Crypto World
The Clarity Act, Trump’s memecoin, and the SEC investigation Warren just requested
The crypto industry’s most important regulatory bill is stuck because of the president’s own memecoin. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal just asked the SEC to investigate while the Clarity Act’s ethics provision remains the last unresolved section blocking a vote. The irony is precise: the bill that would bring regulatory clarity to crypto cannot advance because the most powerful person in the country launched a token that embodies exactly the regulatory ambiguity the bill was designed to resolve.
Summary
- Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins on August 4 requesting an investigation into $TRUMP, citing $3.8 billion in estimated investor losses and $636 million in reported profits for the president from the token.
- The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the crypto industry’s best prospect for comprehensive US market structure legislation, remains stalled because Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on an ethics provision governing government officials’ involvement in crypto projects.
- The SEC has already declared that memecoins are “generally outside its sphere of influence” and do not qualify as securities under existing law, making enforcement action on $TRUMP unlikely under the current commission.
- President Trump agreed to narrow restrictions on his crypto involvement, but Democrats rejected the proposal as insufficient, and bipartisan negotiators Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego are attempting to draft compromise language that both parties can accept.
- The $TRUMP token peaked at approximately $46 in January 2025 and currently trades near $1.47, with the vast majority of the nearly one million buyers sitting on losses while the president’s entity collected revenue from transaction fees and initial allocation sales.
The letter arrived on the same day that crypto lobbyists in Washington were counting votes for the Clarity Act, the legislation that would for the first time define which digital assets fall under SEC jurisdiction and which belong to the CFTC. The bill has bipartisan support in principle. It passed committee with votes from both parties. The industry has spent millions pushing it toward a floor vote. And it is stuck, not on a technical question about token classification or a policy disagreement about decentralized exchange regulation, but on the question of whether the president of the United States should be allowed to profit from a memecoin while his appointees regulate the industry.
What the Clarity Act would actually do
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is designed to solve the jurisdictional ambiguity that has defined US crypto regulation since the industry’s inception. Currently, there is no clear statutory framework determining whether a given token is a security (regulated by the SEC), a commodity (regulated by the CFTC), or something else entirely.
The bill creates a functional test for determining a token’s regulatory classification. Tokens that are sufficiently decentralized, meaning no single entity controls them, would be classified as digital commodities and regulated by the CFTC. Tokens that function as investment contracts, where buyers depend on the efforts of a centralized team for returns, would remain securities under SEC jurisdiction.
The legislation also creates registration pathways for crypto exchanges, sets disclosure requirements for token issuers, and provides a framework for stablecoin oversight that complements the separate GENIUS Act focused specifically on stablecoins.
For the crypto industry, the Clarity Act represents the difference between operating in regulatory limbo and having a defined set of rules. Projects that have delayed US launches because of enforcement risk would have a path forward. Exchanges that have restricted token listings because of securities law uncertainty would have clearer criteria. Investors would have standardized disclosures that currently do not exist for most crypto assets.
The bill’s journey through Congress has been broadly supported by both parties. The political dynamic that historically divided crypto along partisan lines, with Republicans favoring lighter regulation and Democrats favoring stricter oversight, had begun to shift as both parties recognized the electoral weight of crypto-interested voters. The White House said in April that a deal was “very close.”
Then the ethics provision became the obstacle.
The ethics fight that froze everything
The core dispute is narrow but politically explosive: should the Clarity Act include provisions that restrict senior government officials, including the president, from directly profiting from crypto projects while in office?
Democrats argue that any comprehensive crypto regulation bill must address the conflict of interest created when the president launches a token, profits from it, and simultaneously appoints the regulators who oversee the industry. Without an ethics provision, they contend, the bill effectively legalizes a regulatory framework while leaving the most prominent conflict of interest in the industry unaddressed.
Republicans counter that the ethics provision is scope creep, that the bill’s purpose is market structure regulation, not ethics reform, and that adding restrictions targeted at a specific individual risks turning a bipartisan bill into a partisan weapon. The president agreed to accept limited restrictions, but the proposed language was so narrow that Democrats described it as meaningless in practice.
The negotiation is now in the hands of Senators Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, and Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, who are drafting compromise language. The White House has been involved in the discussions but has not publicly committed to signing a bill with meaningful ethics restrictions. Every day the bill remains stalled, the industry operates without the regulatory clarity it was designed to provide.
The $TRUMP token: $636 million in, $3.8 billion out
The numbers around $TRUMP are what give the ethics debate its weight. The token launched on January 17, 2025, three days before the presidential inauguration. It peaked at approximately $46 within days and has since declined to roughly $1.47, a 97 percent drop from its all-time high.
According to blockchain data analyzed by The New York Times and confirmed by the president’s 2025 financial disclosure, Trump-linked entities earned approximately $636 million from the token through a combination of initial allocation sales and ongoing transaction fees collected by the protocol.
On the other side of the ledger, nearly one million buyers collectively lost an estimated $3.8 billion. The asymmetry is stark: for every dollar the president’s side earned, buyers lost approximately six dollars. This ratio is not unusual for memecoins, but the involvement of a sitting president in the profit-taking entity is unprecedented.
The token saw brief price spikes around two Mar-a-Lago gala events where top token holders were invited to dine with the president. These events temporarily reversed the price decline but did not sustain any recovery. The galas themselves highlighted the conflict: the president was simultaneously the most powerful figure in crypto regulation and the host of an event that rewarded the largest holders of his personal memecoin.
What Warren’s letter asks and why it probably will not work
The Warren-Blumenthal letter to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins requests a formal investigation into whether $TRUMP involves “potentially fraudulent enrichment schemes with implications for market integrity and stability.” The letter cites the $3.8 billion in estimated buyer losses and the $636 million in presidential profits as evidence of an asymmetry that warrants regulatory scrutiny.
The request faces several obstacles. First, the SEC under Chairman Atkins has taken a materially different approach to crypto enforcement than the Gensler-era commission. The current SEC has paused or dropped numerous crypto enforcement actions and adopted a policy of regulation through rulemaking rather than enforcement.
Second, the SEC issued a staff statement in February 2025 explicitly declaring that memecoins are “generally outside its sphere of influence.” The statement said memecoins have “limited or no use or functionality” and do not qualify as securities under the Howey test because buyers are not investing based on the expectation of profits from the efforts of others. By the SEC’s own published position, $TRUMP is not a security and therefore falls outside the agency’s enforcement jurisdiction.
Third, Atkins was appointed by President Trump. Asking a presidential appointee to investigate the president’s personal financial interests is a political act more than a regulatory one. Warren and Blumenthal know this. The letter’s primary function is political: it creates a public record of the conflict of interest and forces a response (or conspicuous non-response) from the SEC that can be cited in the Clarity Act debate.
The letter is a negotiating tool dressed as a regulatory request. Its real audience is not the SEC. It is the handful of senators whose votes will determine whether the Clarity Act passes with or without meaningful ethics restrictions.
The SEC’s memecoin blind spot
The SEC’s February 2025 memecoin statement created a regulatory gap that the $TRUMP situation has exposed. By declaring memecoins outside its jurisdiction, the SEC effectively created a category of financial product that no federal regulator oversees.
The CFTC regulates commodities and derivatives but has not asserted jurisdiction over memecoins. The FTC regulates consumer fraud but has not acted on memecoin losses. State securities regulators have limited resources and jurisdictional reach for tokens that trade globally.
This gap means that a sitting president can launch a token, collect hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, watch nearly a million buyers lose billions, and no federal agency has clear authority to investigate or act. The Clarity Act was supposed to fill gaps like this by creating a comprehensive framework for token classification. Instead, the most prominent example of the gap’s consequences is the reason the bill cannot pass.
The irony compounds. If the Clarity Act passes without an ethics provision, it would create a legal framework that implicitly permits government officials to profit from token launches. If it passes with a strong ethics provision, it would retroactively create restrictions that apply to the president’s existing token. If it does not pass at all, the entire industry continues operating without the regulatory clarity that would attract institutional capital, encourage responsible innovation, and protect retail investors from exactly the kind of losses that $TRUMP buyers experienced.
The crypto industry’s impossible position
The crypto industry’s Washington lobby has spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars building bipartisan support for regulatory legislation. The Clarity Act is the culmination of that effort. And it is being held hostage by a conflict of interest that the industry cannot publicly criticize without alienating the president whose administration has been broadly favorable to crypto.
Major industry trade groups have carefully avoided commenting on $TRUMP specifically. Their public statements focus on the importance of passing the Clarity Act and avoid any reference to the ethics provision. Privately, industry leaders acknowledge that the president’s memecoin has complicated their legislative strategy. The token’s existence makes it harder for Democrats to vote for the bill without ethics restrictions, and harder for the industry to argue that ethics restrictions are unnecessary without appearing to endorse a presidential conflict of interest.
Some industry participants have taken a different approach, arguing that the $TRUMP situation is precisely why clear rules are needed. Under a comprehensive regulatory framework, the argument goes, a presidential memecoin would either be subject to disclosure requirements and trading restrictions or it would be clearly categorized as outside the regulated perimeter. Either outcome would be better than the current ambiguity, where no one knows which rules apply and no agency claims jurisdiction.
The problem with this argument is timing. The industry wants the bill passed now, and the ethics provision is the obstacle to passing it now. Any delay risks losing the political window entirely. If the bill carries over into a new Congress, it must restart the committee process, and the bipartisan coalition that brought it this far may not reassemble.
What happens if the bill dies
If the Clarity Act fails to pass this session, the consequences extend beyond the crypto industry’s policy wishlist.
The SEC would continue operating under the enforcement-first approach of previous years or the current hands-off approach, depending on which administration is in power. Neither approach provides the predictable, statute-based framework that institutional capital requires. Major financial institutions that have waited for regulatory clarity before offering crypto products would continue waiting or would structure their offerings under existing securities law, which adds compliance costs that make many crypto products uneconomical.
Token projects would continue launching in offshore jurisdictions and restricting US access, as they have for years. The US share of global crypto innovation and trading volume would continue declining relative to jurisdictions like the EU, which implemented its MiCA framework in 2024 and is already attracting projects that want regulatory certainty.
Retail investors would remain in the current environment where memecoins exist in a regulatory vacuum, where disclosure requirements are absent, and where losses like the $3.8 billion from $TRUMP buyers have no regulatory pathway for investigation or remedy. The Clarity Act does not specifically address memecoins, but its classification framework would at minimum force a determination about whether specific tokens fall under SEC or CFTC jurisdiction, ending the current situation where no agency claims responsibility.
The deepest irony is that the $TRUMP token is the strongest argument for why the Clarity Act is necessary, and simultaneously the reason the Clarity Act cannot pass.
What to watch
The Tillis-Gallego compromise language. The bipartisan pair negotiating the ethics provision will determine whether the bill lives or dies in this Congress. Watch for a draft that restricts government officials from launching new tokens while grandfathering existing ones, a structure that addresses Democratic concerns without requiring the president to divest from $TRUMP.
The SEC’s response to Warren’s letter. A formal investigation is unlikely, but the SEC must respond in some form. The nature of the response, whether a brief dismissal or a detailed explanation of jurisdictional limitations, will signal how the current commission views its role in the memecoin space.
The September legislative calendar. Congress returns from recess with a narrow window before the midterm election cycle consumes legislative bandwidth. If the Clarity Act does not advance in September and October, its chances of passing this session diminish sharply.
$TRUMP token price action. Any significant price movement in $TRUMP, up or down, will reignite media attention on the ethics question. A rally would raise questions about insider trading. A further decline would increase the estimated buyer losses and strengthen the case for an investigation.
Other government official tokens. If $TRUMP’s existence normalizes the practice, other elected officials may launch their own tokens. Each new launch would add pressure to the ethics provision debate and make the Clarity Act’s passage without restrictions increasingly untenable.
What is the Clarity Act?
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is proposed US legislation that would create a comprehensive framework for classifying crypto assets as either securities (regulated by the SEC) or digital commodities (regulated by the CFTC). It would also create registration pathways for crypto exchanges and set disclosure requirements for token issuers, providing the regulatory clarity the industry has sought for years.
Why is the Clarity Act stalled?
The bill is stalled because Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on an ethics provision that would restrict senior government officials, including the president, from directly profiting from crypto projects while in office. President Trump’s $TRUMP memecoin has made this provision the central point of contention, with Democrats refusing to support the bill without meaningful restrictions.
What did Warren and Blumenthal ask the SEC to do?
On August 4, 2026, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins requesting a formal investigation into the $TRUMP memecoin. They cited $3.8 billion in estimated investor losses and $636 million in presidential profits, arguing the asymmetry raises questions about potentially fraudulent enrichment.
Will the SEC investigate $TRUMP?
A formal SEC investigation is unlikely under the current commission. The SEC under Chairman Paul Atkins (appointed by President Trump) has scaled back crypto enforcement, and the agency issued a February 2025 staff statement declaring memecoins generally outside its jurisdiction. The Warren-Blumenthal letter functions more as a political pressure tool in the Clarity Act negotiations than as a realistic enforcement request.
How much did Trump make from $TRUMP?
According to the president’s 2025 financial disclosure and blockchain data analysis, Trump-linked entities earned approximately $636 million from the $TRUMP token through initial allocation sales and ongoing transaction fees. Nearly one million buyers collectively lost an estimated $3.8 billion over the same period.
Is $TRUMP a security?
The SEC’s February 2025 staff statement declared that memecoins generally do not qualify as securities because they have limited or no use or functionality and buyers are not investing based on the expectation of profits from the efforts of others (the Howey test standard). By the SEC’s own published position, $TRUMP falls outside securities law, though critics argue the token’s connection to a sitting president creates unique circumstances not contemplated by the staff statement.
What happens if the Clarity Act does not pass?
If the bill fails, the US crypto industry continues operating without a comprehensive regulatory framework. The SEC and CFTC would continue disputing jurisdiction over various tokens. Projects would continue launching offshore to avoid US regulatory ambiguity. Institutional investors would continue waiting for clarity before entering the market at scale. And memecoins would remain in a regulatory vacuum where no federal agency claims oversight authority.
What is the ethics provision compromise being negotiated?
Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) are drafting compromise language for the Clarity Act’s ethics section. The expected approach would restrict government officials from launching new tokens while potentially grandfathering existing positions. The White House has been involved but has not committed to signing a bill with meaningful restrictions on the president’s existing crypto interests.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risks. Always conduct your own research before making any financial decisions. The information in this article is current as of August 4, 2026.
BitMEX cofounder Arthur Hayes published a new essay, “Situationship,” on Aug. 4, 2026, arguing that the artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure boom could end as a credit crisis rather than a dot com style equity collapse.
Summary
- Hayes argues AI infrastructure resembles leveraged real estate, making a future downturn a credit crisis.
- U.S. hyperscalers continue raising capital spending as cloud demand and artificial intelligence workloads expand rapidly.
- Alphabet raised 2026 capital expenditure guidance to $195 billion to $205 billion amid demand growth.
- Federal Reserve officials held rates at 3.5% to 3.75%, while announcing no AI rescue program.
- Bitcoin traded near $64,337, but Hayes’s essay provided no verified immediate market catalyst for traders.
Hayes framed data centers as leveraged real estate containing computing equipment that can lose economic value as newer chips become more efficient.
Hayes said an eventual slowdown in data center construction could expose weak borrowers and financiers, prompting government intervention and broader monetary easing. He believes the resulting liquidity could support a renewed Bitcoin bull market. However, the scenario remains his personal forecast, not a confirmed crisis or an official policy outlook.
Bitcoin traded around $64,150 early on Aug. 5. No evidence reviewed for this report linked the immediate price move to Hayes’s essay. Hayes also acknowledged that he cannot identify the borrower that might trigger a crisis or determine Bitcoin’s precise bottom.
Arthur Hayes says AI spending is a real estate credit trade
Hayes’s central argument is that investors are treating AI capital expenditure as if every dollar supports a high margin technology business. He views much of the spending differently. Data center land, buildings, power connections and cooling systems resemble property development, while processors can become less valuable when newer equipment delivers more computing power at a lower cost.
This distinction leads to his comparison with the global financial crisis. Hayes described the AI boom as a “credit story like 2008 and not an earnings story like 2000.” In his scenario, banks, insurers, private credit funds and infrastructure investors continue financing construction after profitable demand begins slowing.
Losses would then emerge when weaker projects cannot generate enough cash to meet debt, lease or interest obligations. Financial stress could spread to lenders and investors holding AI infrastructure exposure, even if leading technology companies remain profitable.
Hayes expects announced AI capital spending growth to begin slowing during the second half of 2027 and become clearer in 2028. He also expects markets to eventually reward companies that reduce construction plans. Those dates are forecasts. No company filing reviewed for this report confirms that an industrywide contraction has begun.
His Bitcoin case follows from the expected policy response. Hayes argues that U.S. authorities would protect strategically important AI companies and their lenders because computing capacity has become part of the country’s economic competition with China.
He discussed a possible Bitcoin trading range between $60,000 and $70,000, with downside near $50,000, before an eventual rise toward $1 million. Those levels are not guaranteed targets and depend on monetary policy, credit creation and investor demand developing as Hayes expects.
The essay extends an earlier argument. As crypto.news previously reported, Hayes warned that major technology listings, including possible OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX offerings, could absorb liquidity that might otherwise enter crypto markets.
In related coverage, crypto.news examined the expanding bond and credit exposure behind AI infrastructure. That analysis noted that financial risks could spread beyond technology shares if data center construction relies more heavily on debt and private financing.
Official filings show AI spending is still accelerating
The latest company results do not show an AI capital spending collapse. Alphabet reported $44.9 billion of capital expenditure during the second quarter. About 60% of its technical infrastructure investment went toward servers, while 40% went toward data centers and networking equipment.
Alphabet raised its 2026 capital spending guidance to between $195 billion and $205 billion, up from its previous range of $180 billion to $190 billion. The company attributed the increase to faster capacity delivery required to meet demand.
Google Cloud revenue rose 82% from the previous year to $24.8 billion. Cloud operating income reached $8.8 billion, while backlog increased to $514 billion. Alphabet said it expects capital expenditure to increase again in 2027.
Microsoft also reported continued expansion. Its quarterly capital expenditure reached $41 billion, with roughly two thirds directed to CPUs and GPUs. Microsoft Cloud revenue increased 27% to $59.3 billion, while commercial remaining performance obligations reached $678 billion.
The company said it expects capital expenditure to grow during fiscal 2027. Microsoft also expects more than $50 billion of spending in its next quarter, although part of that figure reflects a change in how some data center leases will be classified.
Amazon reported a similar mix of rising investment and stronger cloud income. AWS revenue increased 37% to $42.2 billion in the second quarter, its fastest growth in 18 quarters. AWS operating income reached $16.6 billion.
However, Amazon’s trailing twelve month free cash flow moved to an outflow of $7.6 billion. The company attributed the change mainly to a $66.1 billion increase in property and equipment purchases, largely connected to AI investment.
These results cut both ways for Hayes’s thesis. Strong cloud growth and large customer backlogs weaken the argument that demand is already failing. At the same time, lower free cash flow, rising depreciation and growing contractual obligations show how the buildout can pressure finances even while revenue expands.
Heavy spending alone does not create a credit crisis. Such a crisis would require weaker cash generation, refinancing problems, defaults or impaired infrastructure assets across several companies and lenders.
U.S. financing exposure is growing, but 2008 is unproven
Regulatory filings support Hayes’s narrower claim that AI infrastructure increasingly involves leases, guarantees, joint ventures and outside capital.
Alphabet disclosed $85.2 billion of future payments for leases, mainly connected to data centers, that had not started as of June 30. These leases are scheduled to begin between 2026 and 2031, with contract terms reaching as long as 26 years.
Alphabet also reported $811 billion of purchase commitments and other contractual obligations. Most relate to technical infrastructure, inventory, energy agreements and other long term contracts. The company had $98.2 billion of long term debt and issued more than $51 billion of fixed rate notes during the first half of 2026.
Microsoft disclosed $62.9 billion of finance lease liabilities as of March 31. It also reported another $196.6 billion of leases, mainly for data centers, that had not yet commenced.
Meta reported approximately $182.88 billion of uncommenced lease obligations and $237.67 billion of noncancelable contractual commitments as of March 31. The company entered another $24 billion of infrastructure contracts during April.
Private financing is also becoming more visible in U.S. data center projects. Meta and BlackRock announced a venture for a one gigawatt campus in El Paso, Texas. Meta described the project as representing more than $10 billion of investment.
An earlier Meta venture with Blue Owl Capital covered an estimated $27 billion data center campus in Louisiana. Blue Owl funds received an 80% interest, while Meta retained 20%. Part of the outside funding came through debt sold privately to PIMCO and other bond investors.
Meta agreed to lease the Louisiana facilities and provided a capped residual value guarantee under certain conditions. Such arrangements show how data center exposure can be distributed among technology companies, insfrastructure funds, landlords and debt investors.
They do not prove that a 2008 style chain of insolvencies has started. Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta remain profitable businesses with large operating cash flows and growing customer commitments. The reviewed filings did not report widespread defaults on AI infrastructure debt or an official government rescue program.
The 2008 comparison therefore remains a stress scenario rather than a present diagnosis. Mortgage losses became systemic because weak lending, securitization, leverage and opaque counterparty exposure spread through major financial institutions.
An AI infrastructure downturn could follow a different route involving unused capacity, falling rental values, obsolete equipment, tenant concentration and long power commitments. Whether those risks become systemic will depend on utilization, refinancing conditions and where losses ultimately settle.
Bitcoin’s outcome depends on policy, liquidity and timing
The Federal Reserve held its federal funds target range at 3.5% to 3.75% on July 29. The decision passed by a 9 to 3 vote. The central bank did not announce an AI rescue facility, emergency lending program or new asset purchase plan.
The Fed has conducted reserve management purchases of Treasury bills to maintain ample banking system reserves. Its July monetary policy report said Treasury bill purchases since early January totaled nearly $250 billion, including about $160 billion of reserve management purchases.
Those operations are not officially described as quantitative easing or an AI bailout. The Fed says they are intended to maintain an adequate level of reserves and support control over short term interest rates.
Hayes interprets balance sheet growth and stable policy rates as supportive for bank credit and future market liquidity. That interpretation remains open to debate because reserve management can expand the Fed’s assets without representing the broad crisis response assumed in his forecast.
Bitcoin could benefit if a future downturn produces rate cuts, emergency lending or larger asset purchases. However, the first stage of a credit shock could hurt Bitcoin as investors sell liquid assets, meet margin calls and reduce leverage.
As crypto.news reported in its examination of Bitcoin’s changing market cycle, Federal Reserve policy and global liquidity now compete with the halving cycle as major drivers of crypto prices.
The next evidence will come from company guidance and credit markets rather than from Hayes’s essay. Investors can watch 2027 spending plans, cloud backlog conversion, data center occupancy, lease commitments, private credit spreads and any defaults tied to AI infrastructure.
The Fed’s next scheduled meeting will take place on Sept. 15 and Sept. 16. Unless company demand weakens or financing stress begins appearing, Hayes’s argument remains a forward looking Bitcoin thesis built around a credit crisis that has not occurred.
FAQs
Is the AI bubble already bursting?
The latest filings do not show an industrywide contraction. Alphabet raised its spending guidance, Microsoft expects continued capital expenditure growth and AWS reported accelerating revenue. Financial pressure is visible in free cash flow and contractual commitments, but those conditions do not constitute a credit bust.
Why does Hayes compare AI with 2008 instead of 2000?
Hayes believes the main vulnerability lies in debt, leases and infrastructure financing rather than technology companies earning little or no revenue. The comparison depends on credit losses spreading through financial intermediaries, which has not been established.
Would an AI crash automatically raise Bitcoin’s price?
No. Bitcoin could decline during an initial liquidation period. A later recovery would depend on the scale, speed and form of monetary support, along with continuing demand for Bitcoin. Central bank easing would not guarantee any particular price.
What would weaken Hayes’s thesis?
Sustained cloud revenue, strong data center utilization, profitable AI services and stable credit performance would weaken the argument. The thesis would also lose force if companies fund construction without creating stressed borrowers or concentrated lender losses.
Ethereum’s ongoing tokenomics debate has reignited after six researchers and developers, including Ethereum Foundation (EF) researcher Justin Drake, published a draft proposal aimed at changing how much ETH the network issues to validators as staking participation rises.
The draft—provisionally labeled EIP-8363 and described as the “Tapered Issuance Burn”—would increasingly burn a portion of validators’ consensus rewards once the amount of staked ETH approaches a preset threshold. The policy is designed to phase in over roughly 18 months, while supporters argue it addresses dilution pressures from persistently high staking incentives.
Key takeaways
- The proposed EIP-8363 would burn an increasing fraction of validator consensus rewards as staked ETH nears 60.25 million ETH (about 50% of current ETH supply).
- Under the draft, issuance is expected to peak at around 0.5% of ETH supply per year when roughly 20% of ETH is staked, then decline toward zero as the threshold is reached.
- Critics—including DeFi and solo-staking advocates—warn the reward taper could push out solo validators earlier than larger staking entities.
- The proposal has drawn concerns over whether enough time exists for community review, especially given its proximity to an Aug. 6 deadline related to other Hegotá-focused EIP pull requests.
- EIP-8363 remains an early draft and has not been approved, scheduled, or included in the Hegotá upgrade.
How EIP-8363 would change issuance as staking grows
The Tapered Issuance Burn proposal sets a clear mechanism: as the staking ratio rises toward a fixed target, validators would see a larger share of their consensus rewards redirected into a burn. The authors outline a threshold of 60.25 million ETH—roughly equivalent to 50% of today’s ETH supply—where the deduction reaches 100%.
In other words, the more ETH that is staked, the more the system reduces net issuance to validators via burning. The draft specifies that the change would phase in over about 18 months, rather than switching abruptly.
The EIP is published as a draft on GitHub under the provisional identifier EIP-8363, hosted here: GitHub.
Why the authors say “dilution” is the real issue
Support for the proposal comes from the argument that Ethereum should cap issuance more tightly as staking becomes increasingly dominant. One of the authors, Jérôme de Tychey, says the network’s current incentive curve does not “switch off,” creating ongoing dilution pressure even if most or all ETH is staked.
De Tychey pointed to staking reaching 33% in April and warned that continued growth could lead to an ecosystem where ETH is increasingly concentrated among large custodians and liquid staking providers—reducing the role of raw, neutral ETH in favor of intermediated claims.
In a post associated with the proposal, de Tychey frames the issuance problem as a “dilution tax,” arguing that when staking derivatives and large intermediaries expand, the asset most directly tied to Ethereum’s core value accrual becomes less central to everyday usage. He also suggested that unchecked issuance makes it harder to maintain Ethereum’s “store of value” fundamentals.
According to the draft’s proponents, the mechanism would help make supply growth bounded and more predictable, and they tie the idea to Ethereum’s broader monetary stack. In their view, combined with other supply-side mechanisms such as EIP-1559 and the burn model introduced for certain network activity, tapering validator issuance would reduce long-term inflationary pressure.
Outside the EF developer circle, Grayscale’s research leadership has previously argued that limiting staking incentives could be “positive for the price of Ether over time,” according to a May statement attributed to Zach Pandl by Grayscale.
Backlash: solo validators, DeFi liquidity, and institutions
Despite support from some quarters, the draft has faced pushback from developers, stakers, and DeFi participants. A central concern is the effect of reward reduction on smaller participants—particularly solo validators—who may face higher relative operational costs.
Stani Kulechov, founder of Aave, criticized the proposal by arguing it would weaken institutional demand for ETH and reduce borrowing activity across DeFi, calling it “hurtful” rather than helpful to Ethereum’s goals. His position was shared in a social post referenced in the reporting.
Ether.Fi CEO Mike Silagadze echoed the solo-staker concern, stating the policy would effectively “push out” solo operators unless they receive external subsidy. In his view, the result would be a validator set dominated by large centralized entities while users hold ETH passively.
De Tychey disputed that framing in an Ethereum Magicians thread, noting that users of large staking providers generally still pay fees and therefore would be less attracted as consensus rewards decline. He acknowledged that research on the magnitude and timing of those effects remains contested, but the core disagreement reflects a broader tension: whether reducing validator incentives primarily harms decentralization dynamics or mainly corrects dilution without materially damaging the staking ecosystem.
Some developers also raised concerns about process and timing. While the underlying confusion appears to relate to Hegotá-related deadlines, Greg Koumoutsos argued that the community may not have enough time to conduct a thorough review of a change to monetary policy of this magnitude.
Where EIP-8363 fits in Ethereum’s Hegotá roadmap
EIP-8363 is not currently approved, scheduled, or included in Hegotá. The draft has an associated Aug. 6 deadline, but the reporting clarifies that this date concerns pull requests proposing additional EIPs for Hegotá—not a deadline for deciding which proposals ultimately get included.
Ethereum community organizer Trent Van Epps said that selection for Hegotá could continue until Nov. 8, and that the upgrade is likely to reach mainnet in the second quarter of 2027, referencing Ethereum’s fork schedule: forkcast.org schedule.
That timeline matters because changes to issuance and validator incentives are not just operational parameters—they interact with token supply expectations, staking behavior, and the economics of DeFi strategies that depend on staking yields. With EIP-8363 still in draft form and outside any confirmed inclusion, much remains to be determined through community discussion and the eventual selection process.
For readers tracking this debate, the key next checkpoints are how EIP-8363 evolves in the open review process, whether further modeling clarifies the expected impact on solo validators versus larger staking providers, and how—if at all—the proposal fits into the eventual Hegotá EIP selection window extending toward Nov. 8.
HYPE price rose to $55.60 after defending the $51 support zone, with stronger capital inflows and a descending-channel breakout supporting the recovery.
Summary
- HYPE price rebounded 8.2% from its recent low near $51.
- 4-hour price action broke above a descending channel and $54.29 Supertrend.
- The daily chart places initial resistance between $57.28 and $58.14.
- Liquidation liquidity is concentrated around $56.20–$57.00, creating a potential short-squeeze target.
HYPE price rebounds from $51 support
According to data from crypto.news, HYPE price traded around $55.60 on Aug. 4 after rising as high as $55.80 during the latest session. The token has gained roughly 8.2% since bouncing from the $51 area, where buyers defended a support zone established during previous market corrections.
The rebound followed an extended decline from HYPE’s July highs above $72. On the 4-hour chart, the token had been forming lower highs and lower lows inside a descending channel since mid-July.
Buyers pushed the price through the channel’s upper boundary on Aug. 4, signaling that the short-term downtrend may be weakening. HYPE also reclaimed the 4-hour Supertrend level at $54.29, turning the indicator bullish for the first time since the latest leg lower.
Chaikin Money Flow rose to 0.15 alongside the breakout. A positive CMF reading indicates that buying pressure is exceeding selling pressure, adding support to the recovery rather than showing a rally driven entirely by thin trading conditions.
HYPE must now hold above the former channel resistance and the $54.00–$54.30 region. A drop back below that area would raise the risk of a failed breakout and another test of $52.83, the current Supertrend support.
Buybacks and platform demand support the move
The rebound comes as Hyperliquid’s fee-funded assistance fund continues purchasing HYPE on the open market. Under the protocol’s fee-routing structure, most platform revenue is directed toward token purchases, creating recurring demand when exchange activity rises.
Trailing gross revenue has reached approximately $1.34 billion. Hyperliquid also processed more than $30.44 million in large orders involving actively traded assets such as SKHX, MU, and SNDK over the latest session.
Demand may receive another longer-term boost from Hyperliquid’s expanded prediction and outcome market system. Deployers must lock at least 500,000 HYPE to create a permissionless public market, representing about $27.8 million at the current price.
That requirement could temporarily remove tokens from liquid circulation if adoption grows. However, it does not guarantee sustained price appreciation because the effect depends on the number of markets created and how long deployers maintain their locked positions.
The token’s recovery has also occurred while the wider altcoin market faces weak liquidity and regulatory uncertainty in the United States. Delays surrounding US crypto market-structure legislation may continue limiting risk appetite, particularly among traders waiting for clearer rules governing decentralized trading platforms.
HYPE price faces resistance near $58
Despite the 4-hour breakout, HYPE has not yet reversed its broader daily downtrend. The token remains below several major moving averages that could restrict further gains.
The 50-day simple moving average stands at $57.28, followed by the 100-day SMA at $58.14. These indicators create a narrow resistance zone between $57.28 and $58.14, making it the first major test for the current recovery.
A daily close above $58.14 would strengthen the bullish reversal case and expose the psychological $60 level. Beyond that, the 200-day moving average near $63.13 represents the next major target and a possible area of heavier profit-taking.
The BBP indicator remains negative at -2.153, showing that bearish pressure has not disappeared on the daily timeframe. However, its histogram has begun moving toward zero, indicating that sellers are gradually losing control.
If HYPE fails to clear the moving-average cluster, support sits at $54.30, followed by $52.83 and the recent low around $51. A decisive break below $51 would invalidate the channel breakout and expose $49.25. The daily 200-period EMA near $46.18 would provide deeper structural support.
Liquidation clusters could accelerate volatility
CoinGlass’ one-week liquidation heatmap shows substantial leveraged liquidity immediately above HYPE’s current price. The densest nearby clusters appear around $56.20–$56.40, with another major band close to $56.80–$57.00.
A move into those areas could force short positions to close, adding automatic buying pressure and carrying HYPE toward its daily moving averages. The liquidity distribution makes $57 a natural short-term magnet, although liquidation maps identify potential volatility zones rather than guaranteed targets.
Downside liquidity is visible around $53 and between $50.50 and $51.00. If the breakout loses momentum, leveraged long liquidations could accelerate a return to those levels.
Crypto trader Altcoin Sherpa described the latest two-day move as a possible attempt to reclaim the prior range low. The analyst remained cautious, noting that the recent bottom may have been shaped by prediction-market trading activity and that overhead supply remains a concern.
HYPE’s immediate outlook now depends on whether buyers can turn $54.30 into support and clear the $57.28–$58.14 resistance cluster. Holding above the breakout would favor a move toward $60, while a close below $52.83 would return control to sellers.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
BitGo has replaced LayerZero with Chainlink CCIP for $7.3 billion WBTC cross-chain transfers.
Summary
- BitGo has selected Chainlink CCIP as the exclusive cross chain provider for its $7.3 billion Wrapped Bitcoin ecosystem, replacing LayerZero.
- The migration brings the total value of announced LayerZero to Chainlink CCIP transitions to about $14.6 billion.
- BitGo said the new setup lets it retain control over WBTC token contracts, transfer limits and cross chain settings.
According to CoinDesk, crypto infrastructure company BitGo has selected Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) as the exclusive cross-chain provider for Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC), replacing LayerZero in a move that brings the total value of publicly announced migrations from LayerZero to Chainlink’s infrastructure to roughly $14.6 billion.
BitGo said the migration will standardize WBTC deployments around Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Token (CCT) standard while using CCIP by default for future digital assets it issues. The company added that the design allows it to retain direct control over token contracts, transfer limits and other operational settings instead of handing those functions to an external bridge provider.
WBTC is the largest tokenized version of Bitcoin, with a market capitalization of about $7.4 billion, according to CoinMarketCap. Because the token is widely used across decentralized finance applications outside the Bitcoin network, the migration represents one of the largest cross-chain infrastructure changes announced this year.
Chainlink CCIP expands after industry migrations
The latest announcement follows a series of similar moves made after the $292 million exploit involving Kelp DAO’s LayerZero-powered bridge earlier this year. Following that incident, several crypto projects disclosed plans to replace LayerZero with Chainlink CCIP for their cross-chain infrastructure.
Earlier migration announcements came from Mantle, Lombard, Aave, and Kraken, among others. With BitGo now adding WBTC to the list, the combined value of assets covered by announced migrations has climbed to nearly $15 billion.
Chainlink’s directory already lists CCIP-enabled WBTC pools on Ethereum and Ronin. Neither BitGo nor Chainlink disclosed when the migration across all supported blockchain networks will be completed.
Before the switch, BitGo had adopted LayerZero in 2024 to expand WBTC onto Avalanche and BNB Chain. Under that arrangement, each cross-chain transfer required approval from BitGo’s own verifier together with either LayerZero or Polyhedra before a transaction could proceed.
BitGo keeps operational control over WBTC
BitGo said its new setup is designed to preserve operational control while simplifying cross-chain deployments. Under the CCT standard, the company will continue managing token contracts, configure transfer rate limits and adjust cross-chain settings directly.
The announcement comes as BitGo continues expanding services for institutional digital asset clients beyond traditional custody.
Earlier this week, the company introduced BitGo Link, a treasury management platform that gives institutional clients a single dashboard to monitor balances and move assets across BitGo custody accounts and connected cryptocurrency exchanges. The platform also routes transfers through BitGo’s Policy Engine, allowing firms to apply internal approval workflows and permission controls across participating venues.
Separately, BitGo has continued adding security-focused products to its institutional offering. In July, the company launched four quantum-risk management tools for supported Bitcoin multisignature wallets, including a Quantum Risk Score, an exposed-address remediation workflow, updated UTXO selection and new default address controls to help institutions measure and reduce public-key exposure before quantum computing becomes a practical threat.
Migration follows BitGo’s institutional infrastructure push
Recent product launches indicate that BitGo has been adding new infrastructure around custody, settlement and asset management while continuing to expand its institutional business.
BitGo Link complements the company’s existing Go Network and BitGo Prime services by helping treasury teams manage capital distributed across external exchange accounts instead of limiting workflows to assets held within qualified custody. Earlier this year, the company also expanded controlled custody access to decentralized finance protocols including Aave, Spark and Tesseract.
The WBTC migration fits into that strategy by replacing one part of the company’s cross-chain infrastructure while maintaining direct oversight of asset transfers.
BitGo did not announce any changes for existing WBTC holders beyond the migration to CCIP, nor did it disclose whether additional assets currently using LayerZero will also move to Chainlink in the future.
The company has also not provided a rollout schedule for the migration, leaving the timing of full deployment across supported blockchain networks undisclosed.
OKX has reported record inflows to its centralized exchange following the Coldcard hardware wallet exploit, as the company says users are increasingly prioritizing managed custody after one of the largest known Bitcoin wallet security incidents.
Summary
- OKX says it has recorded record exchange inflows after the Coldcard hardware wallet exploit prompted some users to move assets from self custody.
- The exchange said it prevented $26.3 million in scam related losses and protected more than $1.1 billion in customer assets during the first half of 2026.
- Galaxy Research has confirmed thefts totaling 1,596 Bitcoin across three attack waves, with losses potentially reaching 2,055 Bitcoin if a fourth wave is verified.
- The Coldcard flaw has renewed calls from security experts for independent testing of hardware wallet firmware and seed generation.
According to The Block, OKX Chief Compliance Officer Jonathan Brockmeier said customer behavior has changed noticeably in the wake of the Coldcard attacks, with the exchange recording unusually high inflows as users move assets away from self-custody.
“We’re seeing record levels of inflows now to centralized exchanges post-Coldcard,” Brockmeier told the publication. “It’s interesting — it’s sort of the flip side of FTX. FTX happens, and everybody moves their money into self-custody, and it’s coming back now.”
He said managing private keys requires users to take responsibility for their own security, while exchanges can offer dedicated security teams and automated monitoring systems.
Brockmeier explained that OKX uses layered security controls supported by artificial intelligence to identify suspicious behavior before customers are affected, while still allowing users to choose self-custody if they prefer.
Coldcard exploit has changed custody decisions
The comments come as investigators continue tracking losses tied to the Coldcard hardware wallet vulnerability, which has become one of the largest known Bitcoin thefts linked to a flaw in wallet seed generation.
Galaxy Research said on Aug. 4 that it has confirmed the theft of 1,596 BTC from about 7,300 addresses across three verified attack waves. The firm added that the total could increase to roughly 2,055 BTC, worth nearly $130 million, if a fourth suspected wave receives sufficient confirmation from affected wallet owners.
Earlier blockchain analysis had estimated larger on-chain losses across four observed waves, but Galaxy narrowed its confirmed figures after distinguishing verified victim reports from blockchain observations. According to the research firm, investigators continue refining address mapping while coordinating with cryptocurrency exchanges, cyber investigation groups and U.S. law enforcement agencies.
Galaxy also reported that roughly 90% of the stolen Bitcoin has not moved since the attacks, giving investigators additional time to monitor the funds if they begin moving through exchanges or other services.
OKX says AI has prevented millions in scam losses
Alongside the change in customer behavior, Brockmeier told The Block that fraud prevention has become a growing focus for the exchange as digital asset scams and exploits continue affecting users.
According to figures shared by OKX, the exchange prevented $26.3 million in scam-related losses during the first half of 2026 by stopping suspicious transfers before they were completed. The company also said it protected more than $1.1 billion in customer assets belonging to over 500,000 users during the same period.
Brockmeier said the exchange has expanded its use of artificial intelligence to monitor blockchain activity for patterns associated with compromised devices, account takeovers and social engineering attacks before customer funds leave the platform.
He added that security preferences should vary depending on each customer’s needs. Users who want additional protection can choose stricter account controls even when the exchange’s internal systems do not classify their accounts as high risk, he said.
OKX also told The Block that its investigative unit includes former law enforcement officials, including former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration personnel and a principal agent involved in the Silk Road investigation.
Coldcard flaw remained unnoticed for years
The attacks originated from a vulnerability that Coinkite disclosed last week after determining that affected Coldcard firmware generated wallet seeds using a deterministic pseudo-random number generator instead of the intended hardware-backed true random number generator.
According to Coinkite’s technical review, the flaw was introduced in March 2021 while engineers integrated a new cryptographic library into the wallet firmware. Although the hardware random-number generator remained active elsewhere in the software, wallet creation mistakenly relied on MicroPython’s deterministic generator, reducing the strength of newly created seed phrases.
Block’s Bitcoin engineering and security team independently reached the same conclusion after reviewing the firmware. The company said vulnerable devices called the deterministic MicroPython fallback rather than the STM32 hardware random-number generator during seed creation, although it noted that it had not completed empirical testing across every affected model before publishing its findings because reports of active theft had already surfaced.
Coinkite estimates that affected Mk2 and Mk3 devices may provide roughly 40 bits of effective entropy, while vulnerable Mk4, Mk5 and Coldcard Q models may generate around 72 bits, well below the intended 128-bit security level.
Emergency firmware updates have since been released for every affected product line. Coinkite has stressed, however, that updating firmware protects only wallets created after the fix. Users whose seed phrases were generated with vulnerable firmware have been instructed to create entirely new wallets, verify a receiving address with a small test transaction and move funds only after confirming the transfer.
The company also said wallets created using at least 50 fair private dice rolls are not exposed by the random-number-generation flaw alone, although it still recommends migrating vulnerable seeds even when users employ a strong BIP-39 passphrase.
Industry has called for independent firmware verification
Separate comments from Kraken Chief Security Officer Nick Percoco have renewed discussion around how hardware wallets are tested before reaching customers.
Writing on X earlier this week, Percoco argued that manufacturers should not be the only parties validating how production firmware generates wallet seed phrases. He said independent testing should confirm that approved hardware entropy sources are actually used during wallet creation instead of relying primarily on code reviews or vendor audits.
To support that argument, Percoco pointed to NIST SP 800-90B, which governs validation of true random-number generators used in cryptographic systems, and Germany’s BSI AIS-31 framework. According to him, comparable end-to-end verification is not routinely performed for hardware wallet firmware despite the importance of secure seed generation.
The latest Coldcard incident has unfolded against a year of continued security breaches across the cryptocurrency industry. Last year, Dubai-based exchange Bybit lost approximately $1.4 billion in the largest recorded cryptocurrency theft, while blockchain security firm Blockaid reported that crypto projects lost more than $1 billion to hacks during the first half of 2026 as the number of verified exploits reached a record level.
Palantir Technologies stock jumped 30% on Tuesday. The surge wiped out $3 billion in short sellers’ paper profits for 2026.
The rally marked Palantir’s best single-day performance in two years, S3 Partners LLC said. Short sellers had built a $2.7 billion paper gain before Monday’s earnings news reversed course.
Earnings Beat Catches Bears Off Guard
The reversal followed Monday’s raised full-year forecast, which beat Wall Street’s revenue and income estimates. Short sellers, who had profited from Palantir’s sluggish run, watched those gains disappear in a single session.
Meanwhile, investor Michael Burry disclosed a bearish position against Palantir in November. His short bet helped trigger the stock’s earlier slide. He later said in a June newsletter that he had covered half of that position.
Palantir still trades down 10% for 2026, on pace for its worst year since 2022. The stock’s earlier slide followed months of contract concerns surrounding its government business.
Palantir Still Showing Risks
Some analysts still see risk in Palantir’s valuation. The stock trades at more than 83 times forward earnings. Jefferies kept an underperform rating on the stock, seeing better risk-reward in other AI-linked software names, including Microsoft and Amazon.
In contrast, Deutsche Bank analyst Brad Zelnick took the opposite view. He upgraded Palantir to buy from hold and kept a $200 price target, pointing to a second straight beat-and-raise quarter.
CEO Alex Karp addressed one lingering worry on the earnings call. He called commercial demand for Palantir’s data analytics tools “otherworldly.” That eased fears that rival AI developers could erode its software business.
Nearly 70% of analysts covering Palantir now rate the stock a buy. Its rally’s staying power, therefore, may hinge on whether commercial demand keeps justifying Palantir’s premium price.
The post Palantir Short Sellers Lose $3 Billion After 30% Earnings Rally appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Dinari has introduced tokenized access to the entire S&P 500 for U.S. investors, allowing eligible users to trade blockchain-based shares backed one-to-one by underlying securities.
Summary
- Dinari has launched tokenized versions of all S&P 500 stocks for eligible U.S. investors.
- Users can buy and sell blockchain based equities through self custody wallets funded with USDC.
- Each tokenized share is backed by an underlying security held in regulated custody and carries investor rights.
- The launch comes as competition in tokenized equities continues to grow among crypto and financial firms.
- Dinari says its platform is already available across 85 jurisdictions and supports more than 6,100 tokenized assets.
According to Fortune, the launch expands Dinari’s blockchain-based equities platform through a wallet-first system that lets users fund accounts with USDC instead of relying on traditional brokerage infrastructure.
The rollout allows eligible U.S. users to buy and sell tokenized shares through self-custody wallets instead of conventional brokerage accounts.
Dinari said the launch combines tokenized equities with stablecoin payments through a partnership with Circle, creating what it describes as a link between the roughly $300 billion stablecoin market and the more than $60 trillion U.S. equities market.
Circle declined to comment, citing a quiet period ahead of its upcoming earnings report.
Dinari replaces traditional brokerage access with tokenized stocks
Rather than relying on the conventional brokerage process, Dinari’s platform lets users fund accounts with USDC and hold tokenized equities directly in compatible wallets. The company said the model removes several layers of the traditional brokerage system while allowing investors to remain in control of their assets.
Each tokenized security, branded as a dShare, is backed one-to-one by an underlying stock held in regulated custody. According to Dinari, holders retain rights associated with the underlying securities, including voting rights, cash dividends distributed in native USDC, corporate actions, and redemption based on market prices.
Because transfers occur on blockchain infrastructure, transactions can settle almost instantly instead of following the standard market settlement cycle. Dinari also said tokenized portfolios can move between supported platforms rather than remaining tied to a single brokerage account.
The company added that its tokenized stock platform is already available across 85 jurisdictions outside the new U.S. rollout and currently supports 6,139 active tokenized assets.
Tokenized equities market continues to expand
A recent a16z crypto report said the market value of tokenized stocks climbed about 600% to nearly $1.7 billion by the end of June, as more financial firms introduced blockchain-based versions of traditional securities.
While firms including Securitize and Figure have developed tokenized asset offerings, Fortune reported that they have largely concentrated on private or specialized assets. Dinari co-founder and chief executive Gabriel Otte said his company’s model differs by making publicly traded U.S. stocks available through tokenized securities.
The launch also comes as competition in tokenized equities continues to increase. Robinhood recently introduced tokenized stock products through its blockchain network for eligible European users, while Coinbase and Base have said they are working toward one-to-one-backed tokenized equities using regulated structures.
Dinari has also expanded its regulatory and institutional presence over the past two years. In July 2024, the company joined the Blockchain Association to participate in U.S. policy discussions covering tokenized securities, digital asset market structure and financial regulation.
At the time, Dinari said tokenization should operate within existing securities laws while preserving investor protections already established in traditional capital markets. The company also noted that it operates as an SEC-registered transfer agent, while its broker-dealer subsidiary is registered with the SEC and is a member of FINRA and SIPC.
CEO points to long-standing market structure concerns
Speaking to Fortune, Otte said the idea for Dinari grew out of his own experience after leaving cancer diagnostics company Freenome, where he had been a co-founder.
After becoming a client of wealth management firms, he said he found the traditional investment system difficult to understand because clients often receive limited visibility into how their money is managed. He argued that existing capital markets tend to favor established participants and provide limited transparency for individual investors.
Otte also criticized the role of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, describing it as a centralized system that makes it difficult for investors to move assets freely between brokerages. According to him, blockchain-based ownership could remove many of those restrictions by allowing investors to control tokenized securities directly through digital wallets.
Fortune quoted Otte as saying he expects blockchain-issued tokens to eventually become the trusted record of stock ownership, allowing investors to hold assets directly rather than through multiple intermediaries.
Dinari continues building regulated blockchain infrastructure
Founded in 2021 by Gabriel Otte, former LegalZoom executive Chas Rampenthal and Crunchyroll founder Brandon Ooi, Dinari has continued building infrastructure that connects regulated financial institutions with blockchain settlement.
Earlier this year, the company introduced the Dinari Financial Network, a framework designed to connect broker-dealers, exchanges, custodians, issuers and transfer agents across the lifecycle of tokenized securities.
According to Dinari, the network supports issuance, trading, custody, settlement, dividend distribution and corporate actions while allowing participating firms to keep their existing regulatory responsibilities.
The company has also worked with established financial and crypto firms on tokenization initiatives. Earlier participants in the Dinari Financial Network included Gemini, BitGo and VanEck, while another partnership with S&P Dow Jones Indices and Chainlink brought the S&P Digital Markets 50 Index onto blockchain infrastructure.
The United States and Japan have carried out a rare joint intervention to support the yen, and the follow-up messaging from Washington suggests the coordination is likely to intensify rather than fade after a single market move. For crypto markets, the key question is how the intervention affects global dollar liquidity and the balance-sheet stress that can follow when the yen carry trade unwinds.
Earlier this month, the US and Japan conducted their first joint yen intervention since the late 1990s, when the yen was still considered a different kind of funding currency. The event also reinforced the role of Fed-related dollar liquidity channels—an issue that matters to traders broadly, including those holding Bitcoin and other risk assets.
Key takeaways
- The first US-Japan joint yen intervention since 1998 sets a potential precedent for future coordination.
- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized meeting with Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda ahead of the late-August G20 finance ministers session.
- Bessent highlighted the Fed’s FIMA repo facility as a “backstop” and urged that it be upsized to support dollar liquidity.
- Japanese two-year bond yields rose above 1.57% on Monday, signaling higher rates and increasing pressure on yen funding strategies.
- Crypto market participants view a possible end to the yen carry trade as a swing factor for liquidity conditions and risk appetite.
US-Japan coordination returns to the spotlight
Last week’s intervention was notable not only for its timing but for its design. According to reporting in the source, the New York Fed sold euros on behalf of the US Treasury, using the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), a reserve pool used for currency stabilization activities. The practical goal was to support the yen, which had fallen to around 164 per US dollar—levels described as the weakest in roughly four decades.
That “first since 1998” framing matters because it hints at a shift toward deeper macro-policy coordination. If interventions become more common, markets may start pricing not just immediate exchange-rate stabilization, but longer-term expectations for policy alignment between Washington and Tokyo.
Bessent’s message: more planning, and more liquidity insurance
After the joint intervention, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly drew attention to upcoming coordination with the Bank of Japan. He specifically said he planned to meet with BoJ Governor Kazuo Ueda during the G20 gathering of finance ministers in North Carolina at the end of August. Bessent’s post emphasized ongoing “close coordination” with Japan’s leadership and central bank.
Beyond the meeting itself, Bessent’s focus shifted to liquidity plumbing. He pointed to the Fed’s Foreign and International Monetary Authorities (FIMA) repo facility, describing it as an important backstop and arguing that it should be expanded “in the coming months.”
The core mechanism, as described in the source, is that the Fed provides dollars to foreign institutions. Those institutions can use Treasuries as collateral, which helps increase the supply of dollars outside the US without forcing sales of US Treasuries. For US Treasury markets, that distinction is material: if dollar liquidity support is delivered via repo channels rather than through abrupt Treasury market actions, the risk of destabilizing pricing and yields is reduced.
The yen carry trade unwind: why bond yields and liquidity collide
The yen carry trade has long depended on a relatively low-yielding yen funding base. The source argues that expectations have built around the trade’s gradual disintegration as Japan moves away from the prolonged era of very low interest rates.
A tangible indicator of that shift appeared in the domestic bond market. According to the article, Japanese two-year bond yields rose above 1.57% on Monday, a move interpreted as evidence that low-rate conditions are ending sooner than many markets had previously assumed. When yen yields rise, the economic logic of borrowing in yen and investing elsewhere becomes less attractive, increasing the probability of carry trade unwinds.
The liquidity angle is complicated. Carry trade unwinds can produce sharp cross-currency flows, which may temporarily tighten financial conditions for some market participants. Yet, Bessent’s emphasis on FIMA’s role signals a policy effort to prevent such stress from spilling into broader dollar funding markets—an effort that could support risk assets if it succeeds.
That tension is part of why reactions to the intervention were described as mixed in the source. Economist Mohamed El-Erian argued that Washington is now “bound into coordination” with the BoJ, suggesting that the effectiveness of the strategy may increasingly rely on a broader alignment within Tokyo—across the central bank, the Ministry of Finance, and the Prime Minister’s Office—rather than on US actions alone.
What this could mean for Bitcoin and risk assets
For Bitcoin, the immediate causal path isn’t direct—BTC doesn’t trade on yen carry trade mechanics. But liquidity conditions often influence how investors and institutions manage exposure to volatile assets. In that sense, the same macro levers that affect currency markets can still shape the risk environment for crypto.
The source highlights a particularly bullish hope circulating in Bitcoin circles: that a disorderly or at least notable yen carry trade unwind could ultimately tighten funding stress and reshape global liquidity in ways that benefit BTC. Even if that outcome is framed as a “bull case,” the pathway depends on whether policymakers can cushion the dollar-liquidity shock while also allowing yen stabilization to proceed.
At the same time, there are clear reasons for caution. If Japanese actions push up the cost of borrowing across markets—or if liquidity support via repo facilities proves insufficient—investors could see risk assets react to financial tightening rather than easing. The source specifically notes that Japan’s large holdings of Treasuries could raise yields if more Treasury-related sales occur, which would spill into broader borrowing costs. That’s why the emphasis on FIMA matters: it’s intended to support dollar liquidity without directly impairing Treasuries.
Watch points for traders and long-term holders
The next phase will likely be defined by two things: whether the US and Japan continue institutional coordination after the initial intervention, and how large and sustained any liquidity support becomes via the FIMA repo facility. Traders should also monitor Japanese short-end rates—such as the two-year area cited above—because they offer an early signal of how quickly funding incentives are changing and how much pressure remains for carry trade positions to unwind.
A group of six Ethereum researchers and developers, including Ethereum Foundation’s Justin Drake, has proposed changing the network’s issuance policy to cut validator rewards more sharply as the proportion of staked ETH rises.
The draft, called the Tapered Issuance Burn and currently being assigned the provisional number EIP-8363, would burn an increasing fraction of validators’ consensus rewards as the amount of staked ETH approaches a fixed threshold of 60.25 million ETH (around 50% of the current ETH supply), at which point the deduction hits 100%. The changes would phase in over 18 months.
Tapered Issuance Burn Ethereum Improvement Proposal. Source: Github
The proposal has triggered backlash from developers, stakers and DeFi founders, who warn that the reward cuts could force out solo validators before larger institutions are affected, weaken institutional demand for ETH, and disrupt DeFi markets built around staking yield.
One of the proposal’s authors, Jérôme de Tychey, said the changes are needed to address the rising share of Ether being staked, which passed 33% in April. The authors argue continued staking growth could concentrate ETH in large custodians and liquid staking providers, while unchecked issuance erodes Ether’s role as a neutral, trustless store of value.
“Ever-growing issuance is a dilution tax on every holder: stake, or be diluted. At high ratios, LSTs and other staking derivatives displace raw ETH as the ecosystem’s working money, thus swapping the most neutral, trustless asset for intermediated claims on issuers,” he said.
Although EIP-8363 remains an early draft, its publication just two days before a deadline for proposals targeting Ethereum’s Hegotá upgrade has also raised concerns about whether there is enough time to consider the impacts on Ethereum’s tokenomics.
EIP-8363 authors’ argument to cut issuance
The proposal’s authors argue that under the current curve, staking yield never drops below 1.5% even with all ETH in existence being staked.
“The incentive to stake never switches off. Where does it stop? It doesn’t,” said de Tychey.
With no changes, a worst-case scenario could see more than 55% of Ethereum supply locked in staking by 2028, he said.
“Maximal neutrality & minimal dilution: those are the two fundamentals of a store of value. This EIP not only hardens both, it sets a bar no other blockchain clears.”
The proposed policy would see issuance peak at 0.5% of ETH supply per year at its highest (around 20% of ETH is staked), declining to zero when the staking ratio of Ethereum hits the 60.25 million ETH threshold.
Related: Ethereum treasury firms lean on staking as ETF pressure builds: Report
“ETH supply growth will be bounded and more predictable. Combined with the EIP-1559 and Blob burn, the supply will more often decrease. Ethereum, the most mature of all the protocols, with a sustainable security budget, will also be the least dilutive of all protocols,” said de Tychey.
The proposal’s broader direction has also received support from Grayscale. In May, Grayscale’s head of research Zach Pandl said limiting staking incentives would be “positive for the price of Ether over time.”
Critics say it’s punishing Ethereum’s growth
Aave founder Stani Kulechov said reducing staking rewards would weaken institutional demand for ETH and borrowing activity across DeFi, arguing the proposal “doesn’t achieve the outcome it tries to achieve and is actually hurtful for Ethereum.”
Another argument is that the proposal would impact solo validators as they have generally higher relative costs and are more susceptible to reward changes, leading to a more concentrated validator set.
“This will self evidently push out solo stakers who aren’t subsidized by the EF or others,” said Mike Silagadze, CEO of Ether.Fi.
“It will essentially guarantee that the only ones staking are large centralized entities with zero cost of capital where users passively hold their ETH.”
De Tychey disputed this point, saying on the Ethereum Magicians forum that users of large staking providers must pay fees, making those services less attractive as rewards fall, though he acknowledged the research on this is still contested.
The proposed network update will lower ETH issuance and inflation. Source: Zach Pandl
Others pointed to the seemingly rushed timeline to consider the proposal, though this appears to be due to confusion over the upcoming deadline on Aug. 6.
“This clearly doesn’t leave adequate time for community review of a monetary policy change of this magnitude,” said Greg Koumoutsos, a co-author of EIP-8148 and EIP-8205.
Where the proposal currently stands
The Tapered Issuance Burn proposal has not been approved, scheduled or included in Hegotá.
While there is an Aug. 6 deadline relating to this proposal, the deadline is for pull requests proposing additional EIPs for Hegotá, not a deadline for deciding which proposals will be included.
Ethereum community organizer Trent Van Epps said the selection process could continue until Nov. 8, and that Hegotá is likely to reach mainnet in the second quarter of 2027.
Magazine: The 100x obsession: Fundamentals grow in importance as crypto matures
A former FBI supervisory agent stole roughly $1 million in cryptocurrency and consulted ChatGPT on how to use the funds and relocate to Europe.
Federal investigators charged Patrick Steven Yaroch with interstate transportation of stolen goods and receipt of stolen goods after he allegedly confessed to stealing cryptocurrency from wallets linked to FBI investigations between late 2024 and early 2025.
Former FBI Agent In Custody
Yaroch allegedly stole the cryptocurrency from wallets described in court documents as “adversarial cryptocurrency accounts.” The former agent was arrested on Friday after confessing to the theft.
According to an affidavit filed on August 1, Yaroch discovered private keys that allowed him to access and transfer funds from the wallets to himself. The transfers were completed through a dozen transfers between late 2024 and early 2025.
Prosecutors stated that Yaroch contacted an employee of the United States Department of Justice and requested a meeting to discuss personal matters. However, during the meeting, held at FBI headquarters, he broke down and admitted to accessing the FBI’s systems to obtain the cryptocurrency.
“During the afternoon of July 28, 2026, Yaroch contacted DOJ Employee 1 via Signal and requested to meet to discuss personal matters. Upon meeting DOJ Employee 1 at FBI headquarters, Yaroch immediately started to break down as he told his story.”
Yaroch allegedly told the DOJ employee he had made “some very poor decisions related to cryptocurrency wallets.” He added that he was frustrated because he was “unable to do more to stop people connected to an adversarial nation from using cryptocurrency.” However, prosecutors have alleged he transferred the assets for his personal benefit outside authorized seizure or forfeiture processes, and mixed the cryptocurrency with his personal funds. Yaroch’s crypto holdings eventually totaled nearly $1 million, and investigators searching his home seized a Trezor hardware wallet and handwritten seed phrases.
They also discovered $188,570 in a Kraken account, including $166,000 in USD, $18,000 in USDC, and small holdings of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Yaroch had also transferred $1.02 million into a Suilend account on July 23.
ChatGPT Conversations
Investigators stated that Yaroch turned to ChatGPT to figure out how to use the funds, including questions about how he could invest a million dollars and maximize profits and returns. He also asked the AI about leaving the US and settling in a European country.
Investigators also discovered queries regarding visa requirements and an email draft about job opportunities in Greece. They also discovered details of a planned trip to Portugal, related power-of-attorney documents, and evidence of unreported foreign travel.
When presented with the details, Yaroch said he wasn’t planning to funnel money to Portugal, and that his family had planned a trip to the country to meet friends. The complaint states, “FBI WF Agents mentioned to Yaroch that they located the power of attorney forms for Portugal. Yaroch stated he was not planning to funnel money into Portugal. Yaroch told FBI WF Agents that his family had a trip planned to Portugal in September 2026 to meet friends. Yaroch realized he might not be able to attend the trip but stated he hoped his wife and child would still go on the trip.”
Crypto Under Scrutiny
The incident comes at a time when crypto is under intense scrutiny after a wave of security incidents. Coldcard was hit by a major exploit after a 2021 firmware bug bypassed its hardware wallet’s random number generator, allowing hackers to remotely drain $89 million in Bitcoin.
Ostium’s off-chain infrastructure was also compromised after an attacker manipulated BTC-USD price reports, draining 23.75 million in USDC from its liquidity vault.
However, Yaroch’s case is one of alleged insider theft by a supervisory special agent working at the FBI headquarters’ Counterintelligence and Espionage Division.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
Perez Hilton rushed to hospital after police swarm his Miami home over distressing knife livestream pulled from TikTok
Buc-ee’s sues Ohio mini mart over beaver logo trademark infringement claims
Bitcoin may gain if AI bubble bursts, Hayes says
-
Business6 days agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Wit & Wisdom
-
Politics4 days agoMeta enters AI-training agreement with far-right ‘propaganda rag’ Newsmax
-
Politics7 days agoReform UK betrays West Mids residents by running from party pledges
-
Crypto World4 days agoMicroStrategy Post-Earnings CLARITY Act Push Could Add New Catalyst for Its Stock
-
Politics2 days agoZack Polanski: an incitement to murder Nigel Farage?
-
Business7 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World4 days agoXRP Ledger v3.3.0 brings five institutional features
-
News Videos6 days agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Politics5 days agoLuke Littler’s dominance sparks GOAT debate
-
Sports5 days agoSeema Kaliramna Wins Discus Throw Bronze, Takes India’s CWG Medals Tally To 17
-
Crypto World4 days agoNew York sues Kalshi over prediction market gambling
-
Crypto World3 days agoCrypto PAC spending tops $2M in Michigan House race
-
Business5 days agoTrump Announces Hamas Disarmament Agreement as Iran Strikes Kuwait Air Base and US Attacks Pause Overnight
-
Tech7 days agoGemini can now summarize the messiest comment threads in Google Docs
-
Tech3 days agoESET tracks rise in malicious AI skills and adaptable malware
-
Business2 days agoDTCR: Deleveraging And A Hedge Fund Collapse Point To A Possible AI Bottom
-
Tech5 days agoBuilding A Reproduction PlayStation Motherboard
-
NewsBeat6 days agoFour people die trying to cross Channel in small boats
-
Tech5 days agoGemini Spark can now use Chrome logins and saved passwords to run errands on your behalf
You must be logged in to post a comment Login