Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

this is how payments get de-risked

Published

on

Vitaly Shtyrkin

Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.

Today, stablecoins already move real money and power a large share of on-chain settlement. McKinsey puts daily stablecoin transaction volumes at roughly $30 billion, and if that figure is even close to reality, calling stablecoins “experimental” is absurd. Still, mass adoption isn’t here.

Advertisement

Summary

  • Stablecoins aren’t blocked by regulation — they’re blocked by liability: businesses won’t adopt payments where responsibility for errors, disputes, and compliance is unclear.
  • Interoperability, not speed, is the real scaling bottleneck: without standardized data, ERP integration, and consistent exception handling, stablecoins can’t function as real business payments.
  • Wyoming’s governed stablecoin shows the path forward: defined rules, auditability, and institutional accountability de-risk stablecoins and make them usable inside real finance workflows.

Most businesses don’t pay suppliers, run payroll, or process refunds in stablecoins at any real scale. Even with Wyoming’s precedent of launching a state-issued stablecoin, the same question remains: what’s actually blocking adoption if the pipes already exist?

The typical answer would be regulation. But I think it’s only part of it, as the bigger obstacle is accountability and plumbing. When a digital-asset payment goes wrong, who takes the loss? Who can fix it? And who can prove to an auditor that everything was done correctly? So let’s break down what’s still holding stablecoins back from mass adoption, and what an actual way out could look like.

Advertisement

When nobody owns the liability

To be honest, the fact that stablecoins are drifting has less to do with businesses not “getting” the technology. They understand the mechanism. The real block is a blurry responsibility model.

In traditional payments, the rules are dull, but dependable: who can reverse what, who investigates disputes, who is liable for mistakes, and what evidence satisfies auditors. With stablecoins, that clarity often disappears once the transaction leaves your system. And that’s where most pilots fail.

A finance team can’t run on guesswork about whether money arrives, whether it gets stuck, or whether it comes back as a compliance problem three weeks later. If funds go to the wrong address or a wallet is compromised, someone has to own the result.

In bank transfers, that ownership is defined. With stablecoins, too much is still negotiated case by case between the sender, the payment provider, the wallet service, and sometimes an exchange on one side. Everyone has a role, yet no one is truly accountable — and that’s how risk spreads.

Advertisement

Regulation is supposed to solve this, but it’s not fully there yet. The market is getting more guidance, especially in the U.S., where the OCC’s letter #1188 has clarified that banks can engage in certain crypto-related activities like custody and “riskless principal” transactions. That helps, but it doesn’t solve the daily operating questions.

As a result, permission doesn’t automatically create a clean model for disputes, checks, evidence, and liability. It still has to be built into the product and spelled out in contracts.

Sending is easy, settling isn’t

Liability is one part of the limitation. Another one is just as visible: the rails still don’t plug into how companies actually run money. In other words, interoperability is the gap between “you can send the money” and “your business can actually run on it.”

A stablecoin transfer can be fast and final. But that alone doesn’t make it a business payment. Finance teams need every transfer to carry the right reference, match a specific invoice, pass internal approvals and limits, and be transparent. When a stablecoin payment arrives without that structure, someone has to repair it manually, and the “cheap and instant” promise turns into extra work.

Advertisement

That’s where fragmentation silently kills scale. Stablecoin payments don’t arrive as one network. They come as islands — different issuers, different chains, different wallets, different APIs, and different compliance expectations. Even the International Monetary Fund flags payment-system fragmentation as a real risk when interoperability is missing, and the back office feels it first.

All in all, until payments carry standard data end-to-end, plug into ERP and accounting without custom work, and handle exceptions the same way every time, stablecoins won’t scale. But is there something that could make liability and plumbing issues solvable in a way that businesses can actually use?

Wyoming’s blueprint for governed stablecoins

In my opinion, liability and plumbing become solvable the moment a payment system has two things: a set of rules, and a standard way to plug into existing finance workflows. That’s where Wyoming precedent matters. A state-issued stable token gives the market a governed framework that a business can evaluate, reference in contracts, and defend in front of auditors.

Here’s what that framework opens up for businesses in more detail:

Advertisement
  • Easier approval from finance and compliance. Adoption stops depending on a few “crypto-friendly” teams and starts working through normal risk committees, procurement rules, and audit checklists.
  • Cleaner integration. When “the rules of the money” are defined at the institutional level, you can build repeatable workflows that work across systems and markets, instead of reinventing the setup for every vendor and jurisdiction.
  • More realistic bank and PSP partnerships. The model aligns more closely with fiduciary expectations, such as tighter oversight, more transparent reserve rules, and accountability that can be written into contracts.

Given the context, stablecoins can’t seamlessly scale on speed and convenience alone. The way I see it, responsibility must be unambiguous, while payments have to fit the tools businesses already use. Wyoming’s case isn’t a panacea. Yet, it underscores that stablecoins should be treated as governed, auditable money, so real-world adoption stops feeling far off.

Vitaly Shtyrkin

Vitaly Shtyrkin

Advertisement

Vitaly Shtyrkin is the CPO at B2BINPAY, an all-in-one crypto ecosystem for business. Vitaly is an experienced product manager who plays a vital role in shaping product strategy and guiding the development process to ensure alignment with organisational goals. He has almost 15 years of experience in the financial market, particularly within the fintech sector. He has recently focused on developing robust crypto payment solutions for businesses. As a key team member at B2BINPAY, Vitaly is dedicated to enhancing digital asset management operations. He leads with a strategic vision that aims to create a comprehensive financial ecosystem, promoting the mainstream adoption of cryptocurrency. Leveraging his extensive expertise, Vitaly is committed to driving innovation and streamlining processes within the industry.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

BONKfun Recovers from Domain Hijacking Attack, Promises 110% Reimbursement to Affected Users

Published

on

Brian Armstrong's Bold Prediction: AI Agents Will Soon Dominate Global Financial

TLDR:

  • BONKfun’s domain was hijacked via social engineering on March 11, targeting its domain registrar directly.
  • The attack deployed a wallet drainer, causing approximately $30,000 in total user losses over one week.
  • The domain was fully recovered on March 18, with the platform securely relaunching on March 19.
  • BONKfun will reimburse all affected users at 110% of their losses to cover opportunity costs incurred.

BONKfun, the Solana-based memecoin launchpad, is back online following a domain hijacking incident on March 11. Attackers used social engineering to target the platform’s domain registrar, gaining unauthorized access and deploying a wallet drainer.

The breach remained external to BONKfun’s internal systems throughout. Over roughly one week, users suffered approximately $30,000 in losses.

The team has since recovered the domain and relaunched the site, pledging to reimburse all affected users at 110% of their losses.

How the Social Engineering Attack Unfolded

The breach began when a malicious actor manipulated BONKfun’s domain service provider through social engineering.

This allowed the attacker to transfer the domain to an external registrar without authorization. The move effectively cut the team off from quick recovery options. It also enabled the deployment of a wallet drainer on the hijacked site.

Advertisement

Once the team identified the breach, they moved quickly to disable the site entirely. They coordinated with major wallet providers, including Phantom, Solflare, and MetaMask, to flag the domain as malicious.

Security organization @_SEAL_Org also assisted in spreading awareness rapidly. These combined efforts helped contain further damage to users.

BONKfun confirmed the incident did not compromise its internal systems, codebase, or team accounts. The domain service provider accepted responsibility for the unauthorized transfer.

This acknowledgment helped clarify where the vulnerability originated. It also reassured users that the platform’s core infrastructure remained intact.

Advertisement

The team released a detailed post on X, stating that the domain transfer “greatly inhibited” their ability to relaunch quickly and securely.

The statement outlined each step taken to address the breach. It also confirmed that security partners played a key role in early containment. Transparency remained central to the team’s communication throughout the incident.

Recovery Process and User Reimbursement Plan

The domain and its registration were fully transferred back around 5:00 PM Eastern Time on March 18. Full wallet provider functionality was then restored late on March 19.

This allowed BONKfun to safely relaunch the site with security measures in place. The recovery took approximately one week from the date of the initial attack.

Following the relaunch, several antivirus software providers continued to flag the main BONKfun domain. As a result, the team activated an alternative URL, letsBONK.fun, for affected users.

Advertisement

Both sites carry the same full functionality as the primary platform. The team is actively working to remove the remaining antivirus flags.

To address user losses, BONKfun announced a reimbursement plan at 110% of confirmed losses. The additional 10% accounts for opportunity costs incurred during the downtime period.

Total estimated losses across all affected users stand at approximately $30,000. This approach reflects the team’s commitment to accountability after the attack.

The incident serves as a reminder that social engineering remains a persistent threat in the crypto space. Domain registrar-level attacks can bypass even the most secure internal systems.

Advertisement

Platforms in decentralized finance must maintain strong communication with their infrastructure providers. BONKfun’s response offers a clear example of structured and transparent crisis management.

 

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

CFTC Staff Set Crypto Collateral Standards for Market Participants

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sharpened its stance on using crypto as collateral in derivatives markets, releasing updated guidance that clarifies how crypto assets can be deployed within a pilot program launched last year. A Friday notice from the agency’s Market Participants Division and Division of Clearing and Risk responds to FAQs that emerged from December staff letters and lays out the operational and risk parameters for futures commission merchants (FCMs) participating in the pilot.

In its notice, the CFTC reminded FCMs that to participate they must file a formal notice with the Market Participants Division, including the date on which they will begin accepting crypto assets from customers as margin collateral. The guidance aims to harmonize crypto collateral practices with a broader regulatory framework being developed in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as the two agencies outline a more unified approach to crypto oversight.

Key takeaways

  • Capital charges for crypto collateral align with SEC oversight: 20% for Bitcoin and Ether positions, and 2% for stablecoins used as collateral.
  • Initial three-month window restricts eligible collateral to Bitcoin, Ether, or stablecoins, with weekly reporting requirements and a prompt notice for significant cybersecurity or system issues.
  • After three months, other crypto assets may be accepted as collateral, subject to ongoing risk and reporting standards.
  • Residual interest in customer segregated accounts may be funded only with proprietary payment stablecoins; other tokens cannot be used for that purpose.

Operational guardrails and the three-month sprint

The notice makes clear that the pilot is designed with risk controls in mind. Futures commission merchants who wish to participate must submit a formal participation notice that includes the anticipated start date for accepting crypto as margin collateral. The three-month initial phase places strict limits on the types of crypto eligible for collateral, restricting it to Bitcoin, Ether, and stablecoins. During this period, FCMs are also required to file weekly reports detailing the total crypto holdings across customer account types and to promptly report any material cybersecurity or system issues.

The three-month horizon serves a dual purpose. It allows the CFTC to observe how crypto collateral behaves in real-time market conditions under a controlled regime, while enabling market participants to build processes around risk management, custody, valuation, and operational controls. After the initial period, the rulebook opens the door to additional digital assets, expanding the universe of potential collateral as regulators gain confidence in the framework.

What changes for market participants and tokenized markets

Beyond the three-month mark, the pilot could permit a broader spectrum of crypto assets to be used as collateral, provided they meet the CFTC’s risk, custody, and governance standards. The notice also clarifies several nuanced points about where crypto and stablecoins can—and cannot—serve as collateral. Notably, crypto and stablecoins cannot be used as collateral for uncleared swaps. However, swap dealers may deploy tokenized versions of eligible assets for collateral if they satisfy regulatory requirements and preserve the same rights those assets confer in their traditional form.

Advertisement

Derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) have their own set of allowances. They may accept crypto and stablecoins as initial margin for cleared transactions, again contingent on meeting CFTC standards related to minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks. Finally, as to residual interest in customer accounts, the guidance specifies that only proprietary payment stablecoins may be deposited for that purpose, excluding other cryptocurrencies from this particular use case.

In framing these rules, the CFTC underscored its intent to align its approach with the SEC’s ongoing crypto framework. The agency’s notice notes that capital charges for crypto collateral will be consistent with SEC practices, signaling a coordinated path rather than a patchwork of standalone rules. The collaboration between the agencies is part of a broader effort to create a stable, transparent regulatory environment that can accommodate the 24/7 nature of crypto markets while enforcing prudent risk controls.

Participants will be watching closely how this evolves in practice. The pilot’s design—beginning with widely traded assets like BTC, ETH, and stablecoins—reflects a cautious, first-step approach to integrating digital assets into traditional margin concepts. It also signals how regulators intend to balance the benefits of crypto-native features, such as rapid settlement and continuous trading, with the need to manage financial risk and ensure market integrity.

For traders, funds managers, and infrastructure providers, the framework offers clarity on how crypto collateral might be used in the near term. It also highlights the kinds of operational capabilities that firms must develop: robust custody solutions, reliable valuation methodologies for volatile assets, strong cybersecurity postures, and precise reporting protocols to monitor crypto holdings in customer accounts.

Advertisement

Industry participants will also be watching for details on how tokenized assets and stablecoins will fare under the evolving rules. Tokenization can, in theory, unlock more flexible collateral options, but it requires careful attention to governance, settlement finality, and legal rights. The CFTC’s emphasis on risk controls, alongside explicit limitations on residual interest and uncleared swaps, suggests a measured approach to expanding collateral acceptance while preserving market safety nets.

Overall, the guidance reinforces a midterm view: a calibrated expansion of crypto collateral capabilities that can gradually broaden the collateral toolkit for U.S. derivatives markets, anchored by risk-management discipline and regulatory alignment with the SEC.

Investors and market participants should monitor how this pilot progresses in the coming months, including any updates to asset eligibility, reporting requirements, or capital-charge methodologies. The three-month checkpoint will likely spur conversations about whether additional assets should qualify, how valuation and custody standards will be harmonized, and what that means for liquidity and funding costs in crypto-backed trading strategies.

As regulators continue to shape the playbook, the core question remains: can a robust, well-regulated framework unlock crypto collateral’s potential while preserving financial stability? The CFTC’s latest notice positions the industry at a pivotal juncture, where clarity and risk controls could unlock broader adoption in the years ahead.

Advertisement

For now, market participants should prepare for continued regulatory alignment with the SEC, stay alert to any shifts in asset eligibility, and ensure their internal controls and reporting capabilities meet the forthcoming standards if they plan to participate in the pilot.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Nevada Judge Blocks Kalshi From Operating in State

Published

on

Nevada Judge Blocks Kalshi From Operating in State

A Nevada judge has temporarily blocked Kalshi from operating in the state, finding that state authorities are reasonably likely to prevail in a legal fight over whether the company’s event contracts violate Nevada gambling laws.

Carson City District Court Judge Jason Woodbury issued a temporary restraining order on Friday, siding with a Nevada Gaming Control Board motion to block Kalshi from operating in the state for 14 days.

“Prediction markets, to ​the extent they facilitate unlicensed gambling, are illegal in Nevada, and we have a statutory duty to protect the public,” Nevada Gaming Control Board Chair Mike Dreitzer said in a statement to Reuters.

Kalshi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

The court’s decision comes after a federal appeals court on Thursday denied an emergency request by Kalshi to stay a federal court proceeding, allowing Nevada’s regulators to take action.

Nevada bars sports, election and entertainment event contracts

In his order, Judge Woodbury wrote that Kalshi was banned from offering sports, election and entertainment-related event contracts in Nevada.

He added that, in the record of the early stages of the case, such contracts are considered a “sports pool” under Nevada law, which Kalshi was not licensed to operate.

Source: Daniel Wallach

The Nevada Gaming Control Board sued Kalshi last month, asserting the company needed to be licensed by the state in order to offer its sports event contracts.

Kalshi argued that its contracts are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an agency that has backed prediction markets that are fighting in multiple state courts over accusations of offering illegal gambling.

Advertisement

“The question of federal preemption in this regard is nuanced and rapidly evolving,” Judge Woodbury wrote in his motion, rejecting Kalshi’s argument. “At the moment, the balance of convincing legal authority weighs against federal preemption in this context.”

Related: Kalshi CEO fires back against Arizona criminal charges as ‘total overstep’

Judge Woodbury scheduled a hearing on April 3 to consider a motion for preliminary injunction against Kalshi.

Kalshi is being sued, or has launched its own legal action, against multiple states that have accused the prediction market of operating without a state license.

Advertisement

A Massachusetts state judge banned Kalshi from offering sports event contracts earlier this year, which was lifted after Kalshi appealed the decision.

On Tuesday, Arizona filed criminal charges against Kalshi, with the state’s Attorney General Kris Mayes alleging Kalshi is “running an illegal gambling operation,” which Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour called a “total overstep.”

Magazine: When privacy and AML laws conflict — Crypto projects’ impossible choice