Crypto World
SEC Regulation Crypto: $75m exemption explained
While Washington’s attention fixes on whether the CLARITY Act can find seven Democratic votes before the August recess, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been quietly assembling the framework that governs American crypto if the bill dies, and much of it even if the bill passes.
Summary
- Regulation Crypto would create a four-year startup exemption for crypto projects raising up to 5 million dollars per year.
- A separate fundraising exemption would let more mature issuers raise up to 75 million dollars annually with lighter disclosure than full registration.
- The safe harbor would give tokens a defined path out of securities classification once issuer-led managerial efforts permanently end.
- The rule could operate alongside the CLARITY Act, but if the bill fails, it may become the main US crypto capital-formation framework.
- The biggest fights ahead are over dollar thresholds, decentralization standards, investor protections, and litigation risk.
On July 7, the agency confirmed plans to formally propose Regulation Crypto, its first major crypto-specific rulemaking under Chair Paul Atkins. The proposal, expected to run past 400 pages, sits under review at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the final gate before publication for public comment, and Atkins has said release is expected shortly after that review completes.
The package does three concrete things. It gives new crypto projects a startup exemption from full securities registration for up to four years while they build toward network maturity, raising up to 5 million dollars annually against whitepaper-style disclosures. It creates a fundraising exemption allowing more mature issuers to raise up to 75 million dollars in any 12-month period with audited financials and semiannual reporting, a burden far lighter than full registration. And it writes an investment contract safe harbor: a rules-based path for a token to exit securities classification entirely once its issuer has permanently ceased the essential managerial efforts that made it an investment contract in the first place.
Atkins has repeatedly described the framework as a bridge to the CLARITY Act. The description is honest and incomplete at the same time. A bridge implies something temporary that the statute replaces; in reality, Regulation Crypto answers questions the bill does not reach, will operate for years regardless of the Senate outcome, and, if the bill fails, becomes the entire de facto constitution of American crypto capital formation. This feature decodes what the rule actually does, where it came from, why Senate Democrats consider it an end-run, and what it means for the market that one of these two frameworks is arriving no matter what happens in the next three weeks.
The taxonomy underneath: five buckets instead of one question
Regulation Crypto did not appear from nothing. Its foundation is a joint SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission interpretive release from March 17, 2026, which replaced the enforcement era’s single endless question, is this token a security, with a working taxonomy of five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. Under the interpretation, only digital securities, tokenized versions of traditional financial instruments, remain fully subject to the securities laws. The other categories may still trigger securities obligations if sold as part of an investment contract, which is where the Howey analysis survives, but the default presumption flipped: most tokens are not securities by nature, and the legal question becomes how they were sold, not what they are.
Atkins introduced the exemption framework the same day, in a speech at the DC Blockchain Summit titled Regulation Crypto Assets: A Token Safe Harbor, and the agency submitted the proposed rules to the White House within the week. The sequencing matters for understanding what kind of project this is. The interpretive release stated how the agency reads existing law; interpretations bind nobody and evaporate with the next chair. The proposed rule converts the reading into formal regulation, with notice, comment, and the full Administrative Procedure Act process, which makes it dramatically harder to unwind. The past year’s accommodations, staff guidance, no-action letters, dropped enforcement actions, carry no binding force at all; a future commission could reverse them by memo. A finalized Regulation Crypto could only be undone by a new rulemaking that survives its own comment period and litigation. Durability is the entire point, and durability is exactly what the industry has said it needs.
The chair’s broader agenda frames the rule as one panel of a triptych. Atkins has described crypto market structure, custody, and capital formation as the agency’s three crypto priorities, with the stated goal of making the United States the leading crypto capital. He has asked staff to evaluate letting non-security crypto assets that were sold under investment contracts trade on venues not registered with the Commission, to clear paths for state-licensed platforms to list such assets, and to let CFTC-regulated platforms offer them with margin. He also shut down the agency’s crypto innovation hub, arguing the Gensler-era version was so tainted that industry participants feared subpoenas after visiting, a symbolic demolition that tells its own story about how completely the agency’s posture has inverted.
The three exemptions, decoded
The startup exemption is the on-ramp. A new project receives up to four years of relief from full registration while it develops its network, during which it can raise up to 5 million dollars per year. The disclosure standard is principles-based and deliberately modeled on what serious projects already publish: whitepaper-style documentation of the technology, the token economics, and the team, plus required financial statements to investors. The four-year clock is the regulatory embodiment of an idea the industry has argued since 2018, that decentralization takes time, and that forcing registration at launch, when a network is inescapably centralized, guarantees either noncompliance or offshoring. The exemption’s wager is that a project given four lawful years will either mature into something the safe harbor releases or grow into something the fundraising tier can carry.
The fundraising exemption is the growth pathway, and its design is more conservative than the headline suggests. The 75 million dollar annual cap is borrowed directly from Regulation A+, the existing exemption for smaller public offerings by conventional issuers; Atkins adapted a tested framework instead of inventing one. The obligations scale accordingly: audited financial statements and ongoing semiannual reporting, meaningfully heavier than the startup tier’s whitepaper standard, meaningfully lighter than a full registration. For the mid-sized token issuer, the practical effect is a lawful domestic alternative to the offshore foundation structures that became the industry’s default architecture, with a compliance bill measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of tens of millions.
The investment contract safe harbor is the philosophical core and the piece with no statutory parallel. It answers the question the Torres ruling in the Ripple case raised but could not settle: when does a token that was sold as a security stop being one? The safe harbor’s answer is a rule-based test keyed to managerial effort. Once an issuer has permanently ceased the essential managerial functions that investors relied on, the token exits securities classification, full stop. That converts decentralization from a rhetorical claim into a compliance milestone with legal consequences, and it gives every project in the startup tier a defined destination. It is also, not coincidentally, the provision that most directly generalizes the industry’s hardest-won litigation outcomes into standing law, the same conceptual territory Ripple spent 150 million dollars mapping, as the token-versus-sale distinction moved from courtroom argument to regulatory architecture.
The objection: an agency legislating around the legislature
Senate Democrats have noticed that the SEC is building, by rule, much of what Congress has not agreed to build by statute, and their objection deserves a full hearing because it is not frivolous.
Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen wrote to Atkins directly, charging that the agency plans to exempt most cryptocurrencies from the securities laws with significant potential harm to investors, and calling on Congress to close the loopholes as it considers market structure legislation. Financial industry commenters have warned that broad exemptive relief could import cybersecurity risks, illicit-finance exposure, and flash-crash volatility into markets stripped of their traditional guardrails. The constitutional-order version of the critique is sharper still: an agency whose chair previously advised crypto firms is using administrative discretion to deliver, in advance, the deregulatory half of a bill the elected branch has not passed, while the accountability provisions Democrats attached to that bill, the ethics rules aimed at the president’s 2.3 billion dollars in crypto exposure, have no administrative equivalent and can only exist in statute. Regulation Crypto, on this reading, is not a bridge to CLARITY. It is a mechanism for harvesting CLARITY’s benefits without paying CLARITY’s political price, and every week it advances reduces the industry’s urgency to compromise on the ethics language currently blocking the bill, a standoff crypto.news has followed into its decisive month.
The rebuttal has two layers. Legally, exemptive authority is not a loophole; Congress wrote it into the securities laws deliberately, and Regulation A+, Regulation D, and Regulation Crowdfunding are all products of the same power. An agency tailoring registration requirements to a novel asset class through notice-and-comment rulemaking is the administrative state working as designed, and the courts, not letters, will test whether this rule exceeds the statute. Practically, the alternative to Regulation Crypto is not the status quo Democrats prefer; it is the pre-2025 regime of regulation by enforcement that a federal judge partially repudiated and that nearly dissolved companies later vindicated. Between an imperfect rule with a comment period and an enforcement lottery with none, the rule is the more accountable instrument, whatever one thinks of its content.
What both sides quietly agree on is the stakes of reversibility. Democrats want the ethics and consumer provisions in statute because statutes bind future administrations; the industry wants the exemptions in a finalized rule for precisely the same reason. The entire fight, in Congress and at the agency simultaneously, is about who gets to make their preferences durable first.
How the agency got here: from Hinman speech to Howey off-ramp
The rule reads differently with a decade of institutional history attached, because every one of its provisions answers a specific wound.
The startup exemption answers the original sin of the ICO era. In 2017 and 2018, hundreds of projects raised capital from Americans with no disclosure standard at all, the agency responded with a wave of enforcement that treated every token sale as an unregistered offering, and the surviving industry drew the obvious lesson: incorporate in Zug, exclude Americans, and disclose nothing. The exemption’s whitepaper-based standard is a wager that a lawful middle existed all along, and that the agency’s refusal to build it, not the industry’s refusal to use it, drove a decade of capital formation offshore.
The safe harbor answers the Hinman problem. In 2018, a senior SEC official famously suggested in a speech that Ether, whatever its origins, had become sufficiently decentralized that its sales were no longer securities transactions. The industry spent years trying to hold the agency to that logic, the agency spent years insisting the speech was one man’s opinion, and the internal documents Coinbase later pried loose in litigation showed officials themselves could not agree on what the standard was. Commissioner Hester Peirce proposed a formal token safe harbor twice, in 2020 and 2021, and was ignored by her own agency both times. The current safe harbor is Peirce’s idea with Atkins’ signature, arriving seven years after the speech that made everyone realize the question had no answer.
And the fundraising tier answers the enforcement era’s quietest casualty: the mid-sized compliant issuer that never existed because there was no rule to comply with. Between the 5 million dollar seed rounds that Regulation D could awkwardly cover and the public listings that only exchanges and miners attempted, an entire capitalization band of the industry simply had no American on-ramp. Borrowing Regulation A+’s 75 million dollar ceiling is the agency conceding that the band was a regulatory artifact, not a market verdict.
The arc from Gensler to Atkins, from an agency that sued first and declined to write rules even under court order, to an agency proposing 400 pages of them, is the sharpest institutional reversal in modern financial regulation, and it happened without a single statute changing. That fact is the strongest argument for the rule and the strongest argument against relying on it, at the same time.
What can still change: the comment period is not a formality
Between OIRA clearance and a final rule stand months of process in which the package’s most important parameters remain genuinely contestable, and market participants pricing the framework as finished are early.
The dollar thresholds are the obvious pressure point. Consumer advocates and Senate Democrats will push the 75 million dollar ceiling down and load the startup tier with conditions; industry commenters will push for inflation indexing and aggregate-cap clarity, since the current design names annual limits without a publicly specified lifetime ceiling. The decentralization test inside the safe harbor is the subtle one. Permanently ceased essential managerial efforts is a phrase that will absorb tens of thousands of comment pages, because it decides whether the off-ramp is a real destination or a mirage: too strict, and no foundation-supported network ever qualifies; too loose, and every project theatrically dissolves its team on paper while running development through affiliates. The illicit-finance overlay is the political one. The same law enforcement coalition currently fighting the CLARITY Act’s developer protections, a split crypto.news dissected as the Senate vote approached, will demand that exempted issuers carry monitoring obligations the statute never imposed, and the agency’s answer will determine whether the exemptions are usable by actually decentralized projects or only by companies that look like broker-dealers with extra steps.
Litigation risk frames all of it. A finalized rule this consequential draws challenges from both flanks: investor-protection groups arguing the agency exceeded its exemptive authority by hollowing out registration, and, conceivably, industry plaintiffs attacking whatever conditions survive comment. Post-Chevron, courts owe the agency’s statutory reading no deference, and a single adverse circuit decision could stay the framework for years. This is the structural reason Atkins keeps calling the rule a bridge and pressing Congress to act anyway: he is building the most durable thing an agency can build while publicly acknowledging it is the second-most durable thing available.
Regulation Crypto versus the CLARITY Act: substitutes, complements, or race
Mapping the two frameworks against each other shows they overlap less than the political rhetoric implies, which is why the with-or-without framing in this feature’s title is literal.
The CLARITY Act’s center of gravity is market structure: which agency supervises trading, how exchanges and brokers register, how the CFTC gains spot authority over digital commodities, how developers escape money transmitter liability. Regulation Crypto’s center of gravity is capital formation: how tokens are launched, funded, and eventually released from securities status. The bill barely touches primary issuance mechanics; the rule barely touches secondary market supervision. A world with both is coherent: CLARITY sorts the assets and assigns the regulators, Regulation Crypto governs how new assets are born. Atkins’ bridge metaphor undersells his own product; the honest description is that the rule is the bill’s missing chapter, written by the agency because the legislature never drafted one.
The substitution effect appears only in the failure scenario, and there it is nearly total. If the Senate misses the August window and the 2030 warnings prove accurate, Regulation Crypto plus the March taxonomy plus the CFTC’s stretched existing authority become the entire American framework: token launches under the exemptions, classifications under the five buckets, trading under a patchwork the rule’s platform provisions try to rationalize. That regime would function, and its existence is precisely what Galaxy Research and others cite when they note that CLARITY’s failure would be a slow bleed rather than a catastrophe. But it would be a framework resting on one commission’s rulemaking, contestable in court, reversible by a hostile successor with patience, and silent on everything from illicit finance funding to the ethics questions that stalled the bill. The GENIUS Act fight already previewed what statute-versus-regulator arguments look like when real money is at stake, with state and federal authorities wrestling over stablecoin turf in a battle crypto.news covered throughout its Senate run, and the yield wars that followed passage show how much conflict survives even a signed law, a standoff crypto.news has tracked between banks and issuers over 6 trillion dollars in deposits.
There is also a timing race with the bill’s own politics. The rule’s OIRA review and comment period run on an administrative calendar indifferent to the Senate’s. If the merged CLARITY draft stalls on ethics while Regulation Crypto publishes for comment, the industry’s cost of legislative failure drops in real time, which weakens the coalition pressing moderate Democrats and strengthens the members arguing the bill can wait. Agency action meant as a bridge can function as an off-ramp. The three weeks in which both instruments reach their decisive stages, the merged bill text and the published rule, will reveal which metaphor the market believes.
What it means for issuers, and the European mirror
Before the issuer decision tree, the market implications deserve a paragraph of their own, because the rule reprices assets that already exist, not just launches that have not happened. Tokens whose largest discount is classification ambiguity, the mid-cap layer ones, the DeFi governance assets, the infrastructure tokens that trade below comparable revenue because American institutions cannot categorize them, gain a defined path to non-security status through the safe harbor even if the CLARITY Act never assigns them a commodity label. Exchange listing committees, which spent the enforcement era rationing US availability by litigation risk, get a compliance framework to point to. And the venture pipeline reopens domestically: funds that structured around offshore token warrants for a decade can underwrite American issuance with actual rules attached, which changes where the next cycle’s projects incorporate, hire, and pay taxes. None of this requires the rule to be generous. It requires the rule to exist, because the binding constraint was never severity. It was undefined risk, the one input no allocation committee can price.
For anyone actually launching a token, the practical decision tree changes shape the moment the rule publishes. A credible path now exists to raise seed capital domestically under the startup tier, scale through the 75 million dollar pathway with audit-grade disclosure, and target the safe harbor as the legal finish line where the token sheds its securities character by verifiable decentralization. The offshore foundation, the airdrop-to-avoid-sale contortions, and the deliberate exclusion of American buyers, the entire defensive architecture of the past eight years, become choices rather than necessities. The projects most affected are the serious middle: too big for a fair launch to fund, too small to carry registration costs, which describes most of the infrastructure layer the industry claims to want.
The comparison that will define the rule’s success is the one across the Atlantic. Europe’s MiCA regime just completed its transition, locking unlicensed firms out of a 30-country market and elevating the licensed few, a sorting crypto.news documented as the deadline hit. MiCA’s strength is comprehensiveness backed by statute; its weakness is rigidity, a stablecoin regime severe enough to expel the largest issuer on earth. Regulation Crypto inverts the trade: flexible, innovation-forward, and administratively fast, but resting on agency authority in a country where agencies change hands every four years. An American founder in 2026 chooses between a European rulebook that cannot easily be improved and an American one that cannot easily be trusted. The CLARITY Act is, among everything else, an attempt to give the American framework the one property it lacks, and the rule arriving with or without it is both the industry’s insurance policy and the bill’s quiet competitor.
The decode, compressed: Regulation Crypto is the most consequential piece of American crypto policy that almost nobody outside Washington is reading, precisely because it advances on the boring calendar of administrative law while the Senate supplies the drama. Four-year runways, 75 million dollar raises, and a legal exit from securities status are arriving through the Federal Register, on a timeline no filibuster can touch and no recess interrupts. The comment period will bend the parameters, the courts may test the boundaries, and a future commission could someday attempt the long unwind. What no plausible scenario now delivers is a return to the world where the only American rulebook was a lawsuit. The only question the Senate’s three weeks will answer is whether the new rulebook arrives as a chapter of a statute or as the whole book.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
The U.S. government transferred nearly $297 million in seized Bitcoin and Ether to Coinbase Prime on Monday, according to blockchain data.
Summary
- U.S. government wallets transferred nearly $297 million in seized Bitcoin and Ether to Coinbase Prime.
- The Bitcoin movement renewed questions about compliance with Trump’s strategic reserve order banning government sales.
- Coinbase Prime supports custody and trading, so the transfers do not prove an immediate liquidation.
The move renewed questions about how federal agencies plan to handle crypto covered by President Donald Trump’s reserve policy.
The transfers included about 3,940 BTC worth roughly $244 million and around 30,000 ETH valued near $53 million at the time. Arkham’s government wallet tracker recorded the movements, although changing market prices can alter their dollar value.
Seized Bitcoin and Ether reach Coinbase Prime
Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn linked the Bitcoin to seizures involving Ryan Farace, known online as “Xanaxman,” and the closed BTC-e exchange.
“These coin movements were comprised of coins seized from Ryan Farace and defunct crypto exchange BTC-e,” Thorn said.
The Ether came from wallets tied to Brian Krewson, an Oracle employee connected to a federal case involving crypto storage and money laundering. The transfers brought assets from several enforcement cases into an institutional platform used by government agencies and large investors.
Transfer does not confirm a government sale
A deposit to Coinbase Prime can allow trading, but it does not prove that officials plan to sell the assets. Coinbase Prime provides custody, execution, financing and staking services. Federal agencies may use the platform to consolidate wallets or move assets into managed custody.
The U.S. Marshals Service selected Coinbase Prime in 2024 to safeguard and trade certain forfeited digital assets. Government wallets have since sent funds to the platform several times. As reported by crypto.news, authorities moved nearly $984,000 in FTX and Alameda-linked crypto in June, with about $768,000 reaching Coinbase Prime.
Trump reserve order limits Bitcoin sales
Trump’s March 2025 executive order created a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate stockpile for other digital assets. The order says Bitcoin placed in the reserve “shall not be sold” and must remain a U.S. reserve asset.
The order also allows some exceptions under existing law. Agencies may return assets to verified victims, use them for law enforcement work or follow a court order. Ether and other non-Bitcoin holdings fall under the separate digital asset stockpile, where the Treasury can set stewardship plans within its legal authority.
Reserve structure remains unsettled
The latest movement comes while federal agencies still debate who should manage the Bitcoin reserve.Treasury and Commerce have discussed control of seized BTC while officials review custody, legal authority and the need for new legislation.
Government-linked wallets still hold about $20.5 billion in crypto, based on current tracker estimates. Bitcoin accounts for most of the total, with roughly 325,000 BTC. The wallets also hold Ether, Tether, wrapped Bitcoin and other seized assets, although public trackers may not identify every federal address.
The recorded balance can change quickly because crypto prices move throughout the day. It can also change when courts order restitution, agencies transfer custody, or investigators identify new wallets. Public dashboards therefore provide estimates rather than a complete official federal accounting.
The Monday transfers ranked among the largest government-linked moves to Coinbase Prime in 2026. In April,a federal wallet sent 2.438 BTC from a separate criminal case to the platform.
On-chain records show where funds moved, but they do not reveal the government’s final instructions to Coinbase Prime. A confirmed sale would require further wallet activity, trading records or an official statement. Until then, the transaction remains a custody or asset-management move rather than proof of liquidation.
A solo bitcoin miner recently hit the jackpot in a lottery-like stroke of luck, turning a modest investment into an outsized gain.
The miner equipped with a small, hobbyist-grade device called a Bitaxe recently struck Bitcoin block number 957,382 and walked away with 3.1382 BTC, worth roughly $200,000.
The miner was running the rig for just eight hours through the Public Pool service. His average hash rate? A measly 995 GH/s, or about 1 terahash per second.
This marks the second time a single Bitaxe has solo-mined a block on Public Pool.
Data tracking handle Public Pool posted the win on X.
What is a Bitaxe?
It’s an open-source, credit-card-sized ASIC miner powered by the same Bitmain BM1370 chip found in massive industrial Antminer S21 machines. The Bitaxe Gamma version pumps out 1 to 1.3 TH/s while using just 15-21 watts of power. You can buy one for $60 to $150.
Think of it as the mining equivalent of winning the lottery with a scratch-off ticket from a gas station.
Solo mining is having a moment
This isn’t the first time a solo miner has made big gains on a small investment.
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act has secured support from a second law enforcement organization before a Senate push.
Summary
- FLEOA backed the CLARITY Act while requesting tighter accountability rules for decentralized finance platforms nationwide.
- The endorsement follows NOBLE’s support, giving the bill two major law enforcement backers before recess.
- Senators face an August deadline as disputes over developer protections and investigative powers remain unresolved.
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association said it supports H.R. 3633 but wants lawmakers to revise several provisions before passage.
In a July 10 statement, FLEOA said the bill “represents meaningful progress” toward balancing digital asset development with public safety. The group represents more than 34,000 active and retired federal officers across over 65 agencies.
FLEOA backs the bill but seeks DeFi changes
FLEOA asked the Senate Banking Committee to make accountability clearer in decentralized finance, or DeFi. It also wants language that prevents companies from avoiding regulation by presenting controlled services as decentralized. The association urged senators to replace the bill’s “specific intent” test with an existing knowledge standard.
The group also asked Congress to state clearly that the legislation does not reduce current federal investigative powers or block lawful court processes. FLEOA said agencies must retain authority covering criminal cases, anti-money laundering rules, sanctions and counterterrorism financing. National President Mathew Silverman said officers need tools to investigate complex financial crimes.
Endorsement adds to a divided law enforcement debate
The support follows the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives’ endorsement earlier in July. As previously reported, NOBLE became the first major law enforcement group to publicly back the bill.
Ji Kim, CEO of the Crypto Council for Innovation, said FLEOA’s position showed the measure was strong on consumer protection and law enforcement.
Other organizations have raised concerns about Section 604. The provision would protect some software developers and non-custodial service providers from being treated as money transmitters when they do not control customer funds. As reported by crypto.news, four law enforcement groups warned that broad protections could make some crypto crime investigations harder.
In addition, the Department of Justice later challenged parts of those claims.The agency viewed some warnings about lost enforcement powers as inaccurate. The Major County Sheriffs of America also moved from opposition to a neutral position after further talks over Section 604.
Senate faces a narrowing August window
The Senate’s published 2026 schedule places its August state work period from Aug. 10 through Sept. 11. That leaves Aug. 7 as the final scheduled session day before the break. As of July 14, the Senate’s public floor schedule did not list a vote on the CLARITY Act.
President Donald Trump urged the Senate to pass the measure on July 13, linking the appeal to the late Senator Lindsey Graham.The request came as negotiators worked to complete a merged draft before recess.
Senator Cynthia Lummis said on July 8, “This is likely our last chance to get real legislation for digital assets on the books before 2030.” She warned that other countries could set the rules if Congress fails to act.
Senate staff still need to align Banking and Agriculture Committee language before a final floor vote. The bill also needs bipartisan support to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
FLEOA’s endorsement gives supporters another law enforcement voice during negotiations. Its requested revisions show that questions over DeFi accountability, developer protections and investigative authority remain active before the scheduled summer break.
A new poll shows 79% of Americans bracing for a long US war with Iran. This comes as President Donald Trump told Congress that military action resumed on July 7, a move that frees the military for 60 more days without congressional approval.
The shift lands months before November’s midterms, where pump prices could cost Republicans their grip on Congress.
Most Americans Now Expect a Long War With Iran
The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 1,019 US adults over three days, closing Sunday. Only one in five, 18%, still expect the fighting to end within weeks. The rest see no quick exit.
Furthermore, only 37% backed the strikes, which restarted on June 26 after Washington blamed Tehran for hitting commercial ships.
Earlier surveys told a similar story. A Financial Times poll found 58% of voters judged the war not worth the cost. A separate Generation Lab survey of adults aged 18 to 34 found 77% called the strikes on Iran the wrong move.
Hormuz Blockade Reignites Market Fears
On Monday, Trump vowed to seal off Iranian ports near the strait and skim 20% off every cargo passing through. Tehran had already called the channel shut.
“The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran… The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT’… reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped,” he said.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Traders moved quickly. Crude climbed roughly 4%, and Bitcoin (BTC) slid to around $62,600 amid fears the chokepoint will remain snarled for a while.
The poll also revealed that 6 in 10 respondents expect gasoline to be costlier over the coming year. Pump prices already sit near $3.87 a gallon, far above where they stood before the war.
Meanwhile, the war has weighed on Trump’s standing. He has claimed a 59% approval rating, yet the New York Times tracker pegs him closer to 39%.
The stakes climb as the November midterms near. His sinking approval adds to the pressure on Republicans, who risk losing the House and possibly the Senate in November.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post 4 in 5 Americans Expect US-Iran War to Drag On, Survey Finds appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Binance has released its 44th proof-of-reserves report, showing that customer Bitcoin holdings increased during June while Ethereum and Tether balances declined.
Summary
- Binance users raised Bitcoin holdings 1.22%, adding 7,715 BTC during June, the latest snapshot showed.
- Ethereum and Tether balances declined, while Binance continued publishing monthly reserve data for customer verification.
- Reserve snapshots show account balances, but they cannot explain whether users bought, sold, or withdrew.
The report used a snapshot taken on July 1 and compared the figures with customer balances recorded on June 1.
Customer Bitcoin holdings rose 1.22% to about 640,000 BTC, an increase of 7,715 BTC. Ethereum holdings fell 1.41% to around 4.08 million ETH, a decline of 58,591 ETH. Customer Tether holdings dropped 1.51% to about 33.7 billion USDT, falling by roughly 510 million USDT.
Binance customer Bitcoin holdings continue rising
The July figures extend the rise in customer Bitcoin balances reported one month earlier. Binance users added 25,838 BTC in May, lifting their total holdings by 4.26% to about 630,000 BTC in the exchange’s 43rd proof-of-reserves report.
The latest increase was smaller than the previous month’s gain, but it kept customer BTC balances moving higher. The report does not show whether the change came from purchases, deposits, transfers between Binance services, or movements from other assets. It records balances at one point in time rather than individual customer activity.
Ethereum and USDT balances decline
Ethereum moved in the opposite direction after recording a strong increase in the previous report. Customer ETH holdings had risen 10.17% in May to about 4.14 million ETH. The July snapshot showed that the total fell by 58,591 ETH during June.
USDT balances also declined for a second monthly report. Binance users held about 34.3 billion USDT in the June 1 snapshot after balances fell by roughly 460 million tokens in May. The latest decrease brought the total to about 33.7 billion USDT. Lower stablecoin balances do not confirm that users converted USDT into Bitcoin or withdrew funds.
A similar pattern recently appeared at other major exchanges. As reported by crypto.news, Bybit and OKX recorded higher customer Bitcoin holdings while USDT balances fell in their latest reserve snapshots. However, the reports did not identify the reasons behind the balance changes.
Binance says customer assets remain backed
Binance states on its proof-of-reserves page that it holds customer assets on a 1:1 basis, along with additional reserves. The exchange uses Merkle Trees and zero-knowledge proofs to let customers check whether their account balances were included in the total liabilities covered by each report.
A proof-of-reserves report can show whether listed wallets hold assets linked to customer balances at the time of a snapshot. However, it does not provide a complete financial audit or explain every off-chain liability. A recent proof-of-reserves explainer noted that useful disclosures should remain recent, frequent and matched against customer liabilities.
The figures should therefore be read as a record of asset backing and customer balances on a specific date. They do not show the exchange’s complete financial position or the reasons customers moved assets between accounts, platforms or private wallets.
Report follows braoder changes at Binance
The latest reserve report arrived after a month of active derivatives trading. Binance recorded about $1.63 trillion in futures trading volume during June, its highest monthly total of 2026, according to CryptoQuant data.
Binance also introduced service changes for some European users when the European Union’s MiCA transition ended on July 1. As previously reported, the exchange said affected users could continue using options already communicated to them, including withdrawals where available. The date matched the snapshot used for the latest reserve report.
Earlier reserve rankings placed Binance ahead of other major exchanges. As reported by crypto.news, CoinMarketCap data ranked the platform first in January 2026 with about $155.6 billion in proof-of-reserve assets. The July report adds a new monthly view of customer balances, with BTC rising while ETH and USDT moved lower.
The U.S. government has transferred nearly $300 million worth of seized Bitcoin and Ether to Coinbase Prime, according to on-chain tracking data from Arkham. The move—sent from government-linked wallets to Coinbase’s institutional custody and services venue—has reignited questions about whether the assets will eventually be sold.
Arkham data indicates that on Monday, 3,940 BTC (valued at about $243.95 million) and 30,014 ETH (about $53.09 million) were deposited to Coinbase Prime. The transactions appear tied to multiple high-profile U.S. crypto seizures, making the transfer notable not only for its size, but for what it could signal about broader U.S. policy and asset management.
Key takeaways
- Arkham reports Monday’s deposits of 3,940 BTC and 30,014 ETH from U.S. government-linked wallets to Coinbase Prime.
- The transfers are associated with prior seizures, including assets linked to the “xanaxman” case and a crypto scheme involving Brian Krewson.
- While a sale is possible, the deposits alone do not confirm trading—Coinbase Prime also provides custody and related services that can be consistent with consolidation.
- The timing has drawn attention to an executive order stating seized Bitcoin should contribute to a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” potentially limiting direct sales.
- Government-linked wallets still hold substantial crypto assets, which means investors may continue to watch wallet activity for clues on long-term disposition.
Large government deposits to Coinbase Prime raise questions
According to Arkham, the U.S. government moved 3,940 Bitcoin and 30,014 Ether to Coinbase Prime on Monday. These transfers are among the largest government-linked movements to Coinbase Prime this year, reintroducing a familiar market narrative: when seized assets reach an exchange-adjacent custody provider, the next step could be liquidation—or it could be operational management.
Galaxy Research’s Alex Thorn characterized the Bitcoin portion by tracing the source of the coins to assets seized from ryan farace, known online as “xanaxman,” as well as from the defunct btc-e exchange. That framing matters because it connects wallet flows to known enforcement histories, helping analysts interpret what category of seized funds is being handled.
On the Ether side, the Arkham-linked association points to assets tied to Brian Krewson, an Oracle employee alleged to be implicated in a $54 million crypto storage and money laundering scheme. In practice, such linkages help observers determine which legal cases may be behind the assets and therefore what disposal pathways might exist.
Does this conflict with the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” directive?
The timing of the deposits has prompted renewed scrutiny of U.S. policy. The transfers have been compared to a March 2025 executive order under President Donald Trump that instructs seized Bitcoin should be part of a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” and “should not be sold.” That language is now in the spotlight because moving seized coins into an institutional venue like Coinbase Prime is often interpreted as a step toward potential disposition.
However, there is an important distinction between custody movements and confirmed sales. Coinbase Prime is not only a venue for trading; it also supplies institutional custody, trading capabilities, financing, and staking services. As a result, the act of depositing assets does not, by itself, prove that the government intends to liquidate them.
That nuance is likely to be central for market participants. If the U.S. is consolidating assets in a custody framework for administrative or technical reasons, holders may see continued inflows to Prime without immediate sell pressure. If, instead, subsequent steps show transfers to trading desks or to counterparties in a manner consistent with execution, the executive-order debate could evolve from interpretation to measurable outcomes.
Why Coinbase Prime deposits have become a recurring pattern
This is not the first time government-linked wallets have used Coinbase Prime. The new transfer stands out mainly by scale—yet earlier examples underline that such custody routing has already been part of the government’s operational playbook.
In June, a U.S. government-linked wallet moved 98,589 Chainlink (LINK) tokens to Coinbase Prime, with tracing reportedly connecting those assets to seizures involving FTX and Alameda Research. Earlier still, in April, approximately 8.2 Bitcoin tied to the 2016 Bitfinex hack was sent to Coinbase Prime.
These precedents suggest that using Coinbase Prime may serve multiple functions, from custody consolidation to enabling potential future actions depending on legal and administrative decisions. The key unknown for investors is whether Monday’s transaction is simply another custody step in an ongoing process—or whether it marks a shift toward liquidation planning.
What analysts estimate remains in government wallets
Even without assuming a sale, the broader picture remains significant. Estimates cited in the reporting indicate U.S. government-linked wallets still hold cryptocurrency valued at roughly $20.6 billion in total, including around 325,000 BTC, 28,000 ETH, 146 million USDT, and 750 Wrappd Bitcoin (WBTC).
Those holdings underscore why wallet monitoring has become a staple for market observers: large balances concentrated in identifiable government wallets can influence expectations about future supply and regulatory risk, especially during periods when traders are already sensitive to changes in liquidity and headline policy.
At the same time, the size of remaining holdings also makes the “how” more important than the “whether.” Investors may need to watch not only deposits to custody providers, but subsequent on-chain behavior that would suggest conversions, withdrawals to trading counterparties, or other actions that are more consistent with sales rather than custody management.
For now, the key watchpoints are whether additional government-linked transfers continue to concentrate assets at Coinbase Prime and whether follow-on transactions indicate execution rather than consolidation. Until clearer on-chain signals appear, Monday’s move looks more like a high-value custody step than proof of immediate selling.
Robinhood Chain ranked third among all networks by 24-hour decentralized exchange (DEX) volume, trailing only Solana (SOL) and BNB Smart Chain (BSC), while passing Ethereum (ETH), according to DefiLlama data.
The layer-2 network has been live since July 1, with daily DEX volume of about $811 million. Solana led with $1.21 billion, followed by BSC at $1.05 billion.
Robinhood Chain’s Fast Start
Bernstein flagged the network’s early strength in a Monday research note. Analysts led by Gautam Chhugani said the chain drew about $3.1 billion in DEX volume across its first seven days.
That total placed it among the top five chains. More than 65,000 users now hold roughly $13 million in tokenized stocks and $300 million in stablecoins on the network.
Bernstein said the network’s first week leaned heavily on speculation. Meme coins drove most of the early activity, and deeper liquidity followed once crypto-native traders moved in.
Meme Coins Lead, but Robinhood Eyes More
Dune data validates that read. Cash Cat (CASHCAT), a meme coin named after Robinhood’s early branding, leads all tokens. It logged $299 million in volume across 304,907 trades.
Bernstein expects the focus to shift over time. The broker said Robinhood aims to steer trading toward tokenized stocks, commodities, and perpetual futures.
The analysts framed the launch as evidence of converging trends.
“Strong early adoption highlights the growing convergence of tokenized real-world assets with the broader DeFi ecosystem, as industry participants continue to innovate across multiple business models for regulated asset tokenization,” the note read.
Other lines are gaining traction, too. Robinhood is expanding its agentic AI trading tool from stocks into crypto. At the same time, event contracts on its platform jumped from 300 million in Q1 2025 to 8.8 billion in Q1 2026, per Artemis.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The coming weeks will show whether that speculative flow converts into lasting demand for tokenized assets.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Robinhood Chain Passes Ethereum in DEX Volume 2 Weeks After Launch appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Long-time crypto trader Ogle warned on July 13 that small meme coins with limited liquidity can collapse within minutes when a few large holders decide to sell.
Pointing to recent losses around the latest sensation in the space, CASHCAT, the market watcher reiterated the risks in chasing fast-moving tokens, where paper gains can disappear really fast when leverage, thin markets, and concentrated ownership collide.
Why a Few Wallets Can Move the Whole Market
In a post on X, Ogle made a basic observation about this market: that a lot of people are sitting on hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars in gains that they have not actually cashed out. According to him, if even two or three of these traders were to sell, it would trigger a major price drop, especially for smaller meme coins.
“When a ton of people have made hundreds of $k or $m in a token, unrealized, in this type of market, it only takes 2-3 of them to sell (if the token is small, especially a meme with little liquidity) for everything to collapse quickly,” he wrote.
The analyst explained that the problem became even worse if the token was listed on perpetual futures exchanges, where traders often borrowed funds to place large bets.
He gave an example of CASHCAT, the meme coin built on the Robinhood Chain, that jumped more than 3,200% over the past week and briefly pushed its market cap to around $226 million about a day ago when its price hit an all-time high (ATH) of $0.2288 per CoinGecko data.
According to Lookonchain, that rally saw a few winners, including one trader who bought 15 million CASHCAT tokens for about $838 and turned that into a profit of over $1 million. However, had they waited a few more days, they would have walked away with nearly $2.9 million. Another trader spent $69 and sold for $711, which, while a tidy 10x on their investment, would have been worth $2.7 million had they also waited.
However, things may have also gone south for those traders since, as Ogle noted, the asset experienced some pretty big liquidations, which came right after the launch of a perpetual contract on Hyperliquid.
Data from CoinGecko shows CASHCAT’s value crashed by approximately 60% with about 90% of long positions liquidated, intensifying selling pressure and volatility. At the time of writing, the meme coin had made some recovery and was trading just below $0.16, although that price still represented an over 18% dip in 24 hours, pushing the coin more than 30% below its ATH.
Utility Tokens vs. Short-Term Meme Bets
In his X post, Ogle, who’s an advisor for the Trump family-backed World Liberty Financial, said that while meme coins can produce quick returns, his trading experience had seen him make the biggest gains from utility-focused assets such as Solana, BNB, Ethereum, Litecoin, and Bitcoin.
According to him, those investments are slower plays that require patience, and many traders often lose interest before the assets can deliver larger returns.
The post Crypto Veteran Warns: A Handful of Sellers Can Wipe Out Meme Coins in Minutes appeared first on CryptoPotato.
The US government moved nearly $300 million in seized Bitcoin and Ether to Coinbase Prime on Monday, renewing speculation that the assets could be sold.
Data from Arkham shows 3,940 Bitcoin (BTC) (worth $243.95 million) and 30,014 Ether (ETH) (worth $53.09 million) were sent to Coinbase Prime on Monday. The funds were linked to several high-profile US government crypto seizures.
“These coin movements were comprised of coins seized from ryan farace (“xanaxman”) and defunct crypto exchange btc-e,” said Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn, referring to the Bitcoin movements. The Ether is linked to Brian Krewson, an Oracle employee implicated in a $54 million crypto storage and money laundering scheme.
The transfers have drawn attention because a sale would appear to conflict with US President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order, which said Bitcoin seized by the US government should form part of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and should not be sold.
However, the deposits do not confirm a sale, as Coinbase Prime provides institutions with custody, trading, financing and staking services, meaning the transfers may simply reflect asset consolidation.
Related: US Bitcoin reserve hits snag as federal agencies debate for control: Bloomberg
Although the US government has previously transferred cryptocurrency to Coinbase Prime, Monday’s transfer was one of the largest from government-linked wallets this year.
In June, a US government-linked wallet moved 98,589 Chainlink (LINK) tokens to the platform, with the funds traced to assets seized from FTX and Alameda Research. In April, around 8.2 Bitcoin tied to the 2016 Bitfinex hack was sent to Coinbase Prime.
US government-linked wallets are estimated to still hold $20.6 billion in crypto, including around 325,000 BTC, 28,000 ETH, 146 million USDT and 750 Wrappd Bitcoin (WBTC).
Magazine: Bitcoin nearing late stages of bear market: Jamie Coutts, Real Vision
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, commonly known as the CLARITY Act, is gaining momentum in the US as a second major law enforcement organization publicly endorses the bill ahead of a critical Senate deadline. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) said it submitted a letter to the Senate Banking Committee supporting the legislation, while urging targeted revisions—particularly around how decentralized finance (DeFi) protections are structured and how accountability is defined.
FLEOA’s July 10 endorsement arrives after earlier backing from the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) and comes as lawmakers weigh whether the bill can clear Congress before the Senate’s August recess. Industry observers have framed the recess period as a potential make-or-break window for final action this year.
Key takeaways
- FLEOA has endorsed the CLARITY Act in a letter to the Senate Banking Committee, calling it progress toward balancing innovation and public safety.
- The association supports the bill’s consumer-protection goals but wants changes to narrow DeFi-related protections and clarify who is accountable in decentralized systems.
- Law enforcement groups have previously raised concerns that portions of the bill—especially around developer liability—could create overly broad exemptions that hinder investigations.
- The timing is tight, with the Senate’s Aug. 8 recess cited as a key milestone for whether the legislation can pass this year.
Second endorsement—support with conditions
In its statement, FLEOA characterized the current CLARITY Act draft as “meaningful progress” toward establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets while preserving authorities needed to combat crime. The organization said the legislation should maintain existing capabilities related to criminal enforcement, anti-money laundering, counterterrorism financing, sanctions enforcement, and investigative work.
At the same time, FLEOA emphasized that lawmakers should refine specific DeFi provisions. According to FLEOA’s recommendations, the bill’s DeFi protections should be narrowed, clearer accountability should be established for participants within decentralized finance systems, and the legislation should prevent entities from avoiding regulation simply by portraying themselves as decentralized.
FLEOA also asked Congress to adjust the “specific intent” language to make liability easier to establish, and to explicitly confirm that the CLARITY Act does not limit existing federal investigative authority. The request reflects a core tension that has followed the bill through prior negotiations: how to protect legitimate innovation without inadvertently creating gaps that prosecutors and investigators could struggle to navigate.
Crypto Council CEO Ji Kim linked FLEOA’s support to a broader argument that the bill strengthens consumer protection and preserves law enforcement effectiveness, noting the endorsement in a public statement Monday.
Why law enforcement scrutiny has mattered
The fresh FLEOA letter lands on the heels of earlier objections from law enforcement organizations that challenged parts of the CLARITY Act—particularly around developer liability for misuse by users on decentralized platforms.
Earlier reporting highlighted that in June, four law enforcement organizations contacted the White House with concerns centered on Section 604, which aims to protect developers from liability tied to illicit activity conducted by users on decentralized networks. The organizations argued that the language, as written, might function as a broad exemption, potentially complicating investigations into crypto-related crime.
Those concerns prompted attention within the administration. The White House invited law enforcement groups objecting to the bill’s language to a late-June meeting—an indication that the disputes were not merely academic. In July, the Major County Sheriffs of America shifted from opposition to neutrality, reflecting that negotiations and proposed changes were actively shaping positions across law enforcement.
FLEOA’s new letter suggests that—while support for the CLARITY Act is increasing—there remains a category of legal uncertainty that enforcement advocates want addressed before the bill locks in. For investors, traders, and builders, the practical effect is straightforward: the scope of developer protection and the definition of responsibility in DeFi can influence how compliance strategies, product design, and risk management decisions are made.
What the Senate deadline means for prospects
FLEOA’s endorsement also underscores the political urgency surrounding the CLARITY Act. The letter was released less than four weeks before Aug. 8, when the Senate is expected to recess. According to Senator Cynthia Lummis, the window to pass a digital assets bill could be limited this year, warning that failure to enact meaningful legislation could leave rulemaking to other jurisdictions and prolong uncertainty for US market participants.
For the crypto sector, the legislative calendar matters not just for timelines, but for predictability. When a bill is approaching a recess, negotiations often compress: controversial language becomes more difficult to rewrite in depth, and stakeholders may shift their focus toward narrower edits rather than sweeping redesigns.
That dynamic helps explain why the FLEOA letter emphasizes targeted adjustments rather than a fundamental withdrawal of support. The group is signaling that it can back the overall approach—while still pushing for clarifications that could reduce enforcement friction later.
DeFi protections and accountability: the remaining fault line
At the heart of FLEOA’s requests is the question of how the CLARITY Act treats decentralized systems in practice. Supporters of the bill have argued that rules should recognize technological realities and avoid punishing developers for actions they do not control. Enforcement advocates, however, have warned that overly protective language could unintentionally insulate individuals or firms whose conduct resembles regulated activity—even if marketing or structural claims point toward decentralization.
FLEOA’s call to narrow DeFi protections and clarify accountability is therefore not just legal fine-tuning. It goes directly to whether investigators can build cases effectively, and whether compliance obligations remain aligned with operational control and influence.
Equally important is FLEOA’s emphasis on “specific intent” language and an explicit preservation of existing investigative authority. In legislative drafting, intent requirements can determine what must be proven in court. Changes here can shift burdens of proof and affect litigation risk for market participants.
What remains unclear—until lawmakers see the evolving text—is the balance Congress will strike between encouraging responsible development and ensuring that decentralization claims cannot be used as a shield against enforcement. Readers should watch whether forthcoming amendments address the specific points raised by FLEOA and other law enforcement organizations, or whether compromises keep the legislation’s enforcement implications ambiguous.
With the Senate’s August recess approaching, the next steps will likely hinge on how quickly the committee can incorporate these requested revisions into a final bill text—and whether additional groups move toward alignment or raise new objections as the calendar tightens.
The Cat Gallery in Low Petergate celebrates 25 years in York
Integrating building energy systems into regional power grids
Why did the U.S. move $297M in Bitcoin and Ether to Coinbase Prime?
-
Fashion5 days agoLoro Piana Fall 2026 Enters Houston’s Art Scene
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Nutriplenish Leave-In Conditioner
-
Tech7 days agoAnthropic’s new “J-lens” reveals a silent workspace inside Claude that mirrors a leading theory of consciousness
-
Sports4 days ago2026 Genesis Scottish Open Thursday TV coverage: Round 1
-
Sports6 days agoJoshua Pacio ‘more complete’ ahead of ONE rematch vs Malachiev
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic brings Claude Cowork to mobile and web as usage data shows most users aren’t coding
-
Sports4 days agoSuper Eagles star Moses Simon opens up on Liverpool transfer regret
-
Sports7 days ago
We have punished the disrespect
-
Tech5 days agoCharacter.AI enters the microdrama arena with its own productions, but there’s a twist
-
News Videos7 days ago“What’s going on?!” Carl Froch discusses Floyd Mayweather Jr financial issues
-
Crypto World7 days agoClaude AI Created Something Anthropic Never Designed
-
Crypto World6 days agoNasdaq arthritis company holding Moshe Hogeg crypto hits all-time low
-
News Videos5 days agoCrypto Just Entered Its Most Important 6-Month Candle (Could Decide Everything!)
-
Tech6 days agoKeychron is stepping outside keyboards with a $349 Thunderbolt 5 dock aimed at power users
-
Business6 days agoASX 200 Slides Over 0.6% as Rare Earths and Lithium Stocks Tumble Amid Global Semiconductor Sell-Off Today
-
Business6 days agoWill Trent shares rebound after Q1 update triggers 13% crash? Here’s what technical charts indicate
-
NewsBeat5 days agoMajor update after Huntingdon train attack as man enters plea
-
Tech6 days agoOpenAI teams with Work Louder to launch Codex-native keyboard, weeks after CEO of Apps told staff ‘not to be distracted by side quests’
-
Business6 days agoSpaceX Shares Slide Nearly 6% Amid Post-IPO Volatility and Starship Test Focus
-
Entertainment7 days agoSZA Shares She Was Formally Diagnosed With Autism
You must be logged in to post a comment Login