduct.

Whether and to what extent these family-law details will be admissible is likely to be a key procedural issue. It can shape the tone and framing of the case—especially if the government seeks to portray the campaign finances as closely connected to Salame’s network rather than to Bond’s independent circumstances.

George Santos ordered to pay over Kalshi predictions market trading

In a separate development involving prediction markets, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ordered former New York representative George Santos—who was expelled from Congress in 2023—to pay a total of $35,000. The figure breaks down into a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement of profits.

The regulator said the action was tied to Santos trading on event contracts on Kalshi connected to whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC. The CFTC stated that Santos made social media posts about his plans to attend or not attend the event and that those posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”

According to the CFTC, after the posts, the contract prices moved in a way that became favorable to Santos’ positions and allowed him to make more than $17,500.

As part of the same order, Santos was barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years. The order also comes against the backdrop of criminal proceedings: Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by U.S. President Donald Trump, as noted in earlier reporting.

Polymarket insider-trading allegations head toward dismissal arguments

Another SDNY filing, this time from the defense of Gannon Ken Van Dyke, challenges the legal foundation of allegations that he profited from Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information.

The U.S. Justice Department says Van Dyke was involved in a military operation connected to the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, and prosecutors allege he later used insider information to bet whether Maduro would be removed from power—leading to criminal charges announced in April. The defense filing argues Van Dyke is facing accusations involving more than $400,000 in alleged profits from Polymarket event contracts.

Van Dyke’s attorneys filed a 51-page memo supporting a motion to dismiss the indictment based on multiple legal theories. One focus is the Commodity Exchange Act’s treatment of event contracts as “swaps,” which the defense characterizes as ambiguous.

While the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has asserted that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers say the uncertainty itself is enough to dismiss at least some charges. In the filing, they argue that if lawmakers, executive agencies, and courts consider the “swap” definition ambiguous, then ordinary citizens cannot reasonably have fair notice that prediction market wagers fall under the CEA.

The case is expected to proceed on a timeline that could lead to trial in late 2026 or early 2027, based on a schedule submitted in June, and Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The defense’s arguments also extend beyond Van Dyke’s personal exposure. The filing suggests the ruling could matter for lawmakers and government officials who have used prediction markets in connection with political events or public statements. Earlier coverage referenced by the filing indicates that Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly placed more than $100,000 in bets on Kalshi event contracts tied to presidential speeches, underscoring how prediction markets can draw interest from political circles.

Across these cases, courts are being asked to decide what evidence is fair game, what definitions govern crypto-adjacent instruments, and how much clarity regulators must provide before individuals can be held criminally liable—issues that could determine how future crypto and prediction-market enforcement plays out.