Ravencoin disclosed on Aug. 11 that a critical consensus vulnerability had been exploited since Aug. 7, allowing vulnerable nodes to accept invalid blocks beginning at height 4,487,776. 

The project warned in its notice that a recovery chain being mined by 2Miners and RavenMiner could trigger a deep reorganization spanning “approximately three days” if it becomes dominant.

The alert followed an emergency software release from 2Miners on Aug. 10. The pool said the flaw sits in KAWPOW block header validation and allows an attacker to bypass the normal memory intensive mining process. Ravencoin advised exchanges to halt RVN deposits and withdrawals and told users to treat confirmations after block 4,487,775 as potentially reversible.

Ravencoin bug allowed cheap invalid blocks

2Miners said the KAWPOW header contains an nHeight field that was not checked against a block’s actual position in the chain. By manipulating that value, an attacker could reach a validation path that skipped full proof of work verification and accepted a supplied mix hash without confirming genuine ProgPoW work.

The emergency release said blocks created through the flaw carried no genuine ProgPoW work and were “orders of magnitude cheaper” to produce than honest blocks at the same difficulty. It also documented two effects seen on mainnet: affected nodes could fail after restarting, while nodes attempting to synchronize could encounter broken header sequences and fail to catch up.

2Miners said exploitation continued from Aug. 7 through its Aug. 10 release. Between heights 4,489,527 and 4,491,615, it identified 96 affected blocks among 2,089 examined. A separate sample covering the period before Aug. 7 found no affected blocks, supporting the identified starting point.

2Miners ships emergency patch as recovery continues

2Miners released version 4.6.1.1-hf1, which rejects blocks whose declared header height differs from their actual chain position starting at 4,487,776. The patch also adds a checkpoint at 4,487,775 and rebuilds chain state when damaged index data prevents a node from continuing normally.

The pool said node operators, exchanges, miners and explorers should upgrade. Its release warns that the first restart can take several hours because the software replays about 4.49 million blocks and 28 million transactions while rebuilding chain state. Operators running several nodes were advised to upgrade them individually.

Ravencoin’s official GitHub notes separately said there was not yet a core version patching both the KAWPOW problem and a different asset transfer quantity overflow bug. Maintainer Hans Schmidt recommended using the 2Miners code for the mining problem until a combined patch becomes available.

Exchanges halt transfers as RVN falls 19%

Upbit suspended Ravencoin deposits and withdrawals on Aug. 10, citing a network issue, before the project’s broader warning. Its notice leaves trading available while transfers remain halted. Bitget also suspended RVN deposits and withdrawals for wallet maintenance beginning Aug. 10.

CoinGecko data showed RVN trading near $0.00288 on Tuesday, down about 19.1% over 24 hours. Its market capitalization had fallen to roughly $47.3 million while 24 hour trading volume approached $11 million.

Ravencoin has experienced a different protocol vulnerability before. In 2020, attackers exploited a flaw to create about 315 million unauthorized RVN, as crypto.news reported in earlier Ravencoin exploit coverage. The earlier incident involved excess token issuance, while the current vulnerability concerns proof of work validation and competing chain histories.

In related block reorganization coverage, an 18 block Monero reorg in 2025 invalidated previously confirmed transactions. The episode illustrates why exchanges often become cautious about transaction finality when proof of work networks develop competing histories.

What happens next for the Ravencoin chain

Ravencoin said 2Miners and RavenMiner controlled a majority of network hash rate and were mining from the last unaffected block while excluding the exploited branch. The project cautioned that if their chain becomes dominant, transactions confirmed after 4,487,775 may disappear from the accepted history. Some could return to mempools and be mined again, but Ravencoin said this is “not guaranteed.”

The next milestones are a stable dominant chain, wider adoption of patched software and a combined upstream Ravencoin release. Until then, the project’s guidance remains for exchanges to suspend transfers and for users not to rely on recent confirmations. Ravencoin also stressed that its warning should not be interpreted as support for a rollback or any particular recovery plan.

The SEC Reg Crypto proposal is heading to an Aug. 14, 2026, open meeting, where the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will consider whether to issue proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. ET. If approved, the proposed release would begin the formal public-comment process once published.

SEC Schedules Regulation Crypto Assets for Aug 14

The SEC’s Aug. 10 Sunshine Act notice confirms that the Commission will hold an open meeting on Friday, Aug. 14, at 10 a.m. ET. The meeting will take place at the SEC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., and will also be available through the agency’s webcast.

The official agenda identifies the matter as “Regulation Crypto Assets.” The Commission will consider whether to issue a release proposing new rules to create a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.

The initiative is commonly referred to as “Reg Crypto,” while the SEC’s official agenda uses the title “Regulation Crypto Assets.” The matter falls under the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance. The agency lists Jim Moloney, Sebastian Gomez Abero, Valian Afshar, Patrick Faller, John Fieldsend and Irene Paik as staff members for the agenda item.

The SEC’s notice does not announce a final rule. It states that the Commission will consider whether to issue a proposal. If approved and issued, the proposal would move into the public-comment and rulemaking process.

The meeting notice was dated Aug. 10, with the open meeting scheduled four days later. The SEC currently has three sitting commissioners, all Republicans. Their votes will determine whether the SEC issues the proposal for public comment.

Reg Crypto Could Create a Pathway for Crypto Fundraising

The proposed framework could address how certain crypto projects raise capital under a tailored offering regime. The framework could give eligible crypto firms a pathway to raise capital for projects without immediately triggering the SEC’s full registration requirements.

That would potentially give qualifying projects a defined route for fundraising in the United States while operating within a framework established by the agency. For crypto founders and fundraising platforms, the potential change could address uncertainty around how certain digital-asset projects structure offerings in the U.S. market.

Regulatory uncertainty has also encouraged some crypto offerings to seek jurisdictions outside the United States. A tailored U.S. framework could provide qualifying projects with another option for raising capital domestically. The precise scope of the fundraising pathway remains unknown because the SEC’s Aug. 10 notice does not specify registration exemptions, eligibility requirements or other detailed conditions.

The framework would not necessarily create a blanket exemption for token issuers or crypto companies. Its impact would depend on the eligibility requirements, disclosures, investor protections and continuing obligations included in the proposed release.

A Potential Exit Mechanism Could Address Continuing SEC Oversight

The framework could also address what happens after a crypto project is no longer actively managed by its development team. A potential mechanism could allow certain projects to seek relief from continuing SEC oversight once their teams are no longer involved in hands-on management.

The precise legal effect and eligibility conditions remain unknown. That would not mean a project automatically leaves the SEC’s jurisdiction simply because its team stops managing it day to day.

Any relief would depend on the legal mechanism and conditions established in the proposed framework, if such a mechanism is included. The SEC’s official notice does not confirm an exit mechanism.

It only states that the Commission will consider proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The proposed release will therefore be critical for determining whether an exit pathway is included, which projects could qualify and what conditions would apply.

Aug 14 Would Begin a Longer Rulemaking Process

The Aug. 14 meeting would be the start of a longer process rather than the completion of a new crypto rule. If the Commission approves the proposal and it is published, the public would have an opportunity to submit comments.

The comment period is expected to last roughly two to three months, after which the SEC could review the responses and revise the proposal before considering a final rule. A final rule would generally provide a more formal and durable framework than informal staff statements or speeches, although it could still be challenged, amended or replaced.

The proposed rule would not immediately create binding requirements for crypto businesses. Instead, the proposal would establish the SEC’s intended regulatory approach and give market participants an opportunity to respond before the agency considers whether to adopt a final rule.

The eligibility requirements, disclosure obligations, investor protections, continuing requirements and any potential exit mechanism would therefore need to be assessed from the proposed release itself.

Clarity Act Consideration Moves Into September

The SEC’s planned action comes as Senate consideration of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act has moved into September after lawmakers did not complete the relevant procedural step before the August recess.

Senate leaders have scheduled a Sept. 15 cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the legislation. That vote would determine whether the Senate can advance to consideration of the bill. It would not constitute final passage.

The CLARITY Act is intended to provide a broader legal foundation for crypto market rules in the United States. The delay leaves the SEC able to pursue rules within its existing authority while Congress considers whether to establish a broader statutory framework.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has said the agency can address many crypto market-structure issues through its existing authority. He has also indicated that congressional legislation would provide clearer, longer-term direction than SEC rulemaking alone.

The two regulatory tracks therefore remain important for crypto businesses. A final SEC rule could establish requirements within the agency’s authority, while legislation could provide broader statutory rules governing the U.S. digital-asset market.

SEC’s Crypto Work Extends Beyond the Aug 14 Proposal

The Regulation Crypto Assets proposal is part of the SEC’s wider work on digital-asset regulation. The SEC has issued an interpretation clarifying the application of federal securities laws to certain crypto assets and transactions.

That interpretation includes a taxonomy covering categories such as digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins and digital securities. The proposed offering regime would address another part of the regulatory framework by establishing rules for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.

The distinction between an interpretation and a final rule is significant. The SEC’s interpretation explains how existing federal securities laws apply to specified crypto assets and transactions, while a final rule adopted through rulemaking would establish regulatory requirements within the agency’s authority.

The Aug. 14 meeting therefore represents the beginning of a proposed rulemaking process rather than the completion of the SEC’s crypto regulatory framework.

What Crypto Businesses Should Watch Next

The immediate question is whether the Commission votes to issue the proposed release. If it does, the document will provide the first detailed view of how the SEC intends to structure the tailored offering regime.

Crypto businesses will need to examine which investment contracts qualify, what conditions apply, what disclosures are required and what investor protections are included. The potential fundraising pathway will also require close attention.

Qualifying projects could potentially receive a route to raise capital without immediately triggering full SEC registration requirements, but the actual proposal will determine the scope and conditions of that route. The potential exit mechanism will require similar scrutiny.

For now, the confirmed development is that the SEC will meet on Aug. 14, 2026, to consider whether to issue proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.

If approved, the proposed release will determine how the fundraising pathway, eligibility requirements, investor protections, continuing obligations and any potential exit mechanism are structured. Until that document is issued, those details should not be treated as final SEC rules.

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

Zama has listed its native ZAMA token on Revolut across the European Economic Area, giving the privacy-focused blockchain project access to a fintech platform serving more than 70 million customers.

Zama said on Monday that the listing also puts ZAMA in front of more than 15 million Revolut customers who already use the app to trade cryptocurrencies, while allowing existing users to purchase the token without opening another account or completing additional identity checks.

South Korea is set to broaden its crypto “Travel Rule” so it applies to essentially all on-chain transfers between regulated virtual asset service providers, eliminating a previously used value threshold. The change is part of Cabinet-approved amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, approved on Tuesday by the country’s government.

The update is designed to close loopholes that allowed some users to avoid Travel Rule compliance by breaking up transactions into smaller pieces. Alongside the Travel Rule expansion, the amendments tighten anti-money-laundering (AML) controls for transfers involving overseas exchanges and personal wallets.

Key takeaways

• South Korea will remove the 1 million won threshold, making the Travel Rule apply to transfers between registered VASPs regardless of transaction size.
• Receiving platforms will need to collect sender and recipient information, and can request missing data or reject transactions when required information isn’t available.
• The amendments introduce new AML obligations for transfers involving foreign exchanges and personal wallets, including restrictions based on counterparty risk.
• New monitoring requirements apply to certain cross-border transfers, and the rules are supported by a cited example involving repeated withdrawals under the old threshold.

Travel Rule broadened beyond the value threshold

Under the new framework, South Korea’s Travel Rule will cover all transfers between registered virtual asset service providers (VASPs), not just those above a set minimum amount. The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) said the threshold could be circumvented by splitting transfers into smaller transactions, thereby reducing the likelihood that required compliance steps would be triggered.

The FIU referenced a case involving Tether USDt (USDT). According to the agency, a user deposited roughly 200 million won into a crypto exchange and then made 216 withdrawals, with each withdrawal valued below 1 million won—illustrating how repeated small transfers could be used to structure activity around the prior limits.

By removing the threshold, the government aims to make the compliance requirement more consistent. In practical terms, the amendments require receiving platforms to obtain sender and recipient information for incoming transfers subject to the rule. If information is missing, the receiving VASP may request the necessary details. Where required data cannot be obtained, it may reject the transaction.

Risk-based AML rules for foreign exchanges and personal wallets

The Cabinet-approved amendments also add AML requirements tied to counterparty risk for transfers involving overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets.

Registered local VASPs will be expected to decide which foreign transfers to allow based on the risk profile of the counterparty. Transfers to overseas exchanges assessed as low-risk would generally remain permitted. Transactions involving other foreign exchanges and personal wallets would be allowed when the sender and recipient are the same person—reflecting a tighter standard for cross-actor transfers.

Where the counterparty is classified as high risk, the amendments indicate those transactions will be prohibited. The government’s rationale is that suspected money laundering involving overseas exchanges and personal wallets has increased, and that weaknesses in existing AML coverage for those channels have been exploited.

In addition to the risk-based gating, the rules require crypto platforms to build out monitoring capabilities. The decree calls for suspicious transaction monitoring systems for transfers worth at least 10 million won when the transfer involves foreign exchanges or personal wallets.

Broader compliance expectations for registered VASPs

Beyond Travel Rule and transfer screening, the amendments also strengthen the broader regulatory foundation for crypto service providers. The decree strengthens registration requirements by expanding scrutiny of elements including financial soundness, internal controls, staffing, and infrastructure standards. It also broadens oversight of major shareholders, reflecting a more intensive approach to operator accountability.

The government’s intent appears twofold: first, to reduce opportunities to route around compliance through transaction structuring; and second, to bring more systematic AML oversight to cross-border and self-custody-related flows, where authorities have indicated existing rules have been insufficient.

When the changes take effect

The VASP registration provisions will take effect on Aug. 20. However, current providers will receive an additional year to meet certain requirements related to financial, staffing, infrastructure, and internal control obligations.

For the Travel Rule expansion and the related transfer-related AML obligations, the amendments take effect six months after the decree is promulgated. That staggered timeline gives exchanges and other regulated providers time to adjust compliance systems—particularly around sender/recipient data handling and counterparty risk assessments.

With these updates, South Korea is moving toward more comprehensive transmission of transfer information across regulated rails while simultaneously tightening controls for cross-border activity and personal wallet flows. Investors, traders, and users should watch for how exchanges implement sender/recipient data requests, what counterparty risk models they publish internally, and how strictly they will enforce rejections when required information can’t be provided—changes that could affect user experience for transfers just as much as they affect compliance outcomes.

South Korea’s Cabinet approved rules on Aug. 11 that will remove the 1 million won minimum for crypto Travel Rule checks, extending information sharing requirements to every transfer between registered domestic virtual asset service providers. 

The Financial Services Commission said in its official release that the change is designed to stop users from avoiding scrutiny by splitting transfers into smaller amounts.

The decision completes a regulatory process that began earlier this year. The Korea Financial Intelligence Unit had proposed expanding the rule after finding that roughly 60% of transfers between domestic VASPs were below the existing 1 million won threshold.

South Korea crypto Travel Rule will cover every amount

Under the existing regime, the sending VASP must provide originator and beneficiary information when a domestic transfer reaches at least 1 million won. Once the amendments take effect, that minimum disappears and the obligation applies regardless of transaction value.

Receiving platforms will also take on clearer responsibilities. They must secure information supplied by the sender and can request missing information or reject a transfer when required data is unavailable. The FSC cited one suspected evasion case involving about 200 million won used to purchase USDT before 216 withdrawals were made in amounts below 1 million won.

The expansion follows months of regulatory debate. As previously reported in earlier industry coverage, South Korea’s Digital Asset Exchange Alliance had raised concerns about the operational burden created by the wider AML proposal.

Overseas exchanges and personal wallets face new controls

The final rules also create a risk based framework for transfers between registered Korean VASPs and overseas exchanges or personal wallets. Transfers to foreign platforms classified as low risk can proceed, while transactions involving other foreign exchanges or personal wallets will generally require the sender and recipient to be the same person. High risk transactions can be prohibited.

Providers must also build internal suspicious transaction monitoring systems for transfers of at least 10 million won involving overseas VASPs or personal wallets. The requirement reflects regulatory concerns that overseas platforms and private wallets have been used to bypass existing anti money laundering controls.

Notably, the final approach is softer than one element of the March proposal. The earlier draft called for transfers of at least 10 million won involving overseas platforms or wallets to be reported to KoFIU regardless of their risk level. After industry objections, the final Cabinet approved version instead requires providers to operate their own monitoring systems.

Korea moves further than the current U.S. threshold

South Korea’s zero threshold approach will differ from the current U.S. model. FinCEN guidance says the U.S. Travel Rule generally applies to qualifying transmittals of $3,000 or more. South Korea will instead require information sharing for every covered domestic VASP transfer once its new rules become effective.

The change also fits within wider international efforts to increase payment traceability. FATF’s updated standards require virtual asset providers to obtain and retain originator and beneficiary information. In earlier compliance coverage, different thresholds across jurisdictions were identified as a continuing challenge for exchanges operating internationally.

When will the new crypto transfer rules start?

The new transfer requirements do not begin on Aug. 20. The FSC said the VASP registration provisions and rules concerning sanctions on former employees take effect on that date. The Travel Rule expansion and other transfer related AML requirements will instead take effect six months after the decree is formally promulgated.

Existing VASPs also receive a one year grace period for certain new requirements covering debt ratios, staffing, computer infrastructure and internal controls. The broader registration framework will allow regulators to examine financial soundness, senior management qualifications and major shareholders more closely.

The changes add another layer to South Korea’s expanding oversight of cross border crypto activity. In previous cross border coverage, lawmakers had already moved to create registration requirements for businesses handling international virtual asset transfers.

For exchanges and users, the next date to watch is the decree’s formal promulgation because that will start the six month countdown for the new transfer rules. KoFIU also plans continued supervision of VASPs as firms update their systems to handle identity information on transfers that previously fell below the threshold.

Flight tracking company FlightAware has sued Kalshi over flight-cancellation prediction markets that rely on its data, seeking court orders to stop the platform from using its information and brand in connection with the contracts.

FlightAware, in a complaint filed Monday, accused Kalshi of using its flight-tracking data without permission to settle prediction markets while giving users the impression that the two companies had a close commercial relationship.

The dispute centers on markets Kalshi introduced last month that allow users to trade on whether individual flights will be canceled. Kalshi tells users that the outcomes of the contracts are “verified from FlightAware,” according to the filing.

FlightAware said it had not agreed to have its data used for that purpose and was not told beforehand that its information would determine whether traders received payouts.

“Kalshi never informed FlightAware that it would rely on FlightAware’s data to determine the outcome of these betting markets,” the company said in its complaint.

The lawsuit accuses Kalshi of breach of contract, trademark infringement and unfair competition. FlightAware is seeking a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions that would stop Kalshi from using the flight-tracking company’s services and brand for the disputed markets.

FlightAware says Kalshi created an impression of partnership

FlightAware’s objection extends beyond Kalshi’s use of flight data to determine contract outcomes.

By naming FlightAware in the verification process, Kalshi allegedly gave customers the impression that the tracking company had approved or participated in the markets, according to the complaint.

FlightAware said customers began assuming it had become involved with Kalshi after the cancellation markets went live, creating reputational concerns for a company whose services are used to track commercial and private aviation.

The filing also argues that the markets could expose FlightAware to criticism over the types of events traders are being allowed to speculate on, even though FlightAware itself does not operate or administer the contracts.

For the flight contracts, traders effectively take positions on whether a specified flight will be canceled. Kalshi then relies on the stated verification source to determine the final result and settle the corresponding positions.

FlightAware alleges that Kalshi obtained the benefit of its data and reputation while making that information part of a commercial betting product without securing permission for such use.

Flight cancellation markets raised safety concerns

Beyond the contractual and trademark claims, FlightAware raised concerns about incentives created by allowing traders to profit from flight cancellations.

Kalshi excludes payouts for cancellations caused by malicious acts or security-related disruptions, according to the lawsuit, but FlightAware argued that the contracts still created safety risks connected with attempts to influence aviation operations.

The company said there was “widespread outrage and concern” that the contracts could encourage unsafe efforts to affect whether flights operate as scheduled.

Such conduct could “strand travelers, disrupt airline operations, and threaten safety,” FlightAware said.

The complaint does not allege that a trader has successfully interfered with a flight to win one of the contracts. Instead, FlightAware’s argument focuses on the incentive it says is created when financial payouts depend on whether a real-world flight is canceled.

The concern adds another type of challenge for Kalshi as its event contracts expand beyond traditional financial or political outcomes into sports and other real-world events.

Kalshi operates as a Commodity Futures Trading Commission-regulated prediction market and has argued in several state disputes that its event contracts fall under federal derivatives oversight rather than state gambling laws.

Kalshi faces separate fights over prediction markets

The FlightAware lawsuit comes as Kalshi is already fighting several cases over whether some of its contracts amount to gambling under state law.

On July 31, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Governor Kathy Hochul sued Kalshi, accusing the company of operating an unlicensed gambling business in the state. As crypto.news previously reported, New York is seeking at least $36 billion in damages, penalties and related relief while also asking a court to halt the disputed contracts.

The New York complaint alleges that Kalshi offered event contracts without a state gaming license and allowed users between 18 and 20 to participate even though New York requires customers to be at least 21 for mobile sports betting. State investigators also said they opened accounts and completed transactions on Kalshi as part of their investigation.

Court rulings have not produced a uniform answer on how prediction markets should be treated.

In Washington, a judge on July 21 granted a preliminary injunction restricting Kalshi’s sports event contracts after finding that state gambling laws could apply despite the company’s federal registration. The Washington court ruling rejected Kalshi’s argument at that stage of the case that the Commodity Exchange Act prevented the state from enforcing its gambling rules.

Michigan has produced another setback for prediction-market operators. On Aug. 6, U.S. District Judge Shalina Kumar denied Coinbase Financial Markets’ request for preliminary relief that would have stopped Michigan officials from applying state sports-betting laws to the company’s event contracts, according to a recent Michigan ruling.

Kalshi itself had already become caught between Michigan authorities and the CFTC in July. A Michigan court ordered restrictions on its sports contracts, while the federal regulator later directed the company not to unwind trades in response to the state order. Kalshi said at the time that the conflicting instructions left it trying to comply with competing state and federal requirements.

Minnesota court has favored Kalshi and Polymarket

Minnesota has produced a different result.

A federal judge on July 27 blocked enforcement of Minnesota’s prediction-market ban against CFTC-registered designated contract markets while litigation continues. As previously covered by crypto.news, the Minnesota injunction protected Kalshi, Polymarket US and other federally registered markets from enforcement of the new law at the preliminary stage.

Judge Katherine Menendez found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on at least part of their federal preemption argument, although she did not rule that every event contract offered by the platforms qualified for federal protection.

The court specifically questioned whether registration as a designated contract market automatically determines the legal status of every individual contract. The judge noted that different types of event contracts could require separate analysis as the cases move toward final decisions.

At the federal level, the CFTC has taken the position that derivatives traded on registered prediction-market exchanges fall within its jurisdiction under the Commodity Exchange Act. That position has put the regulator in direct conflict with states seeking to apply gambling rules to sports-related contracts.

According to the FlightAware report, the CFTC has pursued complaints involving Wisconsin, Illinois, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, New Mexico, Minnesota and Rhode Island as part of the jurisdiction fight.

FlightAware’s case follows a different legal route because it concerns the use of the company’s data and trademarks rather than whether Kalshi’s contracts violate state gambling laws. The company is asking the court to stop Kalshi from using FlightAware information and branding in connection with its flight-cancellation markets while its breach-of-contract, trademark and unfair-competition claims proceed.

ADI Chain’s job is to turn those deals into blockchain tokens and handle payments using stablecoins (digital tokens pegged 1-to-1 to real currencies like the UAE dirham or the U.S. dollar), so money moves instantly without a traditional bank wire. For now, this is aimed at “qualified institutional participants,” or large, vetted investors, not everyday retail buyers.

Shipfinex CEO Capt. Vikas Pandey said the partnership would let the company “create a regulated digital route into this market, with every instrument tied to a real vessel, its economics and its legal structure.”

No maritime asset tokens have been issued yet and Shipfinex doesn’t yet have a green light to do so. Its regulatory clearance from Dubai’s Virtual Asseets Regulatory Authority is an “In-Principle Approval” — a preliminary thumbs-up confirming it has passed an initial background check, not a finished license to operate.

Nevertheless, Shipfinex has earmarked around 35 vessels worth about $500 million combined as candidates for tokenization, once the regulatory approval and deal structure are finalized. Each ship will eventually sit in its own separate legal entity, so if one ship runs into financial trouble, it doesn’t drag down investors in the others.

Buying a token, once one becomes available, could mean one of a few different things for the institutional investors, depending on how each deal ends up being structured. It could mean a loan backed by the ship (similar to earning interest on a loan), a share of the money the ship earns from shipping contracts, or a broader economic stake in the vessel’s value.