Crypto World
Strategy resumed Bitcoin buying, but Strive gained more BTC per share
Strategy resumed buying after a two week pause, but its latest purchase came from cash while its stock sales remained idle. Meanwhile a review of five Strive filings shows a different pattern: rapid Bitcoin growth alongside a rising common share count and a growing preferred stock obligation. The useful comparison is how much Bitcoin each common share can claim, not the size of a single purchase.
Summary
- Strategy bought 950 BTC for $75.7 million in the week ended Sept. 20, bringing its holdings to 846,000 BTC.
- Strive bought 1,355 BTC in the week ended Sept. 18 and reached 26,355 BTC.
- Strive’s BTC per effective common share rose 14.1% between Aug. 21 and Sept. 18, based on its SEC filings.
- Strategy sold zero shares through its ATM programs in the week it resumed buying Bitcoin.
- Strive’s SATA preferred share count rose from 8.27 million to 11.18 million over four reporting weeks.
Strategy has resumed Bitcoin purchases with 950 BTC bought for $75.7 million, while Strive has added 1,355 BTC in a substantially overlapping reporting period and continued expanding a preferred stock program that helps finance its treasury.
Strategy’s Sept. 21 Form 8-K says the company bought Bitcoin using existing USD Cash and sold no shares through its at the market programs from Sept. 14 through Sept. 20. Strive’s filing on the same day shows a larger purchase, a higher common share count and 786,194 additional SATA preferred shares outstanding. The two companies bought the same asset at almost the same average price, but the capital moving behind each purchase was different.
Strategy’s Bitcoin purchase did not restart its share sales
Strategy reported that it paid an average of $79,670 per BTC, including expenses. Its total position rose from 845,050 BTC to 846,000 BTC, a gain of 0.112%. The purchase ended two consecutive reporting periods in which Strategy bought no Bitcoin and sold no shares under its ATM programs. crypto.news previously examined the two week pause and the cash being directed toward preferred share repurchases.
Buying resumed. The financing method used for this purchase did not resemble the one that built much of Strategy’s position. In its Aug. 31 filing, the company said proceeds from MSTR share sales financed a 4,603 BTC purchase worth $369.7 million. The latest 950 BTC came from USD Cash already on the balance sheet. A company can repeat purchases funded by new issuance while buyers keep taking its securities. A cash funded purchase instead draws on a finite pool unless the money is replenished.
The cash pool had another claimant. Strategy used $174 million to repurchase 1,771,238 STRC preferred shares during the same week. That was approximately $2.30 spent on STRC for each dollar spent on Bitcoin. Its USD Cash declined from roughly $1.30 billion to $1.05 billion after the two transactions. Its separate USD Reserve fell from roughly $5.10 billion to $5.04 billion after $57.4 million in preferred dividends and debt interest.
STRC spending split detailed has already been reported. It should not be mistaken for proof that Strategy has abandoned accumulation. The company’s filing records one week’s uses of capital. Its Aug. 31 filing shows that it can resume ATM issuance when it chooses and the market permits it. The question posed by the latest period is narrower: how much new Bitcoin did each company put behind its common stock, and what claims came with it?
A bigger Bitcoin purchase does not answer the shareholder question
Strive paid about $79,475 per coin for 1,355 BTC from Sept. 14 through Sept. 18. Its holdings rose from 25,000 to 26,355 BTC, or 5.42%. Strategy’s 950 BTC purchase grew its much larger position by 0.112%. On those two percentages alone, Strive’s treasury expanded about 48 times faster in the latest disclosed period.
The comparison is striking, but a company’s coin count is only the numerator of what common shareholders ultimately hold. New common shares spread the exposure across more owners. Preferred shares can finance purchases without immediate common dilution, but they introduce a claim ahead of common equity. Cash and other assets matter too. Neither a coin count nor a single BTC per share calculation captures the entire balance sheet.
Strive’s same filing puts its effective common shares at 94,968,764 on Sept. 11 and 97,002,649 on Sept. 18. Its BTC position grew 5.42% while that share count grew 2.14%. Divide 25,000 BTC by the first share count and 26,355 BTC by the second: the result rises from about 26,324 to 27,169 satoshis per effective common share, a gain of 3.21%.
That increase is smaller than the 5.42% rise in the treasury because the denominator changed. It is still positive. An argument that the Bitcoin purchase was entirely offset by common share dilution would be contradicted by these particular snapshots.
Strive defines effective common shares as its Class A plus Class B shares. Its filing separately reports assumed fully diluted shares, options, employee awards and traditional warrants. Using assumed fully diluted shares instead produces approximately 25,474 sats per share on Sept. 11 and 26,317 on Sept. 18, an increase of roughly 3.31%. The filing excludes traditional warrants from that fully diluted count. These are transparent exposure ratios, not liquidation values or a substitute for Strive’s own reported performance measures.
Four weeks of filings show the change beneath Strive’s BTC total
A single week can make a young treasury look exceptionally fast. The longer series offers a better test. Strive’s Aug. 31,Sept. 8,Sept. 14 and Sept. 21 filings report both BTC holdings and share counts for consecutive dates. The calculations below divide reported BTC by reported effective common shares and multiply by 100 million to express the result in sats.
Reporting date
BTC held
Effective common shares
BTC per share, sats
SATA shares
Aug. 21
21,356
89,683,423
23,813
8,270,815
Aug. 28
23,156
93,262,570
24,829
9,073,914
Sept. 4
24,531
94,934,558
25,840
9,995,425
Sept. 11
25,000
94,968,764
26,324
10,397,966
Sept. 18
26,355
97,002,649
27,169
11,184,160
Strive added 4,999 BTC between Aug. 21 and Sept. 18. The arithmetic is 26,355 minus 21,356, equal to 4,999 BTC, or 23.4% of its starting position. Its effective common share count rose by 7,319,226, or 8.2%. Dividing the two end point BTC per share figures gives a gain of about 14.1%. The sequence was positive at each reported weekly snapshot, including weeks when the common share count rose substantially.
The company paid for the four disclosed BTC batches at average prices of approximately $79,431, $79,281, $77,954 and $79,475, inclusive of expenses. Multiplying each batch by its reported average gives roughly $393 million in aggregate purchase cost. That total is an estimate because each average is rounded in the filings. It is not a reconciliation of all funding inflows and outflows.
There is a second denominator. SATA preferred shares outstanding rose by 2,913,345 during the same four weeks, from 8,270,815 to 11,184,160, or about 35.2%. These preferred shares are not common shares, so adding them to the common share denominator would be misleading. Their holders nevertheless have contractual rights that rank ahead of common equity. A growing BTC per common share figure therefore answers one question while leaving the cost of financing open.
Preferred shares put the two companies on different sides of a trade
Strategy’s STRC is variable rate perpetual preferred stock with a $100 stated amount. Strive owns 505,000 STRC shares, a position it marked at $49.748 million on Sept. 18. Strategy has been repurchasing its own STRC while Strive’s holdings of the security remained constant across the filings reviewed. The price of Strive’s position changed, but its share count did not.
Strive has meanwhile expanded SATA, its own variable rate preferred security. SATA outstanding rose by 786,194 shares during the latest week even as Strive bought 1,355 BTC. In the week ended Sept. 11, SATA rose by 402,541 shares while effective common shares barely moved. Earlier Strive’s SATA funding arrangements described proceeds from the preferred program as the financing source for its 469 BTC purchase in that period.
The share count changes in the latest filing do not, by themselves, show exactly which day’s issuance paid for which Bitcoin trade. Cash is pooled and transaction timing can differ. Strive ended the Sept. 18 period with $229.6 million in cash and equivalents, up from $204.2 million a week earlier, despite buying more than $107 million in Bitcoin at its reported average price. The combined cash and asset changes show why treating a purchase as an isolated transfer from one security to another would overstate what the filing proves.
Strategy’s own STRC preferred stock repurchases have had a different immediate purpose: reducing outstanding preferred claims. STRC carried a 12% annualized dividend rate for September, while Strive’s SATA carried 13%, according to the companies’ September disclosures described in that coverage. Dividends are subject to the securities’ terms, and a simple rate comparison cannot measure either issuer’s total financing cost. It does show why issuing a preferred share and buying one back are different uses of capital even if both companies are Bitcoin treasuries.
At the $100 stated amount, 2,913,345 additional SATA shares represent approximately $291.3 million in additional stated preferred capital over the four reporting weeks. That is not a claim that Strive raised exactly $291.3 million in cash: offering prices, transaction costs and any other changes must be checked separately. Applying a 13% annual rate to that incremental stated amount yields roughly $37.9 million per year at an unchanged rate and share count. SATA’s rate is variable, so this is an illustrative run rate, not a fixed future bill.
Strategy’s scale changes what a restart can accomplish
Strategy held roughly 32 times Strive’s 26,355 BTC at the latest disclosed dates. Buying 1,355 BTC would add just 0.16% to Strategy’s starting position of 845,050 BTC. For Strive, the same batch represented 5.42% of its 25,000 BTC starting position. A smaller treasury can show faster percentage growth with a purchase far below the largest issuer’s historical deal size.
The reverse is true of capital needs. To expand its 846,000 BTC position by 5%, Strategy would need 42,300 BTC. At the $79,670 average price it paid in the latest week, that would cost roughly $3.37 billion before any change in price or execution costs. Strive’s 5.42% weekly expansion required 1,355 BTC and roughly $107.7 million at its stated average. This comparison fixes prices solely to make scale visible. It does not forecast either company’s next purchase.
Strategy’s ability to raise capital should not be inferred from the last zero issuance week alone. Its Aug. 31 share financed purchase preceded the two week pause. The SEC filing for that earlier period says the company directed $369.7 million of MSTR issuance proceeds into Bitcoin. It has used the mechanism recently; its absence in the latest filing is an observed choice for that period, not proof that the market has permanently closed.
There is a shareholder benefit in the latest cash funded purchase. Because the company reported no ATM sales for the week, the 950 additional BTC did not come with new common shares sold under those programs. The filing, however, does not give a fresh, directly comparable end of week MSTR diluted share count alongside the Bitcoin disclosure. Assigning a precise BTC per MSTR share increase from this filing alone would mix sources and methodologies. For Strategy, the verified measure here is treasury growth of 0.112% without reported ATM issuance that week.
The strongest case for each company is narrower than the headline
Strategy could have sensible reasons to use cash for both Bitcoin and STRC. Retiring preferred stock can reduce future dividend claims, especially when it trades below its $100 stated amount. A large cash reserve gives management options during a difficult market. Strategy’s filing reports approximately $5.04 billion in its USD Reserve after the latest payments and $1.05 billion in USD Cash after its Bitcoin and STRC purchases. Both figures have distinct stated purposes and should not be collapsed into one discretionary balance.
Strive’s own filings support a positive reading of its accumulation. Its BTC per effective common share increased on every weekly snapshot in the series reviewed, despite growth in the common share count. Its latest cash balance rose even as the treasury expanded. The September SATA financing coverage points to another potential advantage: raising preferred capital can reduce the need for simultaneous common stock sales for a given purchase.
But the preferred claim does not disappear because it sits outside the BTC per common share calculation. At Sept. 18, Strive had 11.18 million SATA shares outstanding. Strive’s common shareholders own a residual claim after the preferred rights and other liabilities are accounted for. BTC per share is a useful operating measure of accumulation; it is not a promise that each share could be redeemed for that quantity of BTC.
The companies are not in a controlled experiment. Their share prices, issuance terms, existing holdings, cash assets and preferred obligations differ. The reporting windows overlap substantially but are not identical: Strive reports through Sept. 18 and Strategy through Sept. 20. The 48 times weekly growth ratio measures a defined change in treasury size. It cannot rank the long term value of either company’s common stock.
What the numbers settle and what they leave open
The SEC filings confirm three separate developments. Strategy resumed buying Bitcoin without reporting an ATM sale for the latest week. Strive bought more BTC in its overlapping period and increased both its effective common shares and SATA shares. Across four consecutive weekly snapshots, Strive’s BTC per effective common share rose 14.1% even after the growth in common shares.
The filings do not prove that all Strive purchases were funded exclusively by SATA issuance, that the preferred financing will be profitable, or that Strategy’s financing channel will remain idle. The illustrative SATA dividend calculation does not account for future rate changes or redemptions. The BTC per share series does not subtract cash, operating liabilities or senior claims. It tests a narrower proposition: whether reported BTC accumulation outpaced the growth in reported effective common shares during the selected period. It did.
Nor does the series support saying every Strategy imitator continued buying. It measures Strive, which disclosed purchases in each of the four reporting weeks, against Strategy, which disclosed two inactive weeks and one cash funded purchase. The proposed sector wide claim would require a defined sample of other public treasuries, their dated filings and the same calculation for each. Strive is one counterexample to a uniform pause, not proof of a universal trend.
For the earlier financing loop to be observable again at Strategy, a subsequent filing would need to show fresh securities issuance linked to BTC purchases. For Strive’s current run to persist on these measures, BTC per effective common share would need to keep rising while its preferred obligations remain financeable on the terms disclosed. A week of common issuance that outruns BTC growth would reverse the first measure. A change in SATA’s dividend rate or market price would change the economics of the second.
What to watch in the next filings
Strategy ATM sales. Its weekly Form 8-K reports whether shares were sold and, when applicable, how proceeds were used. New issuance funding BTC would identify a different sort of restart from the latest cash purchase.
Strategy USD Cash and USD Reserve. The Sept. 20 balances were approximately $1.05 billion and $5.04 billion. Subsequent changes will show whether cash purchases and security repurchases continue without replenishment.
Strive BTC per effective common share. Divide BTC held by Class A plus Class B shares at each dated snapshot. The Sept. 18 reference point is approximately 27,169 sats.
SATA shares and dividend rate. Strive reported 11,184,160 SATA shares on Sept. 18. Both the outstanding count and the announced variable rate determine the scale of the preferred claim.
STRC repurchases and Strive’s STRC holding. Strategy bought back 1,771,238 STRC shares in the latest period; Strive still held 505,000. The next filings can show whether those positions keep moving in opposite directions.
FAQ
How much Bitcoin did Strategy buy in September 2026?
Strategy disclosed a purchase of 950 BTC for $75.7 million between Sept. 14 and Sept. 20. It reported holdings of 846,000 BTC at the end of the period.
Did Strategy issue shares to buy that Bitcoin?
No ATM share sales were reported for that week. Strategy said it funded the 950 BTC purchase using USD Cash, while it also spent $174 million repurchasing STRC preferred shares.
How much Bitcoin did Strive buy in the same week?
Strive reported buying 1,355 BTC from Sept. 14 through Sept. 18 at an average price of approximately $79,475. It held 26,355 BTC at Sept. 18.
Why did Strive’s treasury grow faster than Strategy’s?
Strive began the latest period with 25,000 BTC, while Strategy began with 845,050 BTC. The respective purchases increased their positions 5.42% and 0.112%, although the reporting end dates differed by two days.
Did Strive’s new common shares cancel out its Bitcoin purchases?
No, based on the disclosed end point share counts. Between Aug. 21 and Sept. 18, BTC per effective common share rose from roughly 23,813 to 27,169 sats, or 14.1%.
What is the difference between STRC and SATA?
STRC is Strategy’s variable rate preferred stock, and SATA is Strive’s variable rate preferred stock. Strategy repurchased 1,771,238 STRC shares in its latest week; Strive’s outstanding SATA shares rose by 786,194 in its latest reporting period.
Does more BTC per common share guarantee a higher stock price?
No. It counts reported Bitcoin against a particular common share denominator, but it does not subtract preferred claims, liabilities or other costs. Market prices can move independently of that ratio.
What would show that Strategy’s financing loop restarted?
A future filing showing renewed securities issuance with proceeds allocated to Bitcoin would give direct evidence of that financing method returning. The Sept. 21 filing instead records a cash funded purchase and no ATM sales. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 15, 2026.
Join Our Telegram channel to stay up to date on breaking news coverage
Binance bought $100 million of Circle stock under a five-year deal that pays the exchange to promote the USDC stablecoin, according to a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission published September 22.
Circle issued Binance 1,237,011 Class A shares at $80.84 each in a private placement that closed September 17, the filing states. The stock went at a discount to Circle’s market price before the sale, though the filing does not say how large. Because the shares were sold unregistered, Binance cannot resell them unless they are registered or an exemption applies.
A five-year promotion pact with a monthly fee
Under the commercial agreement, Circle will pay Binance a monthly incentive fee calculated as a percentage of the USDC held through Circle’s Modular Smart Contract Wallet service, while Binance carries out promotional activities for the stablecoin. The fee percentage is not disclosed. Either company can end the five-year partnership early if specified events occur.
Binance cannot sell, transfer, pledge or hedge the shares for up to two years, subject to customary exceptions, unless it terminates the commercial arrangements under certain circumstances. It keeps the right to vote the shares during the lockup.
The arrangement supersedes and replaces agreements the two companies signed in November 2024 and August 2025, making this the third version of the tie-up in under two years. The first deal, announced at Abu Dhabi Finance Week in December 2024, had Binance making USDC available across its products and holding it in its treasury.
Richard Teng, co-CEO of Binance, called the investment and five-year commitment “long-duration conviction” in a statement.
The deal lands amid regulatory pressure
The filing was published one day after Bloomberg reported that federal prosecutors are investigating whether Binance breached US sanctions on Iran.
Circle’s stock has slid during the partnership’s expansion, closing at $94.29 on the NYSE on Monday, according to Yahoo Finance data, after trading in the mid-$80s when the placement closed. CRCL is down about 34% over 12 months, against a 16.5% gain for the S&P 500.
Jeremy Allaire, Circle’s co-founder, chairman and CEO, said Binance has become “the most widely used wallet for dollar stablecoins.”
Join Our Telegram channel to stay up to date on breaking news coverage
Binance has moved to support Zilliqa’s EVM network for ZIL deposits and withdrawals as the blockchain retires its legacy transaction system following a security incident that exposed thousands of accounts.
Summary
- Binance will migrate ZIL from the legacy Zilliqa network to Zilliqa EVM at a 1:1 ratio and handle the process for users.
- Zilliqa is retiring its legacy transaction system after a Ledger app flaw exposed 6,772 accounts and led to at least 683.13 million ZIL being stolen.
- ZIL trading on Binance will remain unaffected, while future deposits and withdrawals will be processed through Zilliqa EVM.
- Self custody holders are being moved through a separate zero knowledge proof based migration process designed to retire exposed legacy keys.
Binance said ZIL will be migrated from legacy Zilliqa mainnet addresses to the Zilliqa EVM network at a 1:1 ratio, with the exchange handling the technical process for users who hold the token on its platform.
Deposits and withdrawals through the legacy Zilliqa network have remained suspended on Binance since Aug. 5 at 01:00 UTC. Once its migration is complete, the exchange will open ZIL deposits and withdrawals through Zilliqa EVM without issuing a separate announcement.
Legacy Zilliqa deposits and withdrawals will no longer be supported after the migration. Spot trading, margin trading, futures and Binance Earn products involving ZIL will remain available during the process.
The Binance move forms part of Zilliqa’s ongoing effort to migrate exchanges, custodians and individual holders away from its legacy Schnorr based transaction system after a flaw in the Zilliqa Ledger application left some private keys vulnerable.
Zilliqa migration follows Ledger signing flaw
The migration stems from a vulnerability in Zilliqa’s Ledger application that affected native, non EVM transactions signed using Ledger devices.
As crypto.news previously reported, the problem involved the way the application generated Schnorr signatures. Each signature requires a random secret number, known as a nonce, but the affected application incorrectly copied the generated data into the signing buffer.
Zilliqa’s Aug. 20 post mortem found that the error left the top 64 bits of each nonce fixed at zero, reducing the randomness needed to protect a private key. An attacker could use several public signatures from the same account to reconstruct its private key.
The defect had been present in every released version of the Zilliqa Ledger application between 2019 and 2026. Zilliqa said the first proven theft occurred on March 4, months before the problem was detected.
Activity picked up in July, and KuCoin notified Zilliqa on July 19 after finding unusual outgoing transactions from one of its cold wallets. Zilliqa disabled legacy transactions on July 20 before identifying the root cause the following day.
The project later confirmed at least 683.13 million ZIL had been stolen across 66 transactions. A total of 6,772 accounts were identified as exposed, while 51 accounts were drained. Zilliqa described both figures as minimum confirmed totals because further exposed accounts could still be identified.
Initial details were much more limited when ZIL transfers were suspended in July. At the time, Zilliqa disclosed that an exchange partner had suffered a cold wallet theft but had not identified the attack method or the amount involved.
Zilliqa EVM transactions were not affected by the vulnerability. The project said software wallets using its supported SDKs generated nonces correctly, while the recovery phrase stored on Ledger devices was not exposed.
ZIL balances are moving to EVM addresses
Fixing the Ledger application could prevent new weak signatures, but Zilliqa said it could not secure private keys that had already been exposed through signatures stored permanently onchain.
The project consequently chose to retire the legacy non EVM transaction system and move users to Zilliqa EVM. Legacy addresses are being retired as balances are reassigned at the protocol level to EVM addresses.
Exchange migrations have been carried out in batches because each participating platform must provide and verify its EVM wallet addresses before balances can be reassigned.
The first exchange migration hard fork took place on Sept. 2, moving balances held in legacy Schnorr based wallets to EVM addresses supplied by participating exchanges.
KuCoin, MEXC, OKCoin, Binance US, Bitvavo, Korbit, Indodax, Bitrue, WhiteBIT, CoinSpot and CoinSwitch were included in the first batch. Users holding ZIL on the participating exchanges were not required to take any action.
A second hard fork was scheduled for Sept. 22 and covered CoinEx, HTX, Bitkub, GOPAX, Coinone, OKX, LBank, Crypto.com, Gate, Paribu, CEX.IO and Bitget.
Bybit and Bithumb were expected to join a third migration hard fork, while Zilliqa said it remained in contact with other platforms as address mappings were collected and verified.
Binance had remained outside the earlier batches. Its latest announcement now confirms that the exchange will stop supporting the old network and move its ZIL deposit and withdrawal infrastructure to Zilliqa EVM.
Self custody holders have a separate ZIL migration route
Exchange customers are not the only holders affected by the retirement of legacy addresses.
Zilliqa has developed a zero knowledge proof based migration system for users who hold ZIL in their own legacy wallets. The system is designed to allow a holder to prove ownership of an old address and transfer the associated balance to an EVM address without giving Zilliqa a seed phrase or private key.
The audit of the ZKP migration tool has been completed, according to a September update from Zilliqa, with internal testing following the security review. Its rollout was targeted for Sept. 22 alongside activation of an escrow contract required for the migration process.
The project has warned users against attempting to move funds through exposed legacy keys. Once an attacker reconstructs a private key from old signatures, both the legitimate holder and attacker can sign transactions from the account.
Legacy transactions were therefore disabled for all holders, including accounts that were never exposed. Zilliqa said freezing the old transaction system prevented attackers with reconstructed keys from moving funds while the migration process was being prepared.
Balances linked to ZIL already stolen during the incident are being handled separately and are not automatically restored through the exchange migration hard forks.
Zilliqa has been working with exchanges and law enforcement to trace the stolen assets. Its post mortem said an exchange account used to liquidate part of the stolen funds had been identified and frozen, while the project was working with Singapore Police and a law firm on the recovery process.
The team has separately proposed a community vote on changes to ZIL tokenomics that could include minting tokens to compensate affected holders. Zilliqa said details covering eligibility, amounts and mechanics would be released with the governance proposal because any new issuance would change ZIL supply.
Zilliqa EVM becomes the network’s production environment
Zilliqa’s move toward EVM infrastructure began before the Ledger incident.
The blockchain transitioned to Zilliqa 2.0 in June 2025, bringing full Ethereum Virtual Machine compatibility alongside a proof of stake consensus system and changes to the network’s architecture.
Its six month testing period involved 21 external validators, with the proto mainnet processing 7.5 million blocks and completing 15 client upgrades before the transition.
Legacy transaction support continued after Zilliqa 2.0 went live, leaving the blockchain with both the older native transaction infrastructure and its EVM environment.
Zilliqa said the Ledger incident brought forward a decision it had already been considering to retire the old infrastructure completely. The project described the legacy stack as an increasing development and security liability and said Zilliqa EVM would become its sole production environment.
The security incident came after several earlier technical problems involving the blockchain, though Zilliqa has not linked those outages to the Ledger vulnerability. A January 2025 network outage was attributed to problems involving lookup nodes, while a separate bug in September 2024 had halted block production.
Zilliqa’s post mortem said the patch for the Ledger application was submitted on July 24 and merged by a Ledger engineer on July 27. The corrected version restores full nonce generation for new signatures, while private keys already exposed through earlier legacy signatures must be retired.
Raiffeisen Bank International has partnered with Bitpanda Enterprise to create a common digital asset framework for its Central and Eastern European banking network, potentially bringing crypto services within reach of up to 18 million customers.
Summary
- RBI and Bitpanda Enterprise have partnered to build a digital asset framework that could serve up to 18 million banking customers across Central and Eastern Europe.
- Bitpanda will provide the underlying crypto infrastructure, while individual RBI network banks will decide their products and rollout plans based on local market and regulatory requirements.
- The agreement expands a model already used by Raiffeisen banks in Austria, where customers can access digital assets through their existing banking services.
- RBI operates subsidiary banks across 11 Central and Eastern European markets, giving the framework the potential to support crypto services across a large traditional banking network.
According to Bitpanda, the agreement will give RBI network banks the infrastructure needed to introduce digital asset services in their respective markets, while individual banks will decide what products to offer and when to launch them based on local regulations and market conditions.
The arrangement expands a model already used by Raiffeisen banks in Austria, where customers have been given access to cryptocurrencies through their existing banking environment. Instead of requiring customers to open a separate account with a crypto platform, Bitpanda provides the infrastructure behind the service offered through the bank.
RBI operates subsidiary banks across 11 Central and Eastern European markets and serves more than 18 million customers. Bitpanda Enterprise will provide the underlying digital asset technology for the network, creating a common setup that participating banks can use when introducing their own services.
RBI Bitpanda partnership builds on Austrian crypto rollout
Raiffeisen’s work with Bitpanda began at Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich-Wien, or RLB NÖ-Wien, which became one of the early traditional European Union banks to give customers access to cryptocurrencies within its existing banking setup.
Bitpanda supplied the technology behind that service, allowing customers to access digital assets while continuing to use their bank as the main point of contact. The latest RBI agreement takes the same approach beyond an individual Austrian bank and creates a framework that can be used across multiple markets.
Other Raiffeisen banks in Austria have since moved in the same direction. Raiffeisen Landesbank Tirol introduced access to digital assets through Bitpanda Enterprise in June, adding another regional bank to the infrastructure provider’s growing list of traditional banking partners.
The new arrangement does not mean crypto services will become available to all RBI customers at the same time. Each network bank will determine its product offering and launch schedule based on demand, local rules and its operating requirements.
RBI’s footprint gives the partnership considerably more potential reach than the earlier individual integrations. The banking group has around 42,000 employees and roughly 1,300 business outlets, with most of its customer base located in Central and Eastern Europe.
Bitpanda is building its banking infrastructure business
The RBI deal comes as Bitpanda has been expanding the institutional side of its business beyond its original retail crypto platform.
Bitpanda Enterprise provides banks and other financial companies with infrastructure for trading, custody, liquidity, payments, stablecoins and tokenization. Its systems can be integrated into a financial institution’s existing products instead of requiring the institution to build its own crypto infrastructure from the ground up.
Earlier in September, Bitpanda Enterprise expanded its work with BW-Bank as European banks continued adding digital asset products to existing financial services.
Bitpanda has worked with other major financial institutions as well. In May, IG Europe selected Bitpanda to provide liquidity, trading connectivity and market data for its planned European crypto trading expansion.
The Austrian company has maintained ties with Deutsche Bank since 2024, when the German lender began providing local IBANs and real time payment infrastructure for Bitpanda customers in Germany. The relationship has since expanded into other areas of digital asset infrastructure, with Deutsche Bank preparing crypto custody services for Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Bitpanda reported €371 million in adjusted revenue for 2025, up 16% from the previous year, while its user base reached 7.4 million. Crypto.news previously reported that the company was expanding its white label infrastructure business alongside its retail operations.
European banks are adding more regulated crypto services
RBI’s framework comes during a period of growing participation by traditional banks in the European Union’s regulated crypto market.
Banks represented nearly 23% of entities listed on the European Securities and Markets Authority’s crypto provider register by Sept. 16, after their number roughly doubled from around 40 in late June to about 80. The total number of listed crypto providers rose from 243 to 349 over the same period.
German cooperative banks have accounted for part of that growth. Six more institutions joined the register in August, taking Germany’s total number of authorized crypto asset service providers to 79 at the time.
EU rules give banks a separate route into the crypto market under the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation. Credit institutions can provide covered crypto services after submitting the required information to their home regulator, while crypto companies generally need authorization as crypto asset service providers.
Bitpanda has positioned its regulated infrastructure as a way for banks and financial companies to enter that market without developing their own trading and custody systems. The company operates under MiCA licenses in Europe and has continued supplying infrastructure to institutions expanding their digital asset offerings.
Its regulatory record has faced scrutiny as well. Austria’s Financial Market Authority fined Bitpanda €70,000 in August over breaches involving crypto asset white paper and marketing requirements. The proceedings were completed through an expedited procedure and became the Austrian regulator’s first published final penalty under MiCA.
At the same time, traditional banks have continued taking a larger role in regulated crypto services. ESMA data showed banking institutions accounting for almost one in four listed crypto providers by mid September, though the services permitted for each institution differ and can include custody, transfers, order execution, portfolio management or exchanges between crypto assets and funds.
For RBI, the Bitpanda framework leaves those product decisions with its individual network banks. Participating institutions can introduce digital asset services when their local regulatory and operating conditions allow, using Bitpanda Enterprise as the common infrastructure layer behind their customer offerings.
The race to build artificial intelligence (AI) chips is no longer just about who can make the fastest processor. Now, it is increasingly becoming a China-U.S. technology contest, with companies on both sides pushing to build more of their own AI-computing capabilities as U.S. government restrictions limit China’s access to advanced U.S. chips.
Huawei just gave that race another jolt. The Chinese tech giant is reportedly moving up the launch of its next-generation Ascend 960DT AI chip to the first quarter of 2027 from its previously planned Q3 timeline. Huawei also plans to launch the Ascend 960PR in Q3 2027, accelerating its broader Ascend roadmap as it works to expand China’s domestic AI infrastructure.
More News from Barchart
Huawei is not stopping at individual chips, either. The company is developing UnifiedBus technology to connect groups of AI processors so that they work as larger computing systems. Huawei has developed 11 chips around the technology for its supernode and supercluster systems and has reportedly already shipped more than 1,000 supernode systems.
That matters because Nvidia (NVDA) has become almost synonymous with the AI infrastructure boom. The company’s GPUs power the training and running of advanced AI models, while its advantage stretches beyond chips into networking and the broader software ecosystem. Huawei is now aiming at that system-level advantage, particularly in China, where U.S. export restrictions have made access to Nvidia’s most advanced hardware more difficult.
So, is Huawei’s faster roadmap just another headline, or could it eventually change the competitive landscape for Nvidia? Let’s take a closer look at what the move could mean for Nvidia and where NVDA stock stands from here.
About Nvidia Stock
Nvidia hardly needs an introduction these days. Once known mainly for making graphics chips for gamers, the company has become one of the biggest names in the AI revolution, and one of Wall Street’s favorite ways to play it. Founded in 1993 and headquartered in Santa Clara, California, Nvidia spent decades building its expertise in GPUs before the technology suddenly became central to the AI boom.
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has compared a new Connecticut firearms lawsuit with Ripple’s former SEC battle, arguing that both disputes raise questions about businesses determining whether their conduct complies with unclear regulatory standards.
Summary
- David Schwartz compared Connecticut’s Glock dispute with Ripple’s former SEC battle over regulatory clarity concerns.
- Glock filed its federal lawsuit September 21, seeking relief before Connecticut’s October 1 law starts.
- Judge Kari Dooley scheduled a federal September 29 hearing on Glock’s emergency preliminary injunction request.
- Connecticut’s attorney general says the convertible-pistol law is lawful and will be defended in court.
- Ripple and the SEC ended their appeals in August 2025, leaving the final judgment intact.
Schwartz said on Sept. 23 that the situation described in the Glock litigation appeared “grossly unfair,” after attorney Kostas Moros drew attention to Glock’s claim that Connecticut officials had not clearly told the manufacturer whether redesigned pistols comply with a law taking effect Oct. 1. Schwartz added: “Ask me how I know.”
His comparison refers to Ripple’s years-long dispute with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, but the Connecticut case does not involve cryptocurrency, securities law or the SEC. No court has found that Connecticut officials used the same legal strategy as the federal securities regulator; Schwartz’s comments describe his personal interpretation of the two disputes.
Ripple veteran sees familiar uncertainty in Glock case
Glock filed Glock, Inc. v. Griffin et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Sept. 21, naming Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and state prosecutors responsible for enforcing the law. The company brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenged Connecticut’s new restrictions on “convertible pistols.”
The manufacturer has asked the court for emergency relief before the statute becomes effective. Judge Kari A. Dooley ordered Glock to serve the complaint and injunction papers by noon Sept. 24, gave defendants until 5 p.m. Sept. 28 to respond, and scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. Sept. 29 in Bridgeport.
Connecticut Public Act 26-41 makes it a Class D felony to knowingly import, advertise, sell, offer or expose for sale certain newly manufactured “convertible pistols” beginning Oct. 1. The statute defines the category around semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily altered and converted into machine guns using a pistol converter.
Glock contends its redesigned Slimline, V Series and Gen 6 handguns should fall outside that definition because the company says they were engineered to resist illegal conversion devices. Its lawsuit seeks a declaration covering those products or, alternatively, relief against enforcement if the court finds the statutory terms too vague. The claims remain allegations and have not been decided.
Schwartz focused on the uncertainty Glock says it faces before the criminal provision becomes enforceable. In his post, he characterized a system where a company “cannot possibly know whether you are complying with the law” as unfair, then connected that complaint to his experience during Ripple’s litigation.
When another X user asked how he knew such tactics, Schwartz replied, “A little birdie told me,” while pointing readers back to the SEC v. Ripple dispute.
Connecticut rejects Glock’s challenge to new law
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has taken the opposite position on the statute.
Tong said on Sept. 21 that Connecticut’s gun laws are “lawful and lifesaving” and that his office would “aggressively defend” the state against the lawsuit. His statement did not address Schwartz or the Ripple comparison.
The law emerged from H.B. 5043, which Gov. Ned Lamont signed in May. Connecticut’s legislative analysis says the measure applies to newly manufactured convertible pistols and provides a maximum five-year prison term, a fine of up to $5,000, or both for a Class D felony conviction.
A second federal challenge arrived the same day as Glock’s filing. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Shadow Systems and Blue Trail Range Corporation filed NSSF et al. v. Griffin et al., arguing that the same restrictions violate the Second Amendment. NSSF has described the law as an unconstitutional ban on widely sold striker-fired handguns, a characterization Connecticut disputes.
The federal court calendar currently lists both cases for motion hearings at 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 29 before Judge Dooley.
Schwartz ties dispute back to Ripple’s SEC history
Ripple’s regulatory fight began in December 2020 when the SEC alleged that Ripple Labs, Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen conducted more than $1.3 billion in unregistered XRP securities offerings.
Throughout the case, Ripple disputed the agency’s interpretation of XRP transactions and argued that market participants lacked clear notice about how federal securities law applied to digital assets.
Judge Analisa Torres issued a split ruling in July 2023. She found that Ripple’s institutional XRP sales constituted investment contracts under the circumstances presented, while programmatic exchange sales and certain other distributions did not satisfy the same test.
Schwartz has continued discussing the distinction since leaving Ripple’s full-time CTO role. As previously reported, Schwartz argued that the SEC repeatedly described XRP itself as a security during the litigation, while former SEC officials have said the legal case ultimately concerned Ripple’s transactions and offers rather than an abstract classification of the token.
Ripple officially identifies Schwartz as CTO Emeritus and an XRP Ledger co-creator.
The original SEC case no longer remains active. The SEC announced on Aug. 7, 2025 that both sides had agreed to dismiss their appeals, ending the Commission’s civil enforcement action. The district court’s final judgment stayed in force.
That judgment requires Ripple to pay a $125.035 million civil penalty and subjects it to an injunction concerning future violations of the Securities Act’s registration provisions. The SEC’s own litigation release confirms that dismissal of the appeals did not erase those terms.
In related coverage, Ripple and the SEC formally ended their appellate fight in August 2025 after nearly five years of litigation.
Regulatory clarity remains part of Ripple’s policy message
Schwartz’s latest comment arrives while Ripple continues calling for clearer statutory rules governing digital assets in the U.S.
After the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15, Ripple said the legislation had offered Congress a chance to create “clear, predictable rules of the road.” The company argued that XRP’s existing legal position was not changed by the Senate vote.
Recent comments from Schwartz have kept the old SEC litigation in public view. In July, he said the Commission’s original complaint frequently used language describing XRP as the security, while critics of that reading argued the court’s ultimate focus remained on specific offers and sales.
As previously reported, the final Ripple judgment preserved restrictions on direct institutional XRP sales while leaving exchange-based transactions outside the court’s securities finding.
Ripple executives have separately described how disruptive the case became internally. CEO Brad Garlinghouse said this year that the company seriously considered shutting down after the SEC sued in 2020. Schwartz said outside lawyers at one stage viewed the business as difficult to save, accounts that describe Ripple executives’ recollections and do not establish the SEC’s intent.
The Connecticut litigation now has its own immediate procedural timetable. Glock must complete service by Sept. 24, Connecticut’s defendants must file their response to the requested preliminary injunction by Sept. 28, and Judge Dooley is scheduled to hear arguments Sept. 29 before Public Act 26-41 takes effect Oct. 1.
Kalshi has pushed back against reports that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is reviewing a suspicious pattern of trading in its Ether perpetual futures market. The exchange says it has not been contacted by regulators and doubts there is any formal examination underway.
The controversy centers on a reported cluster of rapid, nearly identical trades around roughly $5,500 each, allegations that some observers are framing as potential wash trading. The dispute comes as Kalshi’s perpetual futures business has expanded quickly since its May launch.
Key takeaways
- Kalshi says it has not received contact from the CFTC and does not believe a formal review is taking place.
- The CFTC scrutiny described by the Wall Street Journal relates to a repeated $5,500 trade-size pattern in Ether perpetual futures.
- Kalshi attributes repeated order sizes to liquidity incentive programs that reward makers for resting orders within a price band—not to rewards for executed trade volume.
- Kalshi argues the activity reflects normal market-making dynamics with many takers hitting a fixed-size resting order, rather than wash trading.
- The Journal also reported equity-linked incentives tied to trading-volume targets, which Kalshi’s response did not directly address.
CFTC review report meets Kalshi denial
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CFTC is examining a pattern of rapid trades clustered around $5,500 in Kalshi’s Ether perpetual futures. The report cited a person familiar with the matter and said the trading behavior has sparked allegations of wash trading.
Kalshi responded by disputing the premise of any regulatory action. Elisabeth Diana, head of communications at Kalshi, told Cointelegraph that the company “has not been contacted by the CFTC” and “doesn’t believe there is any formal examination.” She further characterized the chatter as “rumors seeded by competitors,” adding that the behavior is consistent with liquidity incentive programs common in financial markets.
Diana urged people not to rely on social media claims, stating: “Don’t believe everything you read on X.”
What the reported trade pattern suggests
The trades described by the Journal occurred within one of Kalshi’s perpetual futures markets, where participants speculate on the price of an underlying asset without taking spot ownership. In this case, the underlying is Ether.
According to the Journal, trades of roughly $5,500 each accounted for more than $5 billion in Ether perp volume over the past month. The scale of the repeated-size activity is important because wash trading allegations typically emerge when volume appears to rise without genuine economic risk transfer between independent parties.
The Journal also reported that Kalshi offered some traders opportunities to buy equity in the company if they met trading-volume targets. It said the incentives included waived trading fees and monthly cash payments designed to encourage large traders to provide liquidity.
While those incentive structures may be familiar in traditional markets, the details matter in crypto derivatives—particularly when regulators or market observers are trying to determine whether activity is driven by genuine hedging and price discovery or by self-referential execution designed to simulate demand.
Kalshi’s explanation: liquidity programs and market-maker resting orders
In a blog post published on Wednesday, Kalshi sought to clarify why trade sizes appeared repeatedly similar. The company said the recurring $5,500-sized trades reflect programs that pay market makers to keep buy and sell orders available at specified sizes and within set price ranges.
Kalshi’s central claim is that incentives reward the availability of resting orders rather than the volume of trades that ultimately execute. In other words, the firm argues that the structure of its liquidity mechanism can naturally produce repeated execution sizes when many takers interact with a maker’s fixed quotes.
However, Kalshi’s post did not directly address the equity-purchase opportunity tied to trading-volume targets as described by the Wall Street Journal. That omission leaves an open question for readers: even if the trade-size pattern can be explained by market-making design, how equity- or cash-linked targets influence participant behavior remains a separate issue worth watching.
Market-making dynamics vs. wash trading allegations
Kalshi’s response leaned heavily on how derivatives markets function. The company noted that market makers support trading by continuously quoting prices they are willing to buy and sell at, offering other traders ready counterparties. In that framework, market makers can earn from spreads but face losses if prices move against their quoted levels.
In contrast, “takers” are the traders who accept the resting prices offered by market makers. Kalshi argued that the reported fixed-size executions align with a market maker posting orders of a consistent size, then being hit by many takers.
Kalshi also said traders could profit when prices moved on other exchanges, by buying or selling at a market maker’s outdated price. The company further claimed that the activity involved “hundreds of distinct traders,” with takers “pretty consistently right” and the maker “pretty consistently wrong.”
On that basis, Kalshi characterized the pattern as evidence of “genuine economic activity rather than wash,” explaining that wash trading typically shows volume increase without either side taking meaningful profit or loss in the way expected from independent risk-taking.
In essence, Kalshi is arguing that the direction of outcomes—rather than the repetition of trade sizes alone—helps distinguish real liquidity provision from trades that are structured to look active without reflecting true trading interest.
What to watch next
If regulators pursue inquiries, the key remaining uncertainty is whether investigators focus on the liquidity mechanism itself or on the broader incentive ecosystem—especially any elements tied to trading volume targets and equity access. Market participants will likely watch for additional clarification from the CFTC, further documentation from Kalshi, and whether similar patterns appear consistently as perpetual futures markets mature.
Crypto World
How Is Gen Digital’s Stock Performance Compared to Other Software – Infrastructure Stocks?
Valued at a market cap of $17.4 billion, Tempe, Arizona-based Gen Digital Inc. (GEN) is a global company focused on enabling Digital Freedom through trusted consumer brands including Norton, Avast, LifeLock, and MoneyLion. The company provides products and services spanning cybersecurity, online privacy, identity protection, and financial wellness.
Companies valued at $10 billion or more are generally classified as “large-cap” stocks, and Gen Digital fits this criterion perfectly, exceeding the mark. Gen Digital serves nearly 500 million users across more than 150 countries, helping consumers live their digital lives safely, privately, and confidently.
More News from Barchart
Shares of Gen Digital have dipped 9.9% from its 52-week high of $31.65. The stock has increased 25% over the past three months, outperforming the broader iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF’s (IGV) return of 22.4% during the same period.
Gen Digital’s shares have risen 5.8% on a YTD basis, outpacing IGV’s 1.1% gain. The stock has declined marginally over the past 52 weeks, compared to IGV’s 9.3% drop over the same time frame.
GEN stock has been trading above its 50-day moving average since May.
Gen Digital shares rose 3.8% following its Q1 2027 results on Aug. 6 as adjusted revenue increased 11% to $1.34 billion, bookings grew 11% to $1.28 billion, and adjusted EPS jumped 19% to $0.71, reflecting broad-based growth across both segments. The company also generated $430 million in free cash flow and delivered $668 million in adjusted operating income, up 9%, including EPS surged 65% to $0.36.
In addition, Gen Digital raised its fiscal 2027 revenue guidance to $5.38 billion – $5.48 billion and adjusted EPS guidance to $2.87 – $2.97.
In comparison, rival Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) has underperformed GEN stock. Shares of Microsoft have gained 3% on a YTD basis and declined 3.2% over the past 52 weeks.
Despite the stock’s outperformance relative to its industry peers, analysts are cautiously optimistic, with a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” from 10 analysts. The mean price target of $33.60 suggests a premium of 17.6% to current levels.
On the date of publication, Sohini Mondal did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Barchart.com
Prediction markets operator Kalshi said it has not been contacted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and does not believe there is any formal examination, after a report that the regulator was reviewing a flurry of trading activity in its Ether perpetual futures market.
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CFTC is examining a pattern of rapid trades clustered around $5,500, citing a person familiar with the matter. The trading pattern has prompted allegations of wash trading.
The scrutiny comes as Kalshi has reported rapid growth in its perpetual futures business. A week after launching its perpetual futures markets in May, the company told CNBC that trading volume had surpassed $1 billion.
Elisabeth Diana, head of communications at Kalshi, described the discourse as “rumors seeded by competitors.”
“We have not been contacted by the CFTC and don’t believe there is any formal examination,” Diana told Cointelegraph. “As we’ve said, these data patterns are typical of liquidity incentive programs and common in financial markets. Don’t believe everything you read on X.”
Cluster of trades on Ether perpetual futures
The trades took place in one of Kalshi’s markets for perpetual futures, where users speculate on the price of an asset without buying it; in this case, the price of Ether.
The trades of roughly $5,500 each accounted for over $5 billion in Ether perp volume over the past month, according to the Journal.
The Journal also reported that Kalshi offered some traders opportunities to buy equity in the company if they met trading-volume targets, citing people familiar with the arrangements. It also said the company waived trading fees and provided monthly cash payments to encourage large traders to provide liquidity.
In a blog post on Wednesday, Kalshi attributed the repeated trade sizes to programs that pay market makers to keep buy and sell orders available at specified sizes and at a set price range. It said those payments reward the availability of orders, not the volume of trades executed.
The post did not directly address the equity-purchase opportunity tied to trading volume targets as reported by the Journal.
Kalshi denies wash trading claims
Market makers help financial markets function by continuously quoting prices at which they are willing to buy and sell an asset, giving other traders ready counterparties to trade with. Market makers can profit from the difference between their buying and selling prices, but risk losses if prices move against them. Traders who accept their quoted prices are known as takers.
Related: Kalshi joins Coinbase with own filing for US stock perpetual futures
Kalshi said traders could profit when prices changed on other exchanges by buying or selling at a market maker’s outdated price.
“The fixed size trades are entirely consistent with a single maker putting up resting orders of a fixed size and getting traded against by many takers,” Kalshi said.
It said the trades involved hundreds of distinct traders taking a market maker’s orders, with the takers “pretty consistently right” and the maker “pretty consistently wrong.”
“This is a sign of genuine economic activity rather than wash (where you’d expect volume to increase without either side taking a profit/loss),” Kalshi said.
Magazine: Winners and losers of the SEC’s new tokenized stocks rules
The US Treasury paid its highest yield on a 5-year note since June 2006, a sign that demand for government debt is weakening even as yields stay elevated across the board.
Rising yields raise borrowing costs across the economy. They also tend to pressure stocks, bonds, and other risk assets as investors demand more compensation for holding debt.
Rising Yield, Dropping Interest
Wednesday’s $70 billion auction priced at 5.033%, above the 5.002% when-issued level, according to Dow Jones. That is up from 4.393% at the prior sale in August.
The bid-to-cover ratio measures how many bids came in for each note sold. It fell to 2.212, the lowest since December 2018.
Indirect bidders, a group that includes foreign central banks, took just 54.3% of the sale. That is down from 61.5% at the last auction and the lowest share since March 2020.
Yields Are Rising Across the Curve
The pressure was not limited to 5-year debt. The 10-year Treasury yield also climbed to 5.12% on Wednesday, its highest level since 2007, while the 30-year touched 5.37%.
CNBC’s Rick Santelli called the 5-year results weak, saying traders had little time to adjust before the sale. Business activity accelerated at its fastest pace since July 2021, according to flash survey data, adding to the pressure on yields that morning.
Federal Reserve governor Michael Barr said Wednesday that further rate hikes are still needed to bring down inflation. Traders have since pushed the odds of an October hike to 70%.
Santelli noted 10-year Treasury yields have averaged roughly 5.5% since 1980. That history suggests current levels are less extreme than they appear. Still, he flagged the next resistance level for 5-year yields near 5.19%.
What It Means for Bitcoin
Higher long-term yields raise the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like bitcoin (BTC). Bitcoin already fell below $84,000 after a separate hot data print pushed the 10-year yield above 5%.
A soft 5-year auction adds to that pressure. Bitcoin has increasingly traded in step with tech stocks, making it sensitive to shifts in the rate outlook.
The sell-off follows a broader pattern of global bond yields surging to multi-decade highs across major economies this year.
Traders will now watch whether yields keep grinding higher across the curve. Santelli still expects the current sell-off to prove temporary rather than the start of a deeper repricing.
The post Treasury's 5-Year Auction Hits 20-Year Yield High: What This Means for Bitcoin appeared first on BeInCrypto.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has begun preparing financial markets for what Chair Michael Selig called “mass tokenization,” as the agency works to adapt existing rules for blockchain, artificial intelligence and onchain finance.
Summary
- CFTC Chair Michael Selig said financial markets should prepare for mass tokenization, with real world assets potentially settling almost instantly on blockchain based infrastructure.
- Selig said tokenized collateral could move in real time between clearinghouses, intermediaries and users as the CFTC adapts existing rules for onchain markets.
- The CFTC is moving ahead with crypto regulation under its existing authority after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15.
- The SEC has taken a parallel step by granting a five year exemption that allows qualifying platforms to trade tokenized versions of US listed stocks under specific conditions.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig said during the U.S. Treasury Market Conference on Sept. 22 that regulators need to prepare existing market structures for tokenized real world assets, 24/7 trading and technologies that could operate across traditional financial infrastructure.
Selig described tokenization as one of the technologies that could change how assets and collateral move through financial markets. High quality tokenized collateral, he said, could make liquidity more dynamic while allowing assets to move between clearinghouses, intermediaries and end users in real time.
Blockchain based financial infrastructure could eventually support near instantaneous settlement alongside that movement of collateral, according to Selig. He compared the potential change with the transition from trading through hand signals to electronic markets.
“Just as the transition from hand signals to electronic trading advanced our financial system, I believe tokenization can do the same for all asset classes,” Selig said.
CFTC sees tokenization reaching multiple asset classes
Preparing markets for “mass tokenization” will require regulators to adjust older frameworks so blockchain and AI can be used at scale, Selig said. His remarks covered real world asset tokenization alongside onchain finance and markets that could operate around the clock.
Stablecoins are part of that work. Earlier in 2026, the CFTC expanded the types of eligible tokenized collateral to include certain payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks and published guidance covering the use of crypto assets and blockchain technology by regulated entities.
Selig said the commission plans to continue looking for ways to support stablecoin use by market participants, exchanges and clearinghouses. The agency intends to rely on principles based regulation as tokenization develops, while maintaining its existing market integrity responsibilities.
Around the clock trading is being treated separately depending on the asset involved. Selig said crypto and precious metals may currently be suited to 24/7 markets, while agricultural products, energy contracts and some financial products may not be ready for the same structure.
The CFTC has already sought public feedback on expanding trading hours and issued staff guidance covering 24/7 trading, clearing and settlement. Selig said surveillance systems, margin frameworks and operational safeguards would need to function continuously if markets move toward that model.
The tokenization push is unfolding while the agency is working on a separate regulatory framework for crypto markets using powers it already has.
As crypto.news previously reported, the CFTC submitted its crypto market framework to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Sept. 17, two days after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act.
The filing, titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets,” remains at the prerule stage. Proposed regulatory text has not been released, and the filing itself does not create new trading or registration requirements.
Selig had already said in August that the agency was prepared to pursue digital asset market rules even if Congress did not complete the CLARITY Act. The proposals under consideration included rules for leveraged or margined crypto transactions through regulated markets and possible regulatory routes for developers building onchain financial products.
CLARITY Act setback leaves agencies working under existing powers
The Senate failed to invoke cloture on the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15 in a 49 to 50 vote, leaving the measure 11 votes short of the 60 required to advance.
The failed procedural vote did not end work on the legislation. Seven Democratic senators who voted against cloture later said negotiations could continue, leaving open the possibility of another attempt if lawmakers reach an agreement on outstanding provisions. Talks over the CLARITY Act resumed after the vote, although no new Senate vote has been scheduled.
While Congress continues negotiations, both the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission have taken regulatory steps under their current statutory powers.
The CFTC’s Market Participants Division on Sept. 17 issued a no action position covering qualifying passive software providers that connect users with registered derivatives exchanges, brokers and futures commission merchants. Under the relief, staff will not recommend enforcement for certain failures to register as introducing brokers or associated persons when providers meet 10 specified conditions. The conditional registration relief applies only to activities covered by the staff letter.
SEC opens a five year route for tokenized US stocks
The SEC has moved further into tokenized markets through a temporary exemption that gives qualifying platforms a regulatory route for trading digital versions of US listed stocks.
On Sept. 17, the commission granted Tokenized Securities Venues temporary conditional relief from the definition of an exchange under the Securities Exchange Act. The exemption permits eligible venues to use permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools to facilitate trading in tokenized National Market System stocks.
The five year tokenized stock exemption carries several conditions. Tokens traded under the framework must give holders the same rights and privileges as the corresponding traditional shares, while synthetic products that provide only price exposure do not qualify.
Venues must give the underlying company notice and an opportunity to object when an unaffiliated third party tokenizes its shares. Smart contracts used by participating venues must be public and auditable, while trading in a tokenized stock must stop when trading in the underlying stock is halted on its primary exchange.
The SEC placed limits on the number of symbols and trading volume permitted under the framework. Qualifying venues are required to disclose information about their operations and trading activity, while certain liquidity providers can receive temporary conditional relief from the Exchange Act’s dealer definition.
The exemption is scheduled to expire five years after publication, with the commission requesting public feedback while it considers longer term rules for onchain securities markets. SEC Chair Paul Atkins described the framework as an interim measure that would allow tokenized stock trading in a permissioned environment while regulators evaluate further changes.
US regulators prepare existing market rules for onchain finance
SEC Division of Trading and Markets Director Jamie Selway has said tokenization and crypto have become politically contentious even though he does not view market technology as inherently political. He said US development of the technology should be capable of drawing support across party lines.
The SEC’s September order puts part of that approach into practice by letting qualifying venues experiment with tokenized listed stocks without removing the underlying securities from federal securities law.
Commissioner Mark Uyeda said tokenization could be used across issuance, trading, transfer, settlement and ownership records. Under the temporary framework, regulators will be able to observe trading venues and market participants while considering permanent rules, he said.
CFTC policy is developing along a parallel track in derivatives markets. Selig said the agency expects blockchain, tokenized assets and continuous trading to become a larger part of financial infrastructure, but he rejected a single approach for every market.
The commission has instead tied potential 24/7 trading to the characteristics of individual asset classes. Selig said its role would include ensuring surveillance, margin systems and operational safeguards can work continuously where markets adopt round the clock trading.
For tokenized collateral, the agency has already permitted certain payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks to qualify under its collateral framework. Selig said the CFTC plans to continue examining additional uses for stablecoins across regulated market participants, exchanges and clearinghouses.
Binance Buys $100 Million Circle Stake in USDC Deal
![LISA - MONEY [BORN PINK in OSAKA]](https://wordupnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/1790216227_maxresdefault-80x80.jpg)
LISA – MONEY [BORN PINK in OSAKA]
under 100 days left to enter
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Talbots – Corporette.com
-
Tech3 days agoResearchers escape OpenAI Codex sandbox to run commands on host
-
Crypto World5 days agoCircle launches Arc Studio AI agent for building onchain apps
-
Crypto World3 days agoWho Needs CLARITY Anyway? ARB Could See 70X Increase: Hodler’s Digest
-
NewsBeat5 days agoTrump says US has reached an agreement to take permanent control of Greenland’s security
-
Crypto World5 days agoTrading Bitcoin on Robinhood? Why 2% Spread Has Traders Worried
-
Crypto World1 day agoGoldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank Agree: The S&P 500 Rally Isn't Over
-
Crypto World6 days agoMortgage and refinance interest rates today, Thursday, September 17, 2026
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin price breaks channel as RSI climbs to 63
-
Tech2 days agoGoogle’s $899 Googlebook is a bet that you’ll buy a new laptop for Gemini
-
Business3 days agoAnalog Devices (ADI) Bets $1.35 Billion on Chips that Let Machines Think for Themselves
-
Crypto World3 days agoCoinbase, Robinhood, Circle Seen as Tokenized-Stock Winners
-
Crypto World5 days agoWorld Money launches in 150+ countries with Stripe
-
Crypto World6 days agoSilver prices recover quickly, hitting weekly high today
-
Tech4 days agoTrump suggests rebranding AI with a new name, says he’s also creating an AI Force
-
Business23 hours agoOil Price Today (September 23): Crude oil below $100 on hopes of US-Iran talks. What did Trump say?
-
Tech6 days agoGPT-6 Astra Reached the Nether in Minecraft, Lost Its Stash to a Creeper, and Farmed Potatoes for Hours
-
NewsBeat5 days agoUS was ‘on brink of war’ with China over false AI report of nukes moving in Middle East
-
Crypto World2 days agoMeta Jumps 11% As Muse Shines and Investors Show an Appetite for Advancing AI
-
Crypto World5 days agoCFTC sends crypto market structure rulemaking to White House
You must be logged in to post a comment Login