Binance has rolled out a new “Binance Earn” wealth management service that lets users access 11 U.S.-listed exchange-traded funds tied to short-term U.S. Treasurys and investment-grade bonds.

The offering is positioned as a way for crypto platform users to manage traditional portfolio exposure without leaving the Binance interface, with the ETFs grouped by different time horizons—from under six months to more than a year—covering what Binance describes as cash management, steady income, and yield-enhancement strategies.

Key takeaways

• Binance Earn now provides access to 11 U.S.-listed ETFs focused on short-term Treasurys and investment-grade bonds.
• The ETFs are organized by investment horizon, ranging from less than six months to more than a year.
• Users buy actual ETF shares via Binance Earn—unlike tokenized stock or ETF products where exposure is packaged differently.
• Binance says the economic benefits of the ETF shares, including price movement and cash distributions, pass through to investors.
• Orders are processed through Binance’s stock trading infrastructure and routed to a brokerage execution setup involving Nest Trading and Alpaca Securities.

How Binance Earn packages ETF exposure

Binance says investors can browse the ETF lineup within Binance Earn and place orders directly through the platform. Purchases are processed through Binance’s stock trading service, with Binance stating that users receive the economic benefits of the ETF shares, including both price changes and cash distributions.

A notable distinction in Binance’s structure is that users are not buying tokenized representations of equities or ETFs. Instead, they purchase real ETF shares through the service, with Binance providing the user-facing interface.

The TradFi plumbing behind the interface

Under the hood, Binance’s ETF access relies on conventional brokerage infrastructure. The arrangement routes orders through Nest Trading to Alpaca Securities, which executes trades and holds the securities.

For traders and investors, this matters because the service is designed to function like a bridge between two worlds: the familiar Binance user experience on one side, and established market plumbing for settlement and custody on the other. The objective is less about reinventing how ETF ownership works and more about expanding where investors can find it.

Binance expands its TradFi footprint

This ETF launch is presented as part of Binance’s broader expansion into traditional finance (“TradFi”). Earlier in the month, the exchange added physically settled options on more than 1,000 U.S. stocks and ETFs, building on an existing equities offering that includes over 7,000 U.S. stocks and ETFs.

Taken together, the ETF suite suggests Binance is broadening beyond spot trading and toward a wider set of portfolio tools—effectively moving from single-asset trading experiences toward longer-duration investment products that many users associate with brokerage platforms.

What investors should watch next

Binance is betting that crypto-native distribution can lower friction for accessing traditional investment instruments—especially in areas like short-duration rates exposure. A PwC survey cited by the company’s broader ETF discussion indicates that many industry participants expect tokenization to increase ETF reach and improve 24/7 accessibility over the next three years, though Binance Earn in this case is explicitly based on buying actual ETF shares rather than tokenized products.

For users, the key open questions are likely to be practical: how Binance Earn’s ETF lineup evolves, how investors should think about liquidity and execution quality within the integrated stock trading flow, and whether Binance will expand beyond fixed income-focused products as it continues building out its TradFi catalog.

As the service scales, readers should keep an eye on whether Binance Earn adds more ETF strategies beyond short-term Treasurys and investment-grade bonds, and how the platform’s TradFi integrations develop—particularly around product breadth, order routing, and the user experience for managing traditional holdings alongside crypto.

Estimates of how much economic activity flows through crypto networks can diverge dramatically depending on how analysts measure onchain activity. A new study from researchers at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) finds that calculations of Bitcoin transfer values can vary by as much as six times when different transaction-measurement methods are used.

The BIS researchers argue that the problem is not limited to Bitcoin. The same measurement challenges appear across the wider crypto ecosystem—including stablecoin activity and even conventional approaches to calculating market capitalization. Their conclusion: onchain indicators should be treated as imperfect, “noisy approximations,” not direct gauges of real-world economic activity.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin onchain transfer-value estimates can differ by up to sixfold based on measurement choices, including how change outputs are handled.
• BIS finds conventional Bitcoin market capitalization figures have, at times, been up to four times higher than “realized” capitalization based on the last time a coin moved.
• Across large-scale data spanning Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tron, the study shows similar measurement pitfalls in other parts of the market.
• On Ethereum, the abundance of smart contracts creates categorization gaps that complicate interpretation of activity, including stablecoins.
• Some analytics efforts—such as Visa’s Onchain Analytics dashboard—attempt to adjust raw stablecoin volumes to remove distortions from non-economic activity.

Why Bitcoin “transfer value” can change six times

The BIS findings focus on onchain transfer values rather than exchange trading volumes. According to the study, the gap between different estimates reflects differences in transaction measurement methods—most notably how the analysis treats outputs that send funds back to the original sender.

Bitcoin transactions are structured in a way that often includes “change” outputs. When a user spends Bitcoin, the network may return any unspent portion back to the spender as change. Some measurement approaches count that as an additional output, even though it does not represent value transferred to another counterparty.

The BIS researchers caution that metrics that are commonly used to infer activity—such as transaction volumes, market capitalization, and total value locked—can appear more precise than the underlying data actually supports. As the study puts it, those metrics can suggest accuracy that is “not supported by the nature of the underlying data.”

Market capitalization: a conventional figure can diverge

The BIS study does not stop at onchain transfer estimates. It also highlights inconsistencies in how market capitalization is typically calculated for Bitcoin.

The researchers report that the conventional market cap measure has at times been as much as four times higher than “realized capitalization,” a metric that values each coin at the price when it last moved. In practical terms, the difference underscores a broader issue: different ways of interpreting blockchain movement can generate materially different economic readouts.

This matters for investors and analysts who use onchain-derived figures to gauge adoption, liquidity, or sentiment. When measurement methodology can swing the headline number by multiples, comparisons across time periods—or across dashboards with differing definitions—require careful scrutiny.

Ethereum and stablecoins: categorization gaps and mixed use cases

The BIS researchers identify additional challenges on Ethereum, where smart contract activity multiplies the ways tokens can be held or moved. In the study’s dataset, researchers examined roughly 67.5 million active contracts and found that about 54 million could not be categorized using the study’s classification approach.

Stablecoins introduce a further layer of complexity because the same token can serve different roles across chains. The BIS researchers note that USDT on Ethereum was more closely associated with DeFi activity, while USDT on Tron was more tied to payment-like and store-of-value uses.

The study also describes stark differences in where stablecoins sit—particularly in smart contract holdings. The share of USDT held by smart contracts on Ethereum exceeded 20% in 2022, compared with around 1% on Tron. Because these holdings reflect different use cases, the BIS researchers warn that aggregating stablecoin activity across blockchains can conflate distinct kinds of economic behavior and obscure how stablecoins are actually being used.

Ultimately, the BIS team frames the broader takeaway as a limitation of data interpretation: onchain indicators should be handled as “noisy approximations rather than direct measures of economic activity.”

Filtering raw data: Visa’s adjusted stablecoin volumes

While the BIS study emphasizes the risks of treating raw onchain measures as straightforward economic signals, it also notes that some analytics providers attempt to separate “economic activity” from activity that may be distorted by mechanics or automation.

Visa’s Onchain Analytics dashboard—powered by data from Allium Labs—presents both total and adjusted stablecoin transaction volumes. Visa states that its adjusted methodology is designed to reduce distortions stemming from activity such as high-frequency trading, bots, bridge routing, and internal exchange operations.

On the dashboard, Visa currently shows $6.4 trillion in total stablecoin transaction volume across the networks it tracks over the past 30 days, alongside $313.1 billion in adjusted volume. While the BIS study itself does not validate any specific proprietary adjustment approach, the contrast illustrates the central issue it raises: definitions and filtering choices can move the headline number by a wide margin.

For readers using dashboards to benchmark stablecoin adoption, the implication is straightforward: “total” and “adjusted” are not interchangeable, and the rationale behind adjustments becomes part of the metric’s credibility.

What to watch next

The BIS study suggests that as onchain analytics matures, transparency about measurement definitions—and explicit handling of transaction structure, smart-contract categorization, and non-economic activity—will be essential. Investors and builders should treat widely cited onchain metrics as starting points, not definitive proof of underlying economic demand, and should watch for clearer methodologies that better align onchain observations with real-world usage.

What comes next for the embattled Kennedy Center

The crypto market has lost more than 2% of its value, pushing Bitcoin below $76,000 as traders prepare for a likely Federal Reserve rate hike and a key Senate vote on the CLARITY Act.

Crypto market loses $76,000 Bitcoin support

Data from the crypto market showed widespread losses on Sept. 15, with the total value of digital assets falling to around $2.6 trillion as investors reduced risk before two major U.S. events.

Bitcoin (BTC) dropped more than 3% and moved below $76,000 after failing to hold its earlier gains. Losses also spread across major altcoins, while U.S.-listed companies with direct exposure to crypto came under pressure.

The decline accelerated as traders assessed the Federal Open Market Committee meeting scheduled for Sept. 15–16. Futures tied to the federal funds rate placed the probability of a 25-basis-point increase above 92%, making a hike the market’s main expectation rather than a low-probability risk.

An increase of that size would lift the Fed’s target range from 3.50%–3.75% to 3.75%–4.00%. The decision is due on Sept. 16, followed by comments from Fed Chair Kevin Warsh that could indicate whether officials view the increase as a single response to inflation or the start of a longer tightening period.

Earlier on Sept. 15, crypto.news reported that the estimated chance of a quarter-point hike had risen to 86.5% from 69.4% on the previous Friday. The probability moved above 92% as the meeting drew closer, showing how quickly traders had adjusted their rate expectations.

Fed hike odds rise as inflation concerns return

Expectations for tighter policy have grown alongside renewed concern about U.S. inflation. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan forecast a 25-basis-point increase at the September meeting, according to reports cited in the original coverage.

Morgan Stanley also expects the Fed to lift rates by a quarter point in September and again in December, Reuters reported. The bank linked its forecast to persistent inflation, higher oil prices and strong demand tied to artificial intelligence investment.

Rising borrowing costs tend to weaken demand for assets that do not generate fixed income. Investors can earn a higher return from Treasury securities after a rate increase, raising the hurdle for holding volatile assets such as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Higher policy rates can also increase the cost of leveraged positions. Crypto traders who use borrowed funds may reduce their exposure when financing becomes more expensive, while a firmer U.S. dollar can place additional pressure on dollar-priced assets.

The market’s response will depend partly on the guidance accompanying the decision. A quarter-point increase has already become the expected result, but any signal of further hikes could force investors to reassess the path for liquidity and borrowing costs.

As earlier market coverage explained, Bitcoin now enters a tightening decision with a larger institutional investor base than it had during the Fed’s previous rate-hike cycle. Spot exchange-traded funds, corporate Bitcoin holders, and other regulated products have linked crypto more closely with traditional portfolio decisions.

Trump says he will respect the Fed decision

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said President Donald Trump would support Warsh’s right to make an independent policy decision, even though the White House does not favor another rate increase.

“President Trump 100% respects the independence of Kevin Warsh,” Hassett said, according to comments reported by Yahoo Finance.

Hassett added that the administration would support Warsh regardless of the outcome. His comments clarified Trump’s position on the Fed’s authority but did not signal White House approval of higher interest rates.

Trump and Hassett have both opposed raising borrowing costs. During a Fox News interview, Hassett said he would be cautious about increasing rates close to the U.S. midterm elections because an independent central bank should avoid becoming part of the political cycle.

The distinction matters for U.S. investors because the Fed sets monetary policy without taking instructions from the White House. Political comments can affect expectations, but the FOMC votes on rates based on its assessment of inflation, employment, and financial conditions.

Recent inflation readings have kept pressure on policymakers. Wall Street firms have warned that the personal consumption expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, could come in hotter than expected. Persistent price growth would give officials more reason to keep rates elevated after the September meeting.

CLARITY Act vote adds another risk for crypto

Alongside the Fed decision, the Senate is preparing to vote on whether to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The procedural vote requires 60 senators to support opening debate on the measure.

A successful cloture vote would not pass the bill into law. It would allow the Senate to begin considering the legislation, after which lawmakers would still face an amendment process, another procedural vote, and possible negotiations with the House.

Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, leaving the bill dependent on support from several Democrats. Negotiations became more uncertain after Democrats presented a counteroffer that met resistance from Republicans shortly before the scheduled vote.

A recent CLARITY Act analysis noted that the revised text had expanded from roughly 616 pages to 635 pages. The proposal included language covering the division of authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, along with provisions affecting the treatment of individual digital assets.

For American crypto holders, the bill could determine which federal regulator oversees different parts of the market and how tokens are classified under U.S. law. Failure to advance the measure would leave the current regulatory framework in place while lawmakers decide whether to revise or reintroduce the proposal.

Crypto-linked stocks also fell before the vote, including companies whose revenue or balance sheets depend on digital assets. Shares of Strategy, Coinbase, Circle, and Robinhood faced selling as investors reduced exposure to both the legislative uncertainty and the possibility of higher U.S. interest rates.

The market entered the week in a less defensive position. A weekly market recap published on Sept. 12 placed Bitcoin near $80,000 and reported $463 million in weekly outflows from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs. Continued withdrawals from the funds would show that regulated investment products remain a source of selling pressure during the policy-heavy week.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking forfeiture of more than $61 million in Tether’s USDT stablecoin, alleging the funds came from black-market sales of sanctioned Iranian oil and were intended to finance Iran’s government and military, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). 

On Monday, the DOJ alleged that Blessed Trust and Hexa Whale, both incorporated in Hong Kong, used Binance accounts to move proceeds from oil sold to buyers in China. A network of related addresses allegedly received and distributed more than $1.5 billion, including transfers to IRGC-linked money-transfer businesses, cryptocurrency addresses and an Iranian exchange.

A Binance spokesperson told Cointelegraph that Binance did not permit transactions with sanctioned individuals and would continue cooperating with law enforcement, including by investigating, restricting or freezing accounts where appropriate. The spokesperson said the case was not filed against the exchange and did not allege wrongdoing by Binance. 

The filing comes as Washington expands financial pressure on Tehran and the US-Israeli war with Iran disrupts energy infrastructure and oil shipments across the Middle East. Oil prices rose on Tuesday following attacks on Saudi infrastructure and continued reductions in vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Tether freezes $61 million in USDT

According to the complaint, Tether froze about 61.19 million USDT across 10 addresses on the Tron network in 2025. It said a seizure warrant authorizes the FBI to take custody of the assets by having Tether destroy the frozen tokens and issue replacements of equal value to be transferred to an FBI-controlled hardware wallet.

Cointelegraph contacted Tether for comment but had not received a response by publication.

The DOJ said the allegations contained in the civil forfeiture complaint had not been proven. The US would obtain permanent ownership of the assets only if a court enters a forfeiture judgment in the government’s favor.

The enforcement action also follows the US Treasury’s August expansion of its Iran sanctions framework to cover the country’s digital asset sector. The measure allows US authorities to target foreign individuals and companies operating in or supporting the sector.

At the time, the Treasury alleged that UAE-based broker Ivan Obukhov had processed more than $100 million in crypto payments since 2023 to facilitate Iranian oil sales for the IRGC’s Quds Force.

Recent: CoinEx to cease operation after 9 years, citing ‘significant’ crypto contraction

Iran conflict pushes oil prices higher 

The war between the US and Israel and Iran, which began in February, continues to disrupt oil shipments through the Middle East.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline remained offline after Friday attacks that Riyadh blamed on Iran-backed fighters in Iraq, while Iran-backed Houthi forces launched separate missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia on Monday.

At the time of writing, market data showed Brent crude trading at about $107.59 per barrel, up 1.81%, while US West Texas Intermediate traded at roughly $103.35, up 1.93%.

Magazine: Why are AI’s biggest companies suddenly asking to slow down?

The CLARITY Act has stalled after a Senate cloture motion received 50 votes to 49, falling 10 votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate on the crypto market structure bill.

CLARITY Act falls 10 votes short in the Senate

The U.S. Senate’s floor proceedings showed that the chamber failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed with H.R. 3633, the House version of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Cloture required 60 votes, and clearing it would only have allowed senators to start debating the measure rather than approving it as law.

Several senators who had participated in negotiations opposed the motion. Democratic Senators Angela Alsobrooks, Ruben Gallego, and Kirsten Gillibrand voted no, while Republican Senators Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran, and Thom Tillis also withheld support.

Tillis, who had worked on disputes involving government ethics and stablecoin rewards, voted against cloture and moved to recommit. Senate Majority Leader John Thune may file another cloture motion, but any new attempt would still require support from both parties.

Hours before the vote, Democrats had delivered a late counteroffer addressing ethics rules and other contested provisions. The proposal followed talks involving Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office, although its full text was not made public before senators voted.

Republicans rejected the offer and argued that their 635-page version already included 126 substantive changes requested by Democratic negotiators. As crypto.news previously reported, the party controlled 53 Senate seats and needed at least seven Democratic or independent votes even if every Republican backed cloture.

Ethics rules have blocked a bipartisan agreement

Government ethics remained the main source of disagreement after President Donald Trump accepted changes to the Republican bill. The revised text placed restrictions on crypto interests held by the president, vice president, members of Congress, federal judges, and certain relatives, while allowing state attorneys general to pursue some civil enforcement actions.

Democrats said the restrictions did not go far enough to address crypto ventures linked to Trump and his family. Their counterproposal sought to extend the rules to dependent children of federal officials, according to the original report.

Following the vote, Gallego accused the president of seeking “time to crime” and said he would not support legislation that enabled such conduct. His comment continued an ethics dispute that had survived months of negotiations between Republican and Democratic senators.

Other contested areas included stablecoin rewards, protections for decentralized software developers, and the treatment of event contracts that may conflict with state or tribal gambling rules. Banking groups had pushed for tighter restrictions on stablecoin rewards, arguing that such products could draw deposits away from insured institutions, while crypto companies rejected comparisons between payment stablecoins and bank accounts.

The failed motion has also stopped consideration of a revised asset-classification framework. Under the proposed legislation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission would oversee qualifying digital commodities and registered spot-market intermediaries, while the Securities and Exchange Commission would retain authority over assets and transactions covered by securities laws.

One addition to the final draft would have classified XRP as a digital commodity in secondary-market transactions regardless of how many tokens Ripple held. The language sought to distinguish the status of an asset from the circumstances surrounding its original sale, but it cannot take effect unless both chambers approve identical legislation and the president signs it.

Failed vote removes the immediate altcoin catalyst

Ahead of the vote, Lacie Zhang, research analyst at Bitget Wallet, told this publication that markets had not fully priced in passage. Prediction markets still assigned a low chance to enactment, creating room for a stronger response if the Senate allowed debate to begin.

“The CLARITY Act appears to be only partially priced in,” Zhang said.

“Prediction markets still imply a relatively low probability of enactment in 2026, suggesting the market is not positioned for certain passage.”

Bitcoin had less regulatory uncertainty tied to the bill because spot exchange-traded funds already give U.S. investors access through regulated products, while its institutional trading and custody systems are more established. Zhang therefore expected BTC to benefit less than other crypto assets on a relative basis if cloture succeeded.

“Bitcoin would likely benefit the least on a relative basis because its regulatory status, ETF access and institutional infrastructure are already comparatively clear.”

Zhang identified Ethereum as the strongest potential beneficiary because the network supports stablecoins, decentralized finance, and tokenized assets while facing more unresolved regulatory questions than Bitcoin. She placed ETH first and Solana second, with Uniswap and Aave offering higher-beta exposure to provisions that would distinguish decentralized software from financial intermediaries.

XRP could also have responded strongly, Zhang said, although she believed more of its regulatory catalyst was already included in its price. Her assessment came before the Senate rejected cloture, making the projected outperformance conditional on the vote advancing.

Even a successful procedural vote would not have been enough to confirm lasting price gains, according to Zhang. She said traders would need to see ETH outperform BTC, sustained gains in UNI and AAVE, increased spot trading rather than futures-led activity, and continued strength across several sessions.

“A brief spike followed by fading prices would point to a headline trade rather than a durable repricing,” she said.

Polymarket traders cut the probability that Trump would sign the legislation in 2026 to 7% after the result, down from a high of 31% one day earlier. The drop followed the loss of the immediate procedural path needed to move the bill into Senate debate.

Institutions may keep building without the CLARITY Act

Before the vote, Jessica Martinez, U.S. policy director at Fireblocks, told this publication that crypto companies and financial institutions would not stop developing products if Congress failed to act. The absence of legislation, however, could determine which firms feel comfortable expanding their services.

“The good news is that the market will keep moving whether Clarity passes or not. So the question becomes which entities are prepared to move with it.”

Large institutions are already operating under existing rules, according to Martinez, while cautious banks and asset managers are waiting for standards they believe can withstand a court challenge or a change in administration. Agency decisions can offer regulatory direction, she added, but legislation would give firms rules with more staying power.

For U.S. investors and businesses, the difference affects how consistently banks, funds, custodians and trading platforms enter the digital-asset market. The SEC and CFTC may continue using their current legal powers, but future agency leaders can revise interpretations and enforcement priorities when Congress has not set a statutory framework.

“Without it, adoption continues, just more unevenly and with fewer institutions willing to move at scale,” Martinez said.

The House passed H.R. 3633 by a 294-134 vote in July 2025, but the Senate later developed a different version. Even if senators revive the measure and approve their text, the House must accept the changes or negotiate a common version before the legislation can reach Trump.

BitBox has added a self-custody Lightning hot wallet to the BitBoxApp, letting hardware-wallet users make faster Bitcoin payments through their existing backup without recording another recovery phrase.

BitBox Lightning wallet separates spending from savings

BitBox announced the integration as part of its September 2026 Meggen update, adding Lightning payments directly to the mobile BitBoxApp while retaining the existing hardware wallet for long-term Bitcoin storage.

Rather than asking users to create and secure another mnemonic phrase, the app derives the new Lightning wallet from the backup already linked to the BitBox device. According to the company, users who lose access can recover the Lightning wallet with the same backup they use for their main wallet.

The setup does not combine the two balances into one wallet. Bitcoin stored through the hardware device remains separate from funds placed in the Lightning hot wallet, even though both can be accessed through the same application and recovered from the same backup.

BitBox designed the Lightning balance for smaller transactions, including coffee purchases, invoice payments, and quick transfers. Users can move only the amount they want to spend from their hardware-protected balance, leaving the rest under the security model used for long-term holdings.

By keeping the spending wallet online, the app can process payments without requiring the hardware device for each purchase. The company advises users to treat the Lightning balance like cash carried in a physical wallet and keep larger amounts in the hardware wallet.

A recent crypto.news guide to wallet security explained that hot wallets remain connected to an internet-enabled device and offer easier access for regular transactions. Cold wallets keep signing keys away from an online environment, making them better suited to assets that users do not need to move often.

BitBox’s design places both uses inside one interface while retaining separate wallets. The structure allows a user to keep most of their Bitcoin behind the hardware device and transfer a smaller sum to the Lightning side when needed.

Lightning payments run inside the BitBoxApp

Within the updated app, users can scan and pay Lightning invoices, generate invoices to receive Bitcoin, and obtain a dedicated Lightning address. The wallet also supports transfers between the Lightning balance and the user’s on-chain BitBox wallet.

A Lightning address gives the recipient a readable payment identifier instead of requiring a different invoice for every incoming transfer. Although it resembles an email address, it routes a Bitcoin payment rather than a message.

The Lightning Network processes payments away from Bitcoin’s main blockchain and later settles the resulting balances on-chain. Its payment channels can reduce the cost and waiting time involved in small transfers, particularly when compared with sending every purchase directly through the base network.

BitBox users previously needed another wallet or service to access Lightning payments. Moving funds between separate applications could require additional backups, account management, or address checks, depending on the wallet selected. The native feature reduces those steps by putting the payment tools beside the existing on-chain balance.

Exchange and banking platforms have also adopted the network for quicker Bitcoin transfers. In April 2024, Coinbase integrated Lightning payments with help from Lightspark, allowing customers to send Bitcoin through Lightning from their exchange accounts. Nubank later added Lightning support as part of a partnership with the same infrastructure provider.

BitBox’s implementation differs because the company says users remain in control of their funds instead of placing the Lightning balance in a custodial exchange account. Control also places responsibility for securing the wallet and its backup on the user.

Breez SDK and Spark handle Lightning infrastructure

Under the app interface, BitBox uses the Breez SDK to provide the wallet’s payment functions. Breez describes its software kit as infrastructure that allows developers to add non-custodial Bitcoin payments to existing products without building each component from the beginning.

BitBox is among more than 100 products that have integrated Breez technology, according to the supplied announcement. The wallet also uses Spark, a Bitcoin payment system developed by Lightspark, to remove several technical tasks that have historically made Lightning wallets harder to manage.

Through Spark, users do not have to run a Lightning node, open payment channels, or manage inbound and outbound liquidity. Such tasks can otherwise require users to keep a node online, lock Bitcoin into channels, and ensure enough capacity exists in the correct direction to complete a payment.

The wallet nevertheless operates as a hot wallet because the software must remain available on the mobile device for normal payment activity. BitBox says the funds stay under the user’s control, but the company’s separation between spending and savings acknowledges that an online wallet carries a different security profile from a hardware-protected balance.

Breez has also used its own consumer application to demonstrate the infrastructure behind such products. The company launched Glow in August 2026 as a reference app where developers can examine common wallet functions and understand how Breez-powered payments behave before adding them to their own software.

Glow supports sending and receiving Bitcoin while showing developers how payment history, balances, contacts, and transaction flows can appear in a consumer wallet. Breez presents the app as a working example of its development tools rather than a requirement for using BitBox’s integration.

U.S. users face tax records for Bitcoin payments

For customers in the United States, faster payments do not change the federal tax treatment applied when Bitcoin is spent. The Internal Revenue Service treats digital assets as property for federal income-tax purposes and says using cryptocurrency to pay for goods or services is a disposal.

A U.S. user who buys an item through the BitBox Lightning wallet may therefore need to calculate a capital gain or loss based on the difference between the Bitcoin’s adjusted cost basis and its fair market value when spent. The holding period determines whether the result is treated as a short-term or long-term gain or loss.

The IRS also requires taxpayers to maintain records supporting positions reported on their returns, including the date of a transaction, the amount of digital assets involved, the dollar value at the time, and the associated basis. Small purchases are not covered by a general federal de minimis exemption solely because Lightning makes them quick or inexpensive.

BitBox lists the Lightning feature in the 09.2026 Meggen release of the BitBoxApp. The same release includes additional app improvements, while the Lightning wallet remains available as a separate hot-wallet balance derived from the user’s existing BitBox backup.