Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said on Sept. 9 that the exchange is building a financial account for AI, while company documentation shows that agents can already access isolated portfolios and execute supported trades.

Armstrong disclosed the project while responding to Ruby on Rails creator David Heinemeier Hansson, commonly known as DHH. Hansso asked which company would build the first “agentic bank” where a machine could receive an allowance and permission to manage routine expenses.

“Coinbase is building the financial account for AI,” Armstrong responded. The brief statement did not provide a launch date, product name, fee structure or regulatory details. It should therefore be treated as a description of Coinbase’s direction rather than confirmation of a new banking product.

Coinbase’s current documentation supplies more detail. Coinbase for Agents is already available as a trading connection between supported AI applications and Coinbase Advanced Trade. The service uses a remote Model Context Protocol server or a local command-line interface.

Unicoin has sued Uniswap Labs in New York federal court, seeking declarations that its UNICOIN brand does not infringe Uniswap’s trademarks and asking the court to cancel Uniswap’s federal UNI trademark registration.

Unicoin said in a Sept. 8 complaint shared with crypto.news and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the dispute followed months of demands from Uniswap, which accused the company of trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition. Uniswap had known about Unicoin for at least two years before making its first trademark claims in June, according to the filing.

The lawsuit asks the court to rule that Unicoin can continue using its name and unicorn logo without infringing the UNISWAP, UNI or UNICHAIN marks. Unicoin is separately challenging U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,307,721 for UNI, arguing that the term is generic or, at most, descriptive without acquired distinctiveness.

Unicoin lawsuit targets Uniswap’s UNI trademark

The dispute began with a June 3 letter from Uniswap’s lawyers demanding that Unicoin permanently stop using UNICOIN and other names containing UNI in connection with cryptocurrency, blockchain, decentralized finance or a decentralized ecosystem.

Uniswap demanded the transfer of unicoin.com and unicoin.org, an accounting of Unicoin’s revenue and profits, reimbursement of its legal fees and an agreement preventing future use or registration of the disputed marks, according to the complaint.

Unicoin rejected the demands on June 23, telling Uniswap that it had independently developed the UNICOIN name and had continuously used it since 2021. Its lawyers argued that the brands had different appearances and commercial meanings and that widespread use of the UNI prefix weakened Uniswap’s claim to exclusive rights over it.

Uniswap rejected that response on July 17 and maintained that UNICOIN was likely to cause confusion with UNISWAP, UNI and UNICHAIN. It warned that it would consider other legal remedies if the matter was not resolved to its satisfaction.

Another exchange followed before Uniswap sent a final letter on Aug. 14. The complaint said Uniswap again demanded the removal of references to the UNICOIN token and told the company it would not continue the back and forth, while warning that legal remedies remained available.

Unicoin has now asked the court to settle the dispute before Uniswap brings an infringement case.

Unicoin says UNI is too common for exclusive protection

A central part of Unicoin’s case challenges the strength of the UNI mark itself.

Uniswap owns a federal registration for UNI covering technology used to issue cryptocurrency tokens that holders can use to vote on and govern a blockchain protocol. The registration lists Sept. 16, 2020 as the first commercial use date and was registered in February 2024.

Unicoin argues that “uni” is a common prefix derived from the Latin word unus, meaning “one,” and appears in words ranging from unit and union to universe, university and unicorn. Its complaint says more than 3,600 registrations in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database contain UNI, with approximately 1,000 currently live.

The company extended that argument to crypto, identifying several projects that use UNI or names beginning with the same letters. It said multiple unrelated cryptocurrencies have traded under the UNI ticker, while projects including Unibot, Unifi Protocol DAO, UniLend Finance and Unibright use similar naming conventions. Some UNI-formative crypto projects cited in the complaint predate Uniswap’s September 2020 governance token.

Unicoin wants the court to cancel Uniswap’s UNI registration on the grounds that UNI is generic or merely descriptive without secondary meaning and fails to function as an identifier of a single source. Because the registration is less than five years old, the complaint argues that it has not become incontestable under federal trademark law.

Unicoin disputes risk of consumer confusion

Unicoin has based another part of its case on differences between the two companies’ products and branding.

Its complaint describes UNICOIN as an asset-backed cryptocurrency marketed under the tagline “The Smart Coin for Smart People,” while Uniswap operates a decentralized exchange tied to its UNI governance token and Unichain blockchain. Unicoin said it had withdrawn plans for a separate governance token under the UNICOIN name and renamed a planned proprietary blockchain so it no longer used a UNI prefix.

The filing makes a similar distinction between the names themselves, arguing that UNICOIN refers to a digital coin, UNISWAP conveys trading or exchange, and UNICHAIN refers to blockchain infrastructure.

Unicoin said years of marketing by both companies had produced no known cases in which consumers asked whether it was connected with Uniswap. It claimed to have sold to thousands of investors and coinholders in more than 100 countries while spending millions of dollars on advertising, including Times Square billboards, buses, taxis and major industry events.

The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the companies’ unicorn logos on page 14. Unicoin describes its design as angular and made from sharp lines, compared with the curved unicorn imagery used by Uniswap.

Trademark fight comes before Unicoin offering

Unicoin claims the timing of Uniswap’s demands is significant because they arrived shortly before its planned public offering.

The company said Uniswap founder Hayden Adams had publicly commented on Unicoin in May 2024, showing that Uniswap knew about the business more than two years before sending its first infringement letter. According to the complaint, Adams wrote that Unicoin should face scrutiny from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Unicoin characterized the comment as evidence of personal hostility, an allegation Uniswap has not yet answered in the case.

The SEC later brought its own case against Unicoin. As crypto.news previously reported, the regulator sued the company and several executives in May 2025, accusing them of raising more than $100 million through allegedly misleading and unregistered securities offerings. Unicoin CEO Alex Konanykhin denied the allegations and said the company would fight the case.

Uniswap has faced separate litigation and regulatory disputes. In March, a federal judge dismissed a class action that sought to hold Uniswap Labs responsible for alleged scam tokens and rug pulls traded through its protocol. Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice after earlier federal securities claims had been rejected.

A separate intellectual-property case brought by Bancor-linked entities ended in Uniswap’s favor in February after they accused the company of infringing patents covering technology used in automated decentralized trading. The patent infringement case concerned the constant product automated market maker technology used by the protocol.

Uniswap had previously faced SEC scrutiny over allegations that it facilitated unregistered securities trading and operated as an unregistered broker-dealer. The agency ended its Uniswap investigation without taking enforcement action in February 2025.

In its latest lawsuit, Unicoin is seeking five forms of substantive relief covering non-infringement, dilution, cancellation of the UNI registration, cybersquatting and unfair competition. It wants declarations allowing continued use of UNICOIN and its domains, cancellation of Uniswap’s UNI registration and an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. Unicoin has demanded a jury trial on issues eligible to be tried by a jury.

NVIDIA announced on Sept. 9 that it is working with eight Australian infrastructure providers on an AI factory buildout targeting up to two gigawatts of capacity by 2027.

The planned expansion involves Firmus, Sharon AI, IREN, Megaport, ResetData, CDC, NEXTDC and AirTrunk. According to NVIDIA’s official announcement, the partners will develop land, power and powered-shell capacity capable of hosting multiple generations of NVIDIA DSX infrastructure.

NVIDIA will provide accelerated computing systems, networking equipment, software and technical support. The participating companies will operate the facilities. That structure means the two-gigawatt figure represents a collective capacity target, rather than a single NVIDIA-owned data center.

The proposed buildout would be larger than Australia’s existing data center computing capacity. Australia currently has about 1.6 gigawatts, according to Data Centres Australia and market researcher DC Byte, figures cited by Reuters.

Eight partners will divide infrastructure responsibilities

Sharon AI plans to deploy up to 68,000 NVIDIA GPUs connected through NVIDIA Quantum InfiniBand and Spectrum-X Ethernet networking. The company said the systems would serve Australian startups, enterprises, government agencies and research organizations requiring locally hosted computing capacity.

IREN will combine NVIDIA’s DSX reference architecture with its experience in power, land, data centers and GPU operations. Its contribution includes the planned 800-megawatt Bundey campus in South Australia. IREN has historically operated Bitcoin mining infrastructure but has increasingly expanded into AI cloud services and high-performance computing.

That shift reflects a wider overlap between cryptocurrency mining and AI infrastructure. Both businesses require access to large power supplies, cooling systems and computing facilities. In related coverage, crypto.news examined why AI chips are increasingly being compared with scarce digital assets as demand for computing capacity grows.

CDC said it operates more than 550 megawatts across Australia and New Zealand, with another 800 megawatts under construction. The company also claims its facilities use renewable electricity and zero-water cooling systems. Those environmental statements are company claims and have not been independently verified across every proposed site.

NVIDIA DSX connects facilities with AI software

NVIDIA describes DSX as a full-stack AI factory platform covering facility design, computing, networking, software and reference architecture. The system is compatible with CUDA and is designed to support later generations of NVIDIA hardware without requiring operators to redesign every infrastructure layer.

The company said expanded capacity would give Australian organizations greater access to NVIDIA Nemotron open models. Healthcare technology company Heidi is using Nemotron tools for clinical applications, while Atlassian is applying NVIDIA technology to semantic search and other features within its Rovo AI platform.

However, NVIDIA did not disclose the expected cost of the Australian buildout, individual investment commitments or how much of the targeted capacity already has financing, planning approval or grid connections. The two-gigawatt target should therefore be treated as a forward-looking plan rather than completed infrastructure.

Power access will determine whether the target is reached

The scale of the proposal brings power availability, grid connections and cooling requirements into focus. Data centers consume electricity continuously, and high-density GPU clusters can require more advanced cooling than conventional computing facilities.

NVIDIA said additional capacity could support new power-generation projects, but it did not identify specific generation assets or electricity contracts. Australian authorities and infrastructure operators will need to assess network connections, construction approvals and local environmental requirements for individual projects.

NEXTDC separately announced plans to raise A$1.1 billion through convertible notes to support its expanding AI infrastructure portfolio, Reuters reported. The financing is broader than the NVIDIA collaboration and should not be treated as funding solely for DSX facilities.

The next measurable developments will be site approvals, power agreements, construction milestones and GPU delivery schedules. NVIDIA and its partners have not published a shared timetable showing how much capacity should become operational during each stage before 2027.

NVIDIA also cautioned that its infrastructure projections remain subject to demand, partner execution, regulation and technology availability. Investors can monitor those risks through the company’s SEC filings, alongside future announcements from the eight Australian partners.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev defended the company’s AMC stock tokens on Sept. 9, arguing that public companies should not automatically control third-party securities referencing their listed shares.

Tenev made the remarks during a CNBC “Squawk Box” interview, his first televised response since the dispute with AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron escalated.

“Issuers should have control and do have control over the rights and obligations of the stock that they issue, but that doesn’t mean they control everything about it,” Tenev said. He argued that companies cannot prevent independent firms from issuing separate securities that reference publicly traded shares.

“Issuer consent depends on what exactly you’re doing,” Tenev added. He said Robinhood’s products “should not automatically require issuer consent,” although that position has not received a public ruling from the SEC or a court.

Aron has disputed that interpretation. He argues Robinhood is using AMC’s name and share price to create a parallel financial product without the company’s involvement. The disagreement centers on whether economic exposure should be marketed as a stock token when the holder does not legally own the referenced share.

AMC stock tokens are debt securities, not shares

Tenev said each Robinhood stock token is backed one-for-one by an underlying share held as collateral. The token itself is a debt security issued by Robinhood Assets Jersey Limited rather than a share issued by AMC.

Investors receive exposure to changes in AMC’s share price and payments reflecting dividends. They do not receive voting rights and are not recorded on AMC’s shareholder register. Their legal claim is against the token issuer, not directly against AMC.

Robinhood launched its stock-token offering for European customers in June 2025 before expanding access through Robinhood Wallet. The products are unavailable to U.S. customers and are not registered under U.S. securities laws.

The company has connected its tokenization strategy to a dedicated blockchain based on Arbitrum technology. As crypto.news reported, Robinhood Chain fees provide a revenue stream for Arbitrum while supporting tokenized assets and other financial applications.

AMC CEO threatens legal action and SEC referral

Aron initially said AMC had no connection to Robinhood’s token and did not authorize or endorse it. He later called on Robinhood to “cease and desist” trading the product and said AMC’s securities lawyers would examine possible legal action.

The AMC CEO also said the company would raise the matter with the SEC. No public lawsuit or SEC enforcement action concerning the AMC token had been identified as of Sept. 10.

Robinhood chief legal officer Dan Gallagher rejected Aron’s demand. “We know a little something about the U.S. securities laws and will not ‘DECIST,’” Gallagher wrote, referencing a spelling error in Aron’s original post. Aron later said the misspelling was intentional humor.

Tenev subsequently reinforced Gallagher’s position by saying Robinhood stood behind its stock tokens. The company has not indicated that it plans to remove the AMC-linked product.

Voting rights and token pricing remain unresolved

Robinhood controls the underlying shares used as collateral, but Tenev said the company has not announced how those shares will be voted. This leaves an unresolved governance question because token holders receive no direct voting power.

The debate also covers price formation. Securitize CEO Carlos Domingo pointed to an AMC-linked token pair that reportedly traded at roughly 60 times the reference share price. Thin liquidity and limited arbitrage routes can allow a token’s price to separate from the asset it tracks.

Robinhood says its tokens provide international investors with exposure to U.S. equities. Critics argue that products called stock tokens should either represent direct legal ownership or carry clearer descriptions explaining their debt-based structure.

The Federal Reserve has recognized that tokenized securities can use different legal models. Its regulatory guidance distinguishes instruments representing direct ownership from separate securities referencing underlying assets.

The next formal development could come from AMC’s legal team or the SEC. Until either takes public action, Robinhood’s AMC tokens remain available to eligible international users, and Tenev’s interpretation of issuer consent remains the company’s legal position rather than a settled precedent.

US authorities have moved to dismantle parts of Xinbi Guarantee’s ecosystem—seizing crypto assets linked to the alleged scam marketplace and coordinating criminal and sanctions action aimed at the communications and payment infrastructure behind large-scale fraud.

On Wednesday, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) said its Scam Center Strike Force seized two wallets used by Xinbi to collect vendor payments totaling about $12 million, with additional court-authorized restraints sought for 47 more wallets believed to be tied to money laundering across Xinbi’s network. Separately, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization and sanctioned technology providers SafeW Technology (Singapore) and Anwen Technology (Cambodia) over alleged support to the network.

Key takeaways

• The DOJ action targeted both payment infrastructure (seized and restrained wallets) and the marketplace’s hosting channels, including Telegram infrastructure tied to vendors.
• OFAC sanctions block Xinbi’s US-linked property and generally prohibit US persons from transacting with the designated entities.
• Treasury says Xinbi shifted parts of its operations—particularly merchant and laundering workflows—toward SafeW’s encrypted messaging application after enforcement pressure increased.
• Law enforcement is framing the case as an attempt to disrupt the broader “service layer” enabling industrial-scale scam operations, not just individual scammers.
• TRM Labs policy head Ari Redbord argues Xinbi functioned as a large-scale “escrow and cash-out layer” in Southeast Asia’s scam markets following the fallout of earlier platforms.

Wallet seizures and expanded restraints in DOJ operation

The DOJ said that, based on a court order, its Scam Center Strike Force seized two wallets connected to Xinbi that were used to receive vendor payments. The agency also reported that it requested restraints against 47 additional wallets believed to be part of the platform’s money-laundering channels.

According to the unsealed warrant cited by the DOJ, the US District Court for the District of Columbia authorized the seizure of Telegram channels used to host and advertise the marketplace’s services on Sept. 7. The warrant describes vendors using those channels to promote money laundering services, custom scam-investment websites, and recruitment offerings tied to “scam compounds” in Southeast Asia.

This approach signals a shift in enforcement emphasis: rather than focusing solely on endpoint actors, prosecutors are targeting the operational plumbing—where scams recruit, where services are sold, and where funds move—helping make fraudulent networks more scalable.

Sanctions on Xinbi and technology providers

In a coordinated move, the US Treasury Department announced OFAC designations for Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization. Treasury also sanctioned SafeW Technology and Anwen Technology, alleging they provided technological and financial support to Xinbi.

Treasury’s statement ties specific roles to the alleged ecosystem. It said Xinbi began moving its merchant and money-laundering networks to SafeW’s encrypted messaging application around June 2025 as scrutiny intensified. Treasury also alleged that Anwen developed XinbiPay, also referred to as NewPay—a crypto wallet and payment application used by the marketplace.

The practical effect of OFAC sanctions is straightforward: they are intended to prevent Xinbi and the designated supporting entities from accessing US property and to restrict dealings by US persons. For compliance-focused businesses—exchanges, payment processors, service providers, and other crypto-facing firms—the designations increase the compliance burden by adding more counterparties and infrastructure to screening and risk controls.

Treasury further said Xinbi processed over $24 billion in crypto and fiat since around 2022, primarily through Southeast Asia, and that its platform has been used by North Korean hackers and entities associated with the sanctioned Prince Group. Treasury linked Xinbi’s activity to broader geopolitical threat dynamics, underscoring that the scam-marketplace model intersects with sanctioned actors rather than operating in isolation.

Why investigators are emphasizing escrow, communications, and “service layers”

US officials credited Tether with assisting in the investigation, suggesting that the inquiry involved tracing stablecoin-related flows or related compliance data as part of building the case.

The enforcement strategy also reflects a growing understanding of how industrial-scale scams operate. Large fraud networks often depend on a parallel “marketplace” that sells components: payment acceptance/escrow-like functions, tooling for converting funds into usable balances, hosting or distribution channels for recruitment and services, and templates for scam websites. By targeting wallets and Telegram hosting channels, authorities are aiming to choke both the money movement and the promotional layer that drives onboarding.

TRM Labs Global Head of Policy Ari Redbord, speaking to Cointelegraph, argued that Xinbi rose to fill a gap after Huione went down. He said Xinbi became the “go-to escrow and cash-out layer” for Southeast Asia’s scam compounds, describing it as operating “at industrial scale” and moving “more than USD 36 billion.”

That perspective matters for readers trying to interpret the enforcement: it suggests the problem is not simply a single marketplace operator, but a “layer” of services that can migrate and adapt when prior platforms are disrupted.

Sanctions momentum and what to watch next

The latest US designations come after earlier UK sanctions against Xinbi. Cointelegraph previously reported that the UK government imposed sanctions on March 26, freezing UK assets connected to Xinbi and barring the platform from the country’s financial, trade, and travel networks.

With both the DOJ and Treasury taking action now, market participants should expect more follow-on scrutiny across crypto rails commonly used by scam networks—especially wallet infrastructure and communication channels that facilitate vendor operations and fund routing. For compliance teams, the new designations on Xinbi and the technology providers named by OFAC will likely require immediate updates to screening processes and vendor risk assessments.

Readers should watch for additional court filings tied to the restrained wallets and for further public steps that connect Telegram channel seizures to downstream service providers. Equally important is whether new “escrow/cash-out” and encrypted messaging routes emerge to replace capabilities authorities targeted in this case.