Crypto World
The fed chair who owned crypto just ruled out saving it
Kevin Warsh held stakes in a stablecoin venture and a dozen protocols, called Bitcoin the new gold, and became the friendliest Fed chair crypto has ever had. Then Congress asked whether the Fed would rescue the sector in a run, and he said the one word the industry was not expecting.
Summary
- On July 14, in his first congressional testimony as Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh told the House Financial Services Committee the Fed will not rescue crypto or stablecoins if the sector faces a run.
- His exact words carried weight because of who said them: before confirmation, Warsh disclosed venture stakes in a Bitcoin payments startup, Bitwise, a stablecoin venture, and more than a dozen protocols, all divested under Fed ethics rules.
- The line came with a hedge. In the same exchange he pledged to mitigate extraordinary risks over the next four years, and he declined to rule out any future step-in, which is where the real policy lives.
- The context sharpens it: the stablecoin market sits near $310 billion, a New York Fed report finds stablecoin stress can transmit to banks, and crypto’s only rescue to date, the 2023 SVB intervention that restored USDC’s peg, was accidental.
- Four days after Warsh said the Fed was racing to publish its GENIUS Act rules on time, every agency missed the deadline, leaving the sector with a disclaimed backstop and an unfinished rulebook at the same moment.
The most consequential sentence in crypto this month was not said by anyone in crypto. It was said in a House hearing room on July 14 by a Federal Reserve chair two months into the job, answering a question from a congressman who has spent years as the industry’s most reliable antagonist. Representative Brad Sherman asked Kevin Warsh whether the Fed would backstop failing digital-asset firms the way it supported money market funds in 2008. Warsh, who sat inside the Fed during that crisis and helped design those rescues, answered: “We do not want to be in the bailout business, full stop.” He then added that the goal is a position where nobody gets bailed out, crypto included. The industry has spent a decade assuming that if the worst happened, the safety net underneath the traditional system would stretch, however grudgingly, underneath the digital one. The friendliest chair in Fed history just said it will not, and the fine print of how he said it matters more than the headline.
The man making the promise
Warsh’s biography is what makes the statement land, in both directions at once.
He took office on May 15 and presided over his first FOMC meeting in June. Before that, he was the youngest Federal Reserve governor in history during the 2008 crisis, serving under Ben Bernanke, where he helped construct the emergency programs he now disavows. He spent the following years as one of the loudest internal critics of the Fed’s expanding footprint, opposing large-scale asset purchases and the 2020 pandemic lending facilities. A chair who designed bailouts, watched what they did to incentives, and concluded the institution should never do them again is not making a casual remark when he says full stop. He is stating a career position.
The crypto side of the biography is what makes it remarkable. Before his confirmation, Warsh disclosed venture stakes in a Bitcoin payments startup, the crypto index manager Bitwise, and a stablecoin venture, plus exposure to more than a dozen blockchain protocols, all divested under the Fed’s ethics rules. He has called Bitcoin the new gold for investors under 40, and said at his April confirmation hearing that cryptocurrencies should not exist outside the financial system, a line the industry read, correctly, as an invitation inside. This is not a Powell-style institutionalist keeping crypto at arm’s length or a Warren ally hunting it. This is the closest thing to a crypto-native ever to run the world’s most important central bank, and he is precisely the official now telling the sector that its risk is its own.
That combination cuts both ways, and the market should hold both edges. From a sympathetic chair, no bailout reads as respect: the sector is mature enough to bear its own losses, and pre-committing against rescue is how you prevent the moral hazard that turns markets into wards of the state. From any chair, it reads as notice: the presumptive federal backstop that firms, custodians, and issuers have quietly priced in has been publicly disclaimed, by the one person with authority to disclaim it.
The hedge inside the full stop
The headline sentence was absolute. The full exchange was not, and the gap between them is where every serious question lives.
Immediately after the full stop, Warsh told lawmakers the Fed will do everything it can to mitigate extraordinary risks if and when they arise over the next four years. Pressed on the scenario Sherman actually posed, a run on one issuer spreading across a $310 billion sector, Warsh declined to offer an absolute pledge, and observers including American Banker noted that he did not rule out any future step-in. He also avoided specifics on the Fed’s Section 13(3) emergency lending authority, the legal machinery through which every modern rescue has actually flowed.
Read as a lawyer would, the position is: no bailouts as policy, discretion preserved as fact. That is not hypocrisy; it is how central banks talk, because a chair who genuinely forecloses intervention in all states of the world is writing a suicide note for some future crisis. But it means the practical content of the testimony is narrower than the market’s first reading.
What Warsh disclaimed is the routine expectation of rescue, the assumption that a large custodian or issuer failing would automatically summon the 2008 playbook. What he retained is the option to act when a failure stops being a crypto story and starts being a systemic one.
The dividing line, then, is the word extraordinary, and nobody knows where it sits. A mid-sized issuer breaking its peg and burning its own holders is, on this testimony, on its own. A run on the largest stablecoins, transmitting into the Treasury bills and repo markets where their reserves live, forcing fire sales that move the assets banks and money funds also hold, starts to look like exactly the sort of spillover a central bank exists to contain.
The New York Fed’s own staff work this year found that stablecoin activity can transmit liquidity stress to banks, which is the analytical groundwork you lay when you think the extraordinary scenario is possible. Warsh’s testimony draws a bright line for small failures and a deliberately blurry one for large ones, and the blur is the policy.
The history that tests the promise
The reason to take no bailout seriously, and the reason to doubt it, live in the same two precedents.
The first is 2008 itself, which Warsh watched from the inside. The lesson he draws from it is the standard post-crisis critique: rescues beget rescues, backstops get priced in, and institutions grow to the size of the guarantee behind them. The money market fund support Sherman cited is the perfect example, because it converted a product that promised to be cash-like into one the government actually made cash-like, and the industry spent the next decade fighting the reforms meant to prevent a repeat. A chair determined not to let stablecoins become the next money market funds, growing enormous on an implicit guarantee, has exactly one tool: refuse the guarantee loudly, early, and before the crisis, which is what July 14 was.
The second precedent points the other way, and crypto lived it. In March 2023, Circle disclosed that $3.3 billion of USDC’s reserves sat at the failed Silicon Valley Bank, and the coin fell to roughly 87 cents. What restored it was not crypto infrastructure or arbitrage; it was the FDIC’s systemic risk exception making SVB’s depositors whole, a rescue aimed at regional banking that happened to catch a stablecoin in its net. Crypto’s only bailout to date was an accident, a spillover benefit of the traditional system saving itself. The uncomfortable reading is that this is precisely how the next one would happen too: not as a decision to save crypto, but as a decision to save something crypto is plugged into, with the sector’s exposure riding along. Warsh can refuse to rescue crypto and still end up rescuing it, because the plumbing is now shared, which is the thing his own staff’s research keeps documenting.
The GENIUS Act complicates the picture further, in a direction that supports his position.
The law requires full liquid reserves and pays stablecoin holders ahead of other creditors in an issuer failure, which is a resolution regime, the thing you build so that failures can happen without rescues. On July 15, at Senate Banking, Warsh urged the agencies to coordinate their GENIUS rulemaking to prevent regulatory arbitrage and was described as racing to publish the Fed’s piece on time. Three days later, the statutory deadline passed with no agency finished. The sector is therefore in the strangest possible configuration: the backstop has been disclaimed, the resolution rulebook that justifies disclaiming it is unfinished, and the effective date that makes the rulebook binding, January 18, 2027, is fixed. No net, no manual, timer running.
What it means for who
For stablecoin holders, the testimony plus the FDIC’s confirmation that stablecoin wallets carry no pass-through deposit insurance settles the hierarchy of protection. A holder’s safety rests on the issuer’s reserves and the GENIUS priority rule, not on any federal guarantee, and the difference between those things is the difference between a strong legal claim in a bankruptcy and money that is simply there. Full reserves make failure unlikely; nothing now makes it costless.
For custodians and centralized platforms, the message is sharper. These are the entities whose business models most resemble the institutions 2008 actually rescued, and they are the ones whose presumptive backstop was disclaimed by name. The era in which counterparty risk on a large crypto platform could be waved off with an assumption of federal intervention, an assumption FTX’s creditors can testify was always fiction, now has a chair’s testimony attached to its falsity.
For self-custody, nothing changed, which is the point its advocates will make loudly and correctly. An asset held in your own keys was never inside the perimeter of rescue and never needed to be. The testimony is, among other things, an inadvertent advertisement for the sector’s founding design.
And for the Fed itself, the statement is a bet. If the next crypto failure is contained, Warsh banks the credibility of a promise kept cheaply. If the next failure is large enough to reach the banks, the money funds, and the Treasury market, he faces the choice every no-bailout chair has eventually faced, between the promise and the panic, and the historical record of that choice is not on the promise’s side. Bernanke did not want to be in the bailout business either. The business came to him.
The moral hazard ledger
Underneath the exchange with Sherman sits a genuine economic argument, and it deserves to be laid out straight rather than through slogans, because where you land on it determines whether the testimony reads as discipline or as bluff.
The case for the full stop is the moral hazard ledger from 2008, which Warsh watched being written. A backstop, once revealed, gets priced. Money market funds promised cash-like safety for decades; when the promise broke in 2008 and the government made it true retroactively, the sector internalized the guarantee, fought the reforms designed to remove it, and grew for another decade on an implicit subsidy. The same mechanism, applied to stablecoins, is easy to sketch: let the market believe the Fed stands behind the largest issuers and those issuers become utilities in expectation, their coins trade as insured deposits without the premiums, their reserve managers reach for yield the guarantee lets them reach for, and the eventual failure is larger for every year the belief compounds. On this ledger, the cheapest moment to refuse a bailout is now, loudly, before any crisis makes the refusal expensive, and a chair with Warsh’s history is exactly the official who would insist on paying early.
The case against taking the full stop at face value is the same ledger read forward. No-bailout doctrines have a specific historical property: they hold until the afternoon they do not. The Fed had no intention of rescuing investment banks until Bear Stearns, no appetite for insurers until AIG, and the 2023 regional banking episode, the one that accidentally rescued USDC, began with official assurances that the system was sound and no extraordinary measures were contemplated. The doctrine is real as a preference and soft as a constraint, because the constraint is tested precisely when the cost of honoring it is highest. Markets know this, which produces the uncomfortable equilibrium: a disclaimed backstop that everyone suspects still exists functions almost identically to an acknowledged one, except that nobody pays for it and nobody regulates against it.
What breaks the equilibrium, in theory, is a resolution regime credible enough that failures can actually happen. This is the deep connection between the testimony and the missed GENIUS deadline, and it is why the two stories are one story. The Act’s holder-priority rule and full-reserve requirement are the machinery of lettable failure: if an issuer can die in an orderly way, with holders paid first from segregated liquid reserves, then the Fed’s refusal to intervene is credible, because non-intervention no longer implies chaos. But that machinery lives in the unfinished rules. Until redemption mechanics, custody standards, and supervisory triggers are final, an issuer failure would be resolved through improvisation, and improvisation is the environment in which every no-bailout doctrine in history has died. Warsh’s promise is, in the most literal sense, only as strong as the rulebook his fellow regulators just failed to deliver on time. He drew the line four days before the deadline proved the ground under it was still wet.
What to watch
Where the rules land. The unfinished GENIUS rulebook is the substance behind the rhetoric. A finished regime with real reserve, redemption, and resolution mechanics makes no bailout credible, because failures become processable. A rulebook still floating next year makes the disclaimer a bluff the market may eventually test.
Concentration in the reserve chain. The transmission channel the New York Fed flags runs through where stablecoin reserves live: T-bills, repo, and bank deposits. The more the largest issuers grow, and the market is near $310 billion with two issuers dominating, the more a run stops being a crypto event and starts being a money market event, which is the category Warsh’s hedge was built for.
The first mid-sized failure. The clean test of the doctrine is not the catastrophe; it is the medium disaster, an issuer or platform large enough to make headlines and small enough to be genuinely lettable-fail. If the Fed and Treasury stand back, the promise has teeth. If official statements of reassurance start flowing within hours, the market will conclude the old regime never left.
The full stop was real, and so was everything after it. Crypto now operates under the most explicitly stated no-rescue doctrine in its history, delivered by the most crypto-fluent chair in the Fed’s history, with a hedge exactly wide enough to drive a crisis through. The sector asked for years to be taken seriously by the institution at the center of the dollar system. On July 14 it was, and being taken seriously turned out to mean being told the losses are yours.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. It describes central bank statements and pending regulation, both of which can change, and no outcome discussed here is guaranteed. Nothing in this article is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 20, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Fed chair actually say?
Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee on July 14, 2026, Kevin Warsh was asked by Representative Brad Sherman whether the Fed would backstop failing digital-asset firms as it supported money market funds in 2008. Warsh said the Fed does not want to be in the bailout business, full stop, and that the goal is a position where nobody, including crypto, gets bailed out.
Did he leave any room for intervention?
Yes, and it is the most important detail. In the same exchange he pledged to do everything possible to mitigate extraordinary risks over the next four years, declined to offer an absolute no-rescue pledge for a sector-wide run, and avoided specifics on the Fed’s Section 13(3) emergency lending authority. The practical position is no routine rescues, with discretion preserved for systemic events.
Why does Warsh’s background matter here?
Because he is simultaneously crypto’s most sympathetic chair and a career bailout skeptic. Before confirmation he disclosed stakes in a Bitcoin payments startup, Bitwise, a stablecoin venture, and more than a dozen protocols, all divested under ethics rules, and he has called Bitcoin the new gold for younger investors. He was also the youngest Fed governor during the 2008 crisis and later opposed quantitative easing and the 2020 emergency programs.
Has crypto ever actually been bailed out?
Once, by accident. In March 2023, $3.3 billion of Circle’s USDC reserves were trapped at Silicon Valley Bank and the coin fell to roughly 87 cents. The FDIC’s systemic risk exception made SVB depositors whole, which restored the peg. The rescue targeted regional banking, and USDC’s recovery was a spillover, which illustrates how a future intervention could reach crypto without being aimed at it.
Are stablecoin holders protected without a Fed backstop?
Partly. The GENIUS Act requires issuers to hold full reserves in liquid assets and pays stablecoin holders ahead of other creditors if an issuer fails. However, the FDIC has confirmed stablecoin wallets carry no pass-through deposit insurance, and the detailed rules implementing the law remain unfinished after regulators missed the July 18 statutory deadline. Protection rests on reserves and legal priority, not on any guarantee.
What is the systemic concern with a $310 billion stablecoin market?
Transmission. Stablecoin reserves sit in Treasury bills, repo, and bank deposits, and a New York Fed staff report this year found stablecoin activity can transmit liquidity stress to banks. A run on a major issuer could force rapid asset sales in markets that banks and money funds also depend on, converting a crypto event into a money market event, which is the scenario Warsh’s extraordinary-risk hedge appears designed for.
How does this connect to the GENIUS Act deadline?
Directly. On July 15, Warsh urged regulators to coordinate their GENIUS rulemaking to prevent regulatory arbitrage, with the Fed described as racing to publish on time. Three days later, all the relevant agencies missed the law’s one-year rulemaking deadline. The sector is therefore operating with a disclaimed backstop and an unfinished resolution rulebook simultaneously, ahead of the law’s fixed January 18, 2027 effective date.
What should investors take from this?
That the assumption of a federal safety net under large crypto platforms and issuers has been explicitly disclaimed, and risk should be priced accordingly. Reserve quality, redemption mechanics, and legal structure now carry the full weight of protection. Self-custodied assets are unaffected by the change, since they were never inside any rescue perimeter. This is not investment advice, and individual circumstances vary.
Celsius co-founders Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein will pay a combined $6.5 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges tied to the collapsed crypto lender.Â
Summary
- Leon and Goldstein will pay $6.5 million combined under separate FTC settlements over Celsius claims.
- The FTC accused Celsius executives of falsely promoting customer deposits as safe and readily available.
- Mashinsky’s earlier $10 million settlement brings total payments from three Celsius co-founders to $16.5 million.
The FTC said Leon will pay $4.1 million, while Goldstein will pay $2.4 million under separate court orders.
The settlements end the FTC cases against the two executives and follow former Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky’s $10 million agreement in April. The three co-founders will pay a combined $16.5 million under their respective settlements. The FTC accused them of misleading customers about the safety, availability and management of assets deposited with Celsius.
Leon, Celsius’ former chief strategy officer, must pay $4.1 million under an order entered by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote on June 29. The order also enters a $4.72 billion judgment against him, with most of that amount suspended if he meets the settlement terms and provided accurate financial disclosures to the FTC.
Goldstein, who served as Celsius’ chief technology officer, will pay $2.4 million, according to the FTC’s latest release. Both men also face limits on future business activities. Leon cannot market or sell services used to deposit, exchange, invest or withdraw assets. Goldstein faces a similar ban covering retail crypto products used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade digital assets.
The orders also prohibit the two executives from making false statements about products or services. They cannot violate provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by obtaining customer financial information through false or fraudulent representations. Leon also faces restrictions on sharing consumers’ nonpublic personal information without informed consent.
FTC case focused on Celsius safety and reserve claims
The FTC filed its case against Celsius and its executives in July 2023. The regulator alleged that the company presented itself as a safer alternative to traditional banks while making claims about its reserves, lending practices and insurance coverage that were not accurate.
According to the regulator, Celsius told customers they could withdraw deposits at any time and claimed it maintained a $750 million insurance policy covering customer funds. The company also said it held enough reserves to meet customer obligations and did not make unsecured loans. The FTC alleged that Celsius instead made $1.2 billion in unsecured loans by April 2022 and lacked the insurance policy it advertised.
The FTC also accused executives of continuing to reassure customers as Celsius moved closer to bankruptcy. The regulator said they “continued to claim that customers’ deposits were safe days before the company filed for bankruptcy.” Celsius suspended customer withdrawals in June 2022 and filed for bankruptcy the following month.
Mashinsky faces separate bans after $10 million FTC deal
The latest settlements follow the FTC’s April agreement with Mashinsky.The former CEO agreed to pay $10 million and accepted a permanent ban on promoting or offering asset-related products. His order also included a $4.72 billion judgment, although most remains suspended under conditions set by the settlement.
Mashinsky later received another permanent restriction from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. As crypto.news reported in June, a federal court barred him from trading in markets overseen by the CFTC or registering with the agency. That settlement closed the regulator’s civil enforcement case against him and Celsius.
His criminal case remains separate from the FTC settlements. A federal judge sentenced Mashinsky to 12 years in prison in May 2025 after he pleaded guilty to commodities fraud and securities fraud. Prosecutors said he misled customers about Celsius’ financial condition, investment risks and yield-generating activities. The court also ordered him to forfeit more than $48 million.
Celsius creditors continue recovering funds after the collapse
Celsius held about $25 billion in assets at its peak before its business deteriorated during the 2022 crypto market downturn. When the company stopped withdrawals, hundreds of thousands of customers had about $4.7 billion in inaccessible assets on the platform, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The bankruptcy recovery process has continued separately from the cases against former executives. As previously reported, Celsius began a third creditor distribution worth about $220.6 million in August 2025, bringing total recoveries at the time to nearly 65% of eligible claims.
Another former Celsius executive, Roni Cohen-Pavon, also faced legal action over his role at the company. Crypto.news reported in May that he avoided additional prison time after cooperating with prosecutors in the Mashinsky case.
With the Leon and Goldstein orders now entered, the FTC has reached settlements with all three Celsius co-founders named in its 2023 case. The agency’s official case page still lists the broader proceeding as pending, while separate bankruptcy, securities and criminal matters have followed their own legal processes.
White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt will remain in his post after his scheduled military training was deferred, keeping the administration’s lead CLARITY Act negotiator in Washington during the final weeks before the Senate’s summer break.Â
Summary
- Patrick Witt deferred military training, keeping the White House’s lead CLARITY Act negotiator in place.
- The Senate faces a narrow timeline as unresolved ethics language still threatens the bill’s vote.
- Harry Jung plans to leave government, removing the deputy once expected to cover Witt’s absence.
Witt had planned to begin Judge Advocate General training with the Georgia Army National Guard on July 27.
Witt confirmed the change in a July 20 post on X. He said he remained committed to his military service but added that “my training has been deferred, and that I will be able to see this effort through to the end.” The decision reverses a plan that would have shifted many of his responsibilities to White House Crypto Council deputy director Harry Jung.
Witt stays as the Senate calendar narrows
Witt serves as executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets and has played a central role in talks involving the White House, lawmakers, banks and crypto companies. As previously reported by crypto.news, he had already postponed the same training in April while CLARITY Act negotiations continued.
The Senate now has little room left on its calendar. Aug. 7 is the final scheduled session day before a state work period begins on Aug. 10. Supporters have treated that window as an important target because election-year politics could make a later vote harder to arrange.
The CLARITY Act would create federal rules for digital asset markets and divide oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Senate staff still need to resolve differences before leaders can bring a final version to the floor, where the bill would likely need Democratic support.
Ethics dispute still blocks a final Senate agreement
Witt’s decision to stay does not resolve the policy disputes holding up the bill. Senate negotiators still lack a final agreement over ethics rules that would restrict elected officials from profiting from crypto-related businesses. The White House had not accepted the proposed language as of that report.
Democrats have pushed for tighter limits covering government officials with digital asset interests, while the White House has argued that ethics standards should apply evenly. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has also acknowledged that Republicans still need a bipartisan agreement to move the measure forward.
The uncertainty has affected market expectations. A related crypto.news report said Polymarket traders placed the CLARITY Act’s chance of becoming law in 2026 at 31% on July 20. The figure can change quickly, but it reflected doubts about whether lawmakers could settle the dispute before the August recess.
Consumer protections and stablecoin yield remain in focus
The latest negotiations have also produced changes on customer protections. Coinbase vice chair Ryan VanGrack said Senate Democrats secured stronger safeguards in the revised bill and described the changes as giving the legislation “more teeth.” He did not provide full details, and lawmakers had not released the final Senate text as of July 20.
Other disagreements have centered on stablecoin rewards, decentralized software developers and law enforcement powers. The stablecoin yield debate has drawn strong lobbying from banks and crypto companies. Banking groups have argued that rewards paid on stablecoin balances could pull deposits from traditional banks, while crypto firms have pushed to preserve room for activity-based rewards under a regulated framework.
As previously reported, the Senate Banking Committee cleared a version of the CLARITY Act in May. Witt has worked on several of the unresolved issues, keeping him involved in the administration’s effort to reach a deal with lawmakers from both parties.
Harry Jung’s exit changes the White House staffing plan
Witt’s revised plans come as Harry Jung prepares to leave government service. Jung, the deputy director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, said on July 21 that he would leave his post in two weeks. He had been expected to assume many of Witt’s responsibilities during the planned military leave.
Jung said he was proud of the council’s work and described the past two years as transformative for U.S. crypto policy. His departure means the White House will avoid an immediate leadership gap because Witt is staying. The council is also working on GENIUS Act implementation, the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and crypto tax policy.
Witt’s continued presence removes one staffing uncertainty, but the legislation still depends on lawmakers resolving ethics provisions, consumer rules and other contested sections. The Senate has not announced a final floor vote, leaving the bill’s path tied to negotiations before lawmakers leave Washington in August.
Ondo Finance, a tokenization platform for real-world assets, said Thursday it has partnered with SBI Group to tokenize Japanese assets, with distribution across SBI's ecosystem and settlement using the group's JPYSC yen stablecoin. "The collaboration covers tokenizing Japanese assets with… Read the full story at The Defiant
Goldman Sachs said Brent crude could climb back toward $120 a barrel by the fourth quarter, approaching the $126.41 intraday peak it hit on April 30 during the US-Iran war, if disruptions to flows through the Strait of Hormuz continue.
Analysts led by Daan Struyven said escalation in the Middle East, combined with a drop in Persian Gulf flows to below 45% of pre-war levels, has pushed prices higher this month.
Goldman’s Base Case Still Points Lower
Goldman’s own forecast remains for Brent at $80 a barrel in the fourth quarter and $75 next year, premised on a de-escalation between the US and Iran. Brent topped $90 a barrel on July 19 as the conflict intensified, before ceasefire hopes eased the rally to $88.47 by July 21.
Still, the analysts said risks skew toward higher prices given the chance of a wider Hormuz blockade risk, as well as potential disruption in the Red Sea, where Houthi rebels have threatened to blockade Saudi shipments.
“Escalation in the Middle East and the decline in estimated Persian Gulf flows to below 45% of pre-war levels have pushed oil prices back up.”
Daan Struyven, Goldman
Where the Rally Could Lose Steam
Lower global inventories have left the market more exposed to shocks, though a slump in Chinese imports and greater demand elasticity could cap gains, the note said. That echoes BeInCrypto’s earlier coverage of reserve buffer depletion fueling similar upside calls from TD Securities.
To hedge persistent shocks from the Middle East and Russia, Goldman recommended going long the December 2026 to March 2027 European diesel timespread, citing tight diesel markets, continued Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, and elevated gas price odds tied to the conflict.
The post Goldman Says Brent Oil Could Near Its War-Era Peak, Hitting $120 appeared first on BeInCrypto.
A recent auction of 30-year Treasury bonds, sold at a yield of 5.06%, has brought rising long-term US borrowing costs back into focus.
Specifically, it has revived concern among certain market observers about how tighter monetary conditions could impact Bitcoin (BTC) and other risky assets, just as investors are getting ready for the Fed’s next policy meeting.
Treasury Yields Hit a Post-2007 High
That 5.06% print is the highest 30-year auction yield since 2007, and it reflects how expensive it has become for the US government to finance its growing debt. Furthermore, the 30-year Treasury yield has also climbed back above 5%, although it remains below the 5.20% peak reached on May 20, which was also the highest level since July 2007.
For comparison, auctions for the same maturity cleared at roughly 2% in early 2022, which pointed to heavier Treasury supply, rising inflation risk, and growing borrowing needs as the reasons the government now has to pay more to attract buyers.
Market commentators at The Kobeissi Letter also flagged the AI investment boom as an added source of pressure, since tech companies issuing record debt to fund AI infrastructure are competing with the government for the same pool of capital. “The US debt crisis is intensifying,” the account wrote.
Meanwhile, Spot On Chain analyst Hupzy called the move a structural headwind for BTC and risk assets, arguing that higher discount rates compress valuations across the risk curve and that yields above 5% make speculative allocation harder to justify.
Hupzy described the fiscal picture as double-edged, since rising debt costs could eventually push the Fed toward a dovish pivot, but said that the near-term signal is “risk-off as markets price deteriorating sovereign credit.” They also pointed to the May 5.20% peak as a level to watch, since a break above it would open a new stretch of sustained high long-term rates.
Bitcoin was last trading above $64,000, down 1.3% over 24 hours but still up 1.7% over the past week and 1.2% in two weeks. The 30-day change is almost flat at 0.4%, with BTC’s market cap standing at around $1.284 trillion and the OG crypto trading roughly 49% below its all-time high of over $126,000 reached on October 6, 2025.
Fed Meeting Now Takes Center Stage for Crypto Markets
Treasury yields will not determine Bitcoin’s direction on their own, and the bond market move has come during a relatively quiet week for scheduled US economic data, with investors focusing on weekly jobless claims, purchasing managers’ index reports, and quarterly earnings from Alphabet and Tesla before the Federal Reserve’s July 29 meeting.
Furthermore, the CME FedWatch data currently assigns an 86% probability that policymakers will leave interest rates unchanged, and, as CryptoPotato reported, an unexpected rate increase could trigger selling across cryptocurrencies and equities because markets have largely priced in no change.
That said, the return of 5% long-term borrowing costs is certainly another macro factor that investors need to watch. And with the Fed decision approaching and bond yields sitting at multiyear highs, any surprise in either market could quickly spill over into crypto trading.
The post Bitcoin and Risk Assets Under Pressure as 30-Year Yields Push Above 5% appeared first on CryptoPotato.
An average of 85% of concentrated-liquidity capital sat underutilized across decentralized exchanges in the first half of 2026, according to onchain research by Dune, the analytics platform, produced for the DEX aggregator 1inch. The study found 29.5% of that capital was fully outside the active… Read the full story at The Defiant
Celsius’ former co-founders are now facing additional financial consequences tied to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s case over what the regulator said were misleading assurances about the safety of customer assets before the crypto lender’s 2022 collapse.
The FTC has secured settlements in which Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein were ordered to pay a combined over $6 million to resolve FTC allegations that they misrepresented the security of the Celsius platform ahead of its bankruptcy filing. The latest orders follow the broader ripple effects of Celsius’ failure, which left users seeking recovery of funds after the firm, once valued on the promise of managed custody and lending, unraveled during a market downturn.
Key takeaways
- Goldstein, Celsius’ former chief technology officer, was ordered to pay $2.014 million under a court order signed Monday by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.
- Leon, the former chief strategy officer, was ordered to pay $4.1 million under a separate stipulated order entered on June 29.
- The settlements extend FTC enforcement beyond CEO Alex Mashinsky, targeting additional executives’ alleged role in customer-facing representations.
- Both orders include restrictions barring the co-founders from marketing or selling products or services that could be used to deposit, exchange, invest, or withdraw crypto assets.
- The FTC previously alleged that Celsius misled customers about reserves, insurance coverage, and the nature of loans, and these settlements are credited toward related judgments.
Court-ordered payments and the scope of the bans
According to the FTC, the settlements with Goldstein and Leon are designed to address alleged consumer harm tied to the way Celsius presented its platform to retail customers. Judge Denise Cote’s order signed Monday requires Goldstein to pay $2.014 million. Leon’s stipulated order—entered on June 29—requires a larger payment of $4.1 million.
Beyond the monetary terms, the FTC’s statement notes that both co-founders agreed to restrictions aimed at reducing their ability to operate in ways connected to crypto custody and trading. In particular, the FTC said Leon is barred from marketing or selling products or services that could be used to deposit, exchange, invest, or withdraw assets. For Goldstein, the FTC describes a similar restriction covering retail products or services that could be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute, or trade cryptocurrency.
“Similarly, Goldstein has agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services that can be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade cryptocurrency.”
FTC allegations: reserves, insurance, and loan practices
At the center of the FTC’s complaint was the claim that Celsius presented a picture of safety that, according to the regulator, did not match its actual conditions. The FTC alleged Celsius falsely told customers it maintained sufficient reserves to satisfy withdrawal demands.
The regulator also alleged Celsius promoted a $750 million insurance policy covering customer deposits, and represented that it did not issue unsecured loans.
The FTC further argued that these claims were made while Celsius’ executives continued to assure customers that deposits were safe in the final period before the platform collapsed. In the regulator’s framing, the alleged misrepresentations were not merely marketing mistakes; they were repeated assurances made during a period when the company’s financial situation was deteriorating.
How the settlements connect to the Mashinsky case
The settlements with Leon and Goldstein are part of an enforcement arc that began with the FTC’s action against Celsius founder and former CEO Alex Mashinsky, and then expanded to other executives. Earlier coverage of the Celsius fallout, including the trading restrictions placed on Mashinsky, underscored that regulatory scrutiny extended well beyond one individual once the company failed.
In April, Mashinsky agreed to an FTC settlement that included a permanent bar from promoting asset-related products and a $10 million payment. That settlement also involved a larger judgment framework described as $4.72 billion in a partially suspended structure, reflecting consumer harm allegations. Earlier reporting noted the settlement terms, including the $10 million payment and the partially suspended judgment.
The newly ordered payments from Goldstein and Leon—$2.014 million and $4.1 million, respectively—are stated to be credited against the $4.72 billion judgment. That matters because it shows how the FTC is coordinating multiple executive settlements into a single remedial accounting process, rather than treating each settlement as an isolated event.
Separately from the FTC track, the broader criminal fallout has also progressed. The U.S. Department of Justice previously reported that Mashinsky was sentenced to 12 years in prison in May 2025 after pleading guilty to commodities and securities fraud charges. Prosecutors said Mashinsky misled Celsius customers about the company’s profitability, investment risks, and the safety of customer funds.
Why these enforcement steps matter for Celsius customers and the industry
For Celsius users, the immediate takeaway is that the FTC’s case continues to identify and penalize senior figures beyond the most visible CEO at the time of collapse. The settlements do not reverse the bankruptcy outcome, but they do reinforce that the regulator intends to pursue accountability tied to marketing claims directed at retail customers.
For the broader crypto lending sector, these orders are another signal that “custody-and-lending” narratives—particularly those that reassure customers about reserves, insurance, and withdrawal readiness—are likely to remain under intense regulatory scrutiny. The bans also go beyond fines: they target future conduct by restricting marketing and sales roles connected to crypto deposit and trading functions.
What remains to be watched is how these settlements fit into the continued legal and enforcement landscape around Celsius and related claims. The crediting of co-founders’ payments against the $4.72 billion judgment suggests that additional financial outcomes may still surface as the FTC tallies and resolves separate executive-level actions tied to the same alleged consumer harm.
Going forward, investors and customers should pay attention to two things: whether additional Celsius executives face similar settlement-driven restrictions, and how courts continue to reconcile multiple payments under the same FTC judgment framework—especially as regulators seek to close gaps between public assurances and the actual condition of crypto lending platforms before collapses.
Polymarket has referred nearly 100 suspicious crypto wallets to law enforcement as the prediction market platform expands its monitoring of possible insider trading.
Summary
- Polymarket referred nearly 100 suspicious wallets to authorities as insider-trading concerns grew across prediction markets.
- Bloomberg analysis found about $200 million in flagged trades, concentrated heavily in geopolitical prediction markets.
- Recent prosecutions involving Venezuela and Google-linked wagers have increased scrutiny of nonpublic information misuse cases.
The referrals come as a Bloomberg analysis of Polysights data found that about $200 million in Polymarket trades during the first half of 2026 showed characteristics associated with “potential insider activity.”Â
Much of the flagged activity involved geopolitical markets tied to Iran and Venezuela. The data does not prove that every flagged trade involved illegal conduct, but it shows the volume of activity now facing closer review as prediction markets draw more regulatory attention.
Polymarket expands surveillance as suspicious trades rise
Polymarket Chief Legal Officer Neal Kumar said the company’s internal process had resulted in nearly 100 wallet referrals to authorities. The platform has also strengthened surveillance as regulators examine whether traders may have used confidential information to gain an advantage in event contracts. Because Polymarket records transactions on a public blockchain, investigators can trace wallet activity, funding flows and trading patterns even when users trade through pseudonymous addresses.
The Bloomberg review relied on Polysights data that identified trades with features associated with possible informed activity. Analysts can examine signals such as newly created wallets, unusually concentrated positions and trades placed shortly before major events.Â
Those signals can direct attention toward accounts that deserve further review. However, a “suspicious” label does not establish insider trading, and a referral does not mean authorities will file charges.
In addition, the growing scrutiny follows a U.S. case involving Army Master Sergeant Gannon Ken Van Dyke. As previously reported by crypto.news, the Department of Justice accused Van Dyke of using classified information about a U.S. military operation targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to place Polymarket trades. Prosecutors said he made about $409,881 after placing more than $33,000 in bets linked to Maduro’s removal.
The CFTC filed a parallel case, while the Justice Department brought charges tied to the alleged use of classified information. The case provides one of the clearest examples of authorities treating prediction-market activity as part of a broader criminal investigation. It also shows why wallet referrals can matter: on-chain records can preserve a visible trading trail even when the public does not know the trader’s identity when the transactions occur.
Google-linked case adds to insider-trading concerns
A separate case involved a Google engineer accused of using unreleased company data to trade on Polymarket. As crypto.news reported in May, U.S. prosecutors and the CFTC charged Michele Spagnuolo over allegations that he used confidential Google search trend information to place about $2.7 million in prediction-market wagers. Authorities said the trades generated about $1.2 million in profit.
That case broadened the focus beyond military and government information. It showed that prediction markets can attract traders with access to private corporate data as well as sensitive state information. The allegations also raised questions about how platforms monitor markets whose outcomes depend on information controlled by a small group of employees, officials or contractors.
Iran markets bring geopolitical trading under closer review
Geopolitical markets have drawn some of the strongest scrutiny in 2026. More than $529 million traded on Polymarket markets tied to the timing of strikes on Iran, while several newly created wallets drew attention after making profitable positions before major events. Six Democratic senators later urged the CFTC to restrict contracts tied to death, citing national security and public safety concerns.
The Bloomberg analysis places those earlier cases within a wider pattern. According to the Polysights data, many flagged trades involved markets linked to Iran and Venezuela. Polymarket’s decision to refer nearly 100 wallets shows a more active surveillance approach, although the company has not said that every referred wallet broke the law or used nonpublic information.
Prediction markets also face wider regulatory pressure. As crypto.news reported on July 19, France ordered internet service providers to block Polymarket after regulators cited unauthorized gambling, weak identity checks and concerns about market integrity. The Czech Republic has also restricted access, while European regulators continue to examine whether some event contracts fall under existing financial rules.
Lawmakers designed most insider-trading rules around securities markets, while prediction contracts can cover politics, military operations, technology and corporate data. That makes enforcement more complex when traders use information that the public cannot access.Â
Polymarket’s referrals give authorities wallet-level data to review, but investigators still need evidence connecting specific trades to unlawful use of confidential or classified information.
Polygon Labs CEO Marc Boiron announced a new round of layoffs on Thursday, saying the company decided to "say goodbye to many of our colleagues" as it completes a transformation "from operating as a blockchain foundation into operating as a blockchain-enabled payments company." Polygon Labs… Read the full story at The Defiant
Visa launched the Visa Stablecoin Platform, an enterprise system for financial institutions built around the Open USD stablecoin, the payments company's head of crypto, Cuy Sheffield, said on X on Wednesday. "Excited to launch the Visa Stablecoin Platform as the best way to access and use Open… Read the full story at The Defiant
Ryman Healthcare Stock Rallies Nearly 8% Amid Strong Sales, Rising Free Cash Flow and Investor Buying
Celsius co-founders to pay $6.5M as FTC closes fraud claims
VAT Cut On Electricity Bills To Lower Living Costs
-
NewsBeat5 days agoLondon Mayor Sadiq Khan handed a peerage by Keir Starmer alongside 15 other Labour figures… just days before the PM leaves No10
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Politics3 days agoThe House | The City of London can help the new chancellor deliver growth in every postcode
-
Politics6 days agoYoung campaigners urge incoming PM to act on outdoor junk food ads
-
Crypto World5 days agoCFTC blocks Kalshi from unwinding Michigan trades after court order
-
Crypto World4 days agoTwo July Windows Left: The CLARITY Act’s Senate Fight and What Failure Means
-
Crypto World3 days agoRipple Payments Joins MiCA With 14 Firms, Does It Mean Anything For XRP?
-
Business5 days agoNvidia Stock Slips After Big Tuesday Rally as Huang Confirms Vera Rubin Chip Is Now in Production Today
-
Politics2 days agoDemocrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
-
Entertainment6 days agoDisney’s Most Ambitious Failed Star Wars Attraction Is Coming to SDCC
-
Crypto World3 days agoRipple wins EU-wide access as ESMA adds it to MiCA register
-
Crypto World4 days agoInjective Submits SEC Transfer-Agent Registration to Onchain Ownership Records
-
Business5 days agoPalantir Shares Rise After Expanded Nvidia Partnership and Fresh Analyst Upgrades Ahead of Earnings Day
-
Tech5 hours agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Tech2 hours agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
News Videos6 days agoXRP BOMBSHELL… XRP OMBOARDED FOR TRANSACTIONS!!!
-
NewsBeat4 days agoRegistration is now open for March for Men with Kev 2026
-
Tech6 days agoDark Secrets Emerge When Jailbreaking LLMs
-
NewsBeat18 hours agoUnregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
-
Sports5 days agoNew Cornerback Enters Vikings Trade Rumor Mill
You must be logged in to post a comment Login