Crypto exchange Kraken is giving customers access to the upcoming SpaceX initial public offering through xStocks, a tokenized equities platform, highlighting the growing convergence between crypto infrastructure and traditional capital markets.

Kraken announced Friday that SpaceX will be the first public offering available through xStocks IPO Access, which allows eligible users to participate in the offering through tokenized equity instruments.

To participate, users must have a verified Kraken account on the Kraken mobile app and submit an application for IPO access. The offering is not available through Kraken Pro or the company’s desktop platform.

According to Kraken, IPO Access is available across the European Economic Area (EEA) and more than 110 international markets, though participation is restricted in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom due to regulatory limitations.

Source: Kraken

Eligible users can register interest in purchasing SpaceX shares before the company begins public trading. Investors who receive an allocation will be issued SPCXx, a tokenized representation of SpaceX equity backed 1:1 by the underlying shares. The tokens can be traded 24/7 on Kraken and other participating xStocks platforms.

Related: Kraken’s xStocks tops $25B in volume with more than 80K onchain holders

SpaceX targets $1.8 trillion valuation, record debut

SpaceX is expected to begin trading publicly on June 12, giving investors their first opportunity to own shares in Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite company.

According to Bloomberg, demand for the offering has already exceeded the number of shares available, with SpaceX seeking to raise roughly $75 billion at a valuation of at least $1.8 trillion. If achieved, the listing would be the largest IPO ever, exceeding Saudi Aramco’s $29.4 billion deal in 2019, Bloomberg said.

The company’s growth story is largely tied to Starlink, its satellite internet business, which has become a major source of revenue and profitability.

However, SpaceX’s capital-intensive launch and space exploration operations continue to incur high costs, raising questions about how investors will value the company once it begins trading on the public market.

Source: Lance Roberts

Related: SpaceX reveals larger-than-expected Bitcoin holdings in IPO filing

A major bug found in the top privacy network Zcash, using artificial intelligence, may be a warning sign that similar undiscovered flaws exist across crypto and banking software.

What’s worrying the crypto community is that the bug, which had existed in the network for 4 years, was only found recently by Shielded Labs, a nonprofit developer on the privacy token system, using Anthropic’s newly released Opus 4.8 AI model. The vulnerability, which Zcash said “has been remediated,” if left undetected, could have allowed an attacker to print unlimited counterfeit tokens.

The disclosure had already caused panic among the crypto community and took the Zcash token down nearly 38% in the last 24 hours. Some even said on social media that “Crypto is dead. We should have pivoted to AI.”

Now, the question everyone is asking is: with AI getting better and the world bracing for the release of Anthropic’s newest Mythos model, which is supposed to be much more capable of identifying and chaining together weaknesses across systems, is the crypto industry’s security in jeopardy?

However, the prominent crypto venture capital firm Dragonfly (an early investor in Zcash) and its Managing Partner, Haseeb Qureshi, have a slightly different take on AI and crypto’s security. In his view, AI finding vulnerabilities is a good thing as it will only make the code better.

“While AI found this bug, AI will also deliver the fix for the whole category: formal verification. I’m very bullish on this as the path to harden all software across the industry,” he said on a X post.

While Haseeb’s firm continues to hold Zcash and is bullish on AI’s role in crypto security, Ben Goertzel, the CEO of AI firm SingularityNET, told CoinDesk that similar vulnerabilities aren’t just limited to crypto security, but are likely hiding in the traditional banking system as well.

“Other cryptocurrencies are not vulnerable to this specific bug, which was a simple logic error in the Zcash implementation,” Goertzel said, explaining that other cryptocurrencies are “certainly very much likely to possess similar vulnerabilities, which are likely to be found by AI tools in the coming weeks and months.”

Moreover, Goertzel said that “software infrastructures of banks and other centralized institutions are also very likely to embody serious bugs to be found by AI tools in the near future as well.”

‘Formal verification’

So what is an actual solution for this AI threat?

Both Qureshi and Goertzel said that cryptographical code and global software infrastructure must transition to “formal verification.”

The process is essentially “writing proofs of mathematical theorems in such a way that these theorems can be checked automatically,” as Ethereum’s co-founder Vitalik Buterin explained. He noted that AI-assisted formal verification could become one of the most important tools for cybersecurity, as increasingly advanced AI systems make it easier to discover software vulnerabilities.

And Qureshi echoed that sentiment.

“Formally verified cryptography can’t have implementation bugs by construction,” he said. “Right now AI is surfacing vulnerabilities across all our software–browsers, OSes, and blockchains are no exception,” he added, noting that formally verified software would be the “only path forward for mission-critical software,” which Zcash has made its focus on its roadmap.

Goertzel, meanwhile, explained why developers aren’t already using this formal verification process to make their software ironclad.

He argued that while the “Rust” programming language used by Zcash can be formally verified, developers rarely do it because it requires extra work. Furthermore, Goertzel noted that core Rust libraries often use “unsafe” constructs that are difficult to verify.

However, rewriting them to be safe would make the software slower: A problem, he stated, that could be fixed by using advanced techniques such as “supercompilation” to boost performance.

An asymmetric security war

But implementing those protections is easier said than done, CEO and co-founder of security firm CertiK, Ronghui Gu, told CoinDesk.

Defending against these threats has become an unequal battle, Gu said.

“We’re currently seeing an AI token consumption war in which hackers are highly motivated by profit, he said. “To find an exploit, they can burn a massive number of AI tokens on a single target, such as a project or smart contract.”

Gu explained that profit-driven hackers are currently engaged in a token consumption war, burning massive amounts of computing power to target individual smart contracts. Because security firms must protect hundreds of clients simultaneously, they cannot allocate the same concentrated resources to a single target without incurring significant capital costs.

To shield from this asymmetric risk, Gu said security firms must integrate automated scanners directly into daily development workflows through smaller, on-demand sessions, while relying on mathematical proofs to guarantee that contracts satisfy key security properties.

For Gu, the challenge is no longer simply finding bugs before attackers do; rather, it’s about scaling defenses against these vulnerabilities quickly enough to keep pace with increasingly powerful AI systems.

While the debate over how to stay ahead of such vulnerabilities will likely continue, as AI gets better, faster and smarter, the question for all developers is how to ensure such incidents never happen again.

Perhaps ZODL CEO Josh Swihart (former CEO of Electric Coin Company, a key developer of Zcash) put it aptly:

“The more interesting question is how we ensure that vulnerabilities never happen again. The best answer is formal verification,” Swihart said in his X article, titled “Never Again.“

TLDR

• Michael Saylor says Bitcoin should balance purity and adoption.
• Bitcoin traded below $61,000 and fell over 25% in a month.
• Saylor outlined four ideologies shaping Bitcoin’s future.
• Strategy sold 32 BTC worth about $2.5 million this week.
• The firm still holds more than 844,700 BTC on its balance sheet.

Bitcoin hovered near two-year lows as Michael Saylor published a new essay on the network’s direction. He argued that Bitcoin should balance competing visions instead of choosing one path. The comments came as BTC traded below $61,000 and extended monthly losses beyond 25%.

Bitcoin Ideologies Clash as Prices Slide

Saylor outlined four Bitcoin ideologies in a Friday post on X. He named maximalists, capitalists, technologists, and fundamentalists as core camps shaping the network.

He wrote, “The mission is not to choose between purity and adoption, or between innovation and stability.” He added, “The mission is to ensure that Bitcoin remains Bitcoin while the world builds on it.”

He described the base layer as “sacred infrastructure” that must remain stable. However, he said Bitcoin, the asset, should integrate with companies, banks, and nation-state reserves.

The essay addressed tensions tied to Bitcoin’s deeper ties with traditional finance. Corporate treasuries, exchange-traded funds, and capital markets now influence demand patterns. BTC traded at $60,717 on Friday and showed a 5.35% daily decline.

The asset has dropped more than 50% from its October 2025 high of $126,000. It has also recorded one of its steepest pullbacks since the 2022 bear market. The downturn has intensified debate over Bitcoin’s direction and market structure.

Strategy’s Bitcoin Moves Draw Scrutiny

Strategy has expanded preferred stock offerings to finance additional Bitcoin purchases. The firm holds more than 844,700 BTC on its balance sheet. However, it disclosed the sale of 32 BTC for about $2.5 million earlier this week.

The sale represents a small fraction of total holdings. Still, critics questioned whether larger sales could follow. CNBC host Jim Cramer responded to a video by Strive CEO Matt Cole and said, “Saylor murdered Bitcoin.”

Strategy has not announced further disposals since the disclosure. The company continues to position Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset. Meanwhile, BTC price weakness has shaped investor and analyst commentary.

Analysts Debate Path to a Sustainable Bottom

Grayscale Head of Research Zach Pandl said Strategy faces limits at current share prices. He stated that further accumulation may require new sources of demand. He said the market needs broader participation to find a “sustainable bottom.”

Standard Chartered Head of Digital Assets Research Geoffrey Kendrick offered a different view. He said Bitcoin’s low is “almost in” based on steady spot ETF holdings. He also suggested Strategy could repurchase more BTC than it recently sold.

Kendrick said renewed buying would signal that the worst of the selloff has passed. For now, Bitcoin remains under pressure as analysts assess demand conditions. BTC last traded below $61,000, down more than 25% over the past month.

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has reopened debate over DeFi developer liability after saying open-source blockchain developers should not face federal securities registration rules just because others use their software. Her remarks at the IC3 Blockchain Camp at Princeton University argued that regulators should separate code publication from market conduct.

According to Peirce, the core issue concerns who actually performs the regulated act and that securities violations should fall on unlawful actors, not on developers who publish public software. The SEC staff’s April guidance on crypto user interfaces also frames the issue around interface providers, wallet tools, and transaction flows rather than the blockchain code alone.

Peirce Draws a Line Between Code and Conduct

Peirce said the SEC’s traditional categories fit intermediaries such as brokers, dealers, exchanges, and clearinghouses. She warned that extending those labels too far could place blockchain developers inside rules built for centralized finance. She also said open-source publication counts as protected speech, repeating the view that the SEC should not require approval for code that others later use.

Blockchains serve many purposes beyond securities transactions, and it matters because DeFi developer liability can expand quickly when regulators assume every on-chain tool exists to facilitate securities activity. Regulators should thus focus on conduct, not on proximity to conduct.

Staff Guidance Keeps the Interface Debate Open

The SEC staff statement issued on April 13, 2026, addressed “Covered User Interface Providers” that create or operate interfaces used to prepare crypto asset securities transactions. The staff said it would not object to broker-dealer registration relief in limited cases where providers meet detailed conditions.

The statement describes interfaces that convert user-selected transaction details into blockchain-legible commands, display market data, and provide educational material. It also limited the relief to providers that do not solicit specific transactions, do not take custody, and do not execute or settle trades. That framework makes DeFi developer liability a narrower question than many public debates suggest.

Crypto Task Force Pushes for Clearer Boundaries

The SEC’s Crypto Task Force says it aims to clarify how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets, protocols, and market infrastructure. The agency created the task force to draw clearer regulatory lines and recommend practical policy measures.

Peirce leads the task force and has pushed for clearer legal boundaries for crypto firms and developers. As the SEC reviews its approach, the dispute over DeFi developer liability remains central to how far securities rules should reach in decentralized systems.

Stablecoin growth poses a conditional risk to U.S. banks, S&P says

S&P Global Ratings this week published a Credit FAQ detailing how broader use of U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoins could alter the economics of the U.S. banking sector. The analysis, focused on stablecoins that would operate under the GENIUS Act framework, finds that while the current threat to domestic deposits and payment rails is limited, regulatory and market shifts could change that picture materially.

The report’s evidence base: stablecoin issuance exceeded $300 billion as of May 2026, with the two largest issuers accounting for roughly 85%–90% of the total. Most dollar-backed demand today originates outside the U.S., and stablecoins remain heavily concentrated in crypto trading and settlement. Still, S&P flags several scenarios under which stablecoins could become a more direct competitor to banks for payment fees and deposit balances.

How stablecoins could affect banks’ revenue and funding

S&P identifies three primary channels by which stablecoins could influence banks. First, competition for payment flows: as stablecoins are used for merchant remittances or commercial payments, banks could lose fee income that contributes to noninterest revenue. Second, deposit composition: funds converted into stablecoins can change the mix between retail and wholesale deposits, raising funding volatility if holdings concentrate in larger, uninsured balances. Third, lending capacity and pricing: if deposit elasticities change or deposit yields rise to retain customers, banks could face margin pressure and higher funding costs, which would feed into loan pricing.

Reserve management is pivotal. Whether stablecoin issuers hold reserves as bank deposits, Treasuries or money-market instruments will determine where flows ultimately land. If reserves are primarily bank deposits, overall system deposits could be preserved even as individual banks lose share. If reserves sit in Treasuries or at the Fed via so-called “skinny” master accounts, the banking system could see a net outflow of deposits.

Regulatory guardrails will shape outcomes

The GENIUS Act, enacted in July 2025, created a statutory pathway for permitted payment stablecoin issuers and set strict requirements, including a 1:1 reserve ratio denominated in highly liquid assets, segregated accounts and prohibition on rehypothecation. Important implementation details remain under rulemaking by agencies such as the OCC and the FDIC. Proposed rules address licensing, reserve composition, governance, transparency and capital requirements.

Two provisions stand out as particularly consequential for banks. The first is the statutory ban on paying interest directly to stablecoin holders; the second is how regulators treat “pass-through” deposit insurance for reserves held at banks. S&P notes that even with a direct interest ban, economic incentives may still be routed indirectly — for example, through exchange fees or third-party arrangements — complicating the competitive landscape.

Risks highlighted by S&P

S&P’s FAQ lists practical risks regulators and banks must weigh. Rapid redemption pressures could force issuers to liquidate reserves at inopportune times, while nonbank issuers lack central-bank access to liquidity. There are also monetary policy considerations: a larger role for privately issued dollar-like tokens could complicate interest rate transmission. Consumer protection is another area of concern; stablecoins do not carry deposit insurance and holders may be exposed to counterparty or operational risks.

S&P recalls precedents where market stress impacted stablecoins — including a price shock to a major dollar token after a U.S. regional bank failure — underscoring the need for liquidity and redemption safeguards.

How banks are responding and what could mitigate downside

Many banks have not issued stablecoins but are experimenting with tokenized deposit products and pilot projects. Examples include bank-led pilots on public blockchains and state-level initiatives. S&P argues that banks which integrate tokenization and programmable payment features into regulated deposit products will be better positioned to retain client relationships and revenue streams.

Tokenized deposits differ from stablecoins. They remain within the regulated banking perimeter, carry existing liquidity frameworks and—where eligible—FDIC coverage. That regulatory alignment reduces certain systemic risks but limits fungibility with permissionless ecosystems that large public stablecoins currently serve.

Implications for investors and ratings

At present S&P does not incorporate stablecoin risks into bank ratings broadly, citing the early stage of adoption and the continued dominance of traditional deposits. However, the agency warns it will monitor developments closely: idiosyncratic deposit outflows or higher funding costs at individual banks could prompt rating actions. Conversely, banks that capture new business from stablecoin custody, issuance or settlement services could benefit.

Bottom line

S&P’s FAQ frames stablecoins as a technology and market development whose ultimate effect on U.S. banks depends on three levers: issuer behaviour, reserve composition, and regulatory implementation. With the GENIUS Act in place but agency rules and complementary legislation still being finalised, the near-term balance of risks and opportunities remains unsettled. For banks, the prudent course is to accelerate experimentation within compliance boundaries and to prepare funding and liquidity plans for scenarios that shift deposit composition or payment flows.

For policymakers, the trade-off is clear: rules must allow innovation that improves payment efficiency while limiting risks from liquidity mismatches, redemption runs and fragmentation of prudential safeguards.