A former FBI special agent has been indicted after being accused of stealing somewhere in the region of $1 million in cryptocurrency from the agency.

Specifically, Patrick Steven Yaroch, who worked at the FBI from February 2025 through July 2026, has been charged with receipt of stolen goods and interstate transportation of stolen goods.

This is according to an affidavit filed by another FBI special agent.

The CLARITY Act’s narrowing path through the U.S. Senate could trigger another crypto sell-off before the market recovers later this year, according to Bernstein analysts.

CLARITY Act misses the Aug. 3 Senate schedule

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY Act, was not included in the U.S. Senate’s published schedule for Monday, Aug. 3, reducing the time available for lawmakers to begin floor proceedings before the summer break.

The official Senate schedule lists a 5:30 p.m. cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6500, a legislative vehicle for a continuing resolution. It does not include scheduled action on H.R. 3633, the CLARITY Act.

The Senate’s cloture ledger also records the July 30 filing for H.R. 6500 but no corresponding petition for the crypto market-structure bill.

The omission does not prevent Senate Majority Leader John Thune from bringing up the legislation later in the week. However, it leaves the bill without a publicly confirmed floor timetable before the Senate’s tentative state work period begins on Aug. 10. The break is scheduled to continue through Sept. 11.

Bernstein warns of another crypto market decline

Bernstein analysts said a Senate failure to advance the bill could generate an immediate negative response across Bitcoin and the broader crypto market.

Advertisement

The analysts described the possible reaction as an industry “knee-jerk” sell-off that could produce another leg down for digital asset valuations. The warning comes as Bitcoin trades under pressure, and investors monitor whether Congress can complete its crypto policy agenda before the midterm elections.

“From a tactical standpoint, we expect the crypto market to bottom and start showing momentum towards late Q3 and early Q4 prior to the mid-terms,” Bernstein analysts wrote in a Monday report shared with clients.

Prediction market traders have also become less confident. Polymarket places the probability of the CLARITY Act passing before the end of 2026 at 28%, down 10 percentage points over the past week and 12 points over the past month. Traders have wagered about $3.77 million on the market.

Galaxy Digital previously cut its estimated probability of the legislation becoming law this year to 50%, citing the Senate’s limited remaining calendar.

Regulators could move faster if Congress fails to act

Bernstein said a legislative delay could pressure the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission to provide more regulatory guidance through Project Crypto.

Advertisement

The joint initiative seeks to use the agencies’ existing authority while Congress works on a permanent market-structure framework. Bernstein expects regulators could issue interpretations covering token classifications and decentralized finance while accelerating a proposed exemption for some token issuances.

Such an exemption could temporarily shield qualifying token offerings from securities requirements under defined conditions. Agency guidance, however, would not provide the same statutory certainty as legislation passed by Congress.

The CLARITY Act would establish rules for digital asset issuers and trading platforms while dividing oversight responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC. Senator Cynthia Lummis released updated legislative text on July 22, combining work from the Senate Banking and Agriculture committees.

Banking groups have opposed parts of the proposal, arguing that its stablecoin provisions could allow crypto platforms to offer rewards without facing requirements comparable to those imposed on banks.

Advertisement

Aug. 5 may be the final practical filing window

Under the Senate’s standard Rule XXII process, a cloture petition requires signatures from 16 senators. A petition filed Wednesday, Aug. 5, could allow a cloture vote on Friday, Aug. 7, if the chamber remains in session.

That vote would only determine whether the Senate limits debate on the motion to proceed. It would not pass the CLARITY Act. Invoking cloture on legislation generally requires 60 votes and can permit up to 30 additional hours of consideration.

Senators would still need to vote on the motion to proceed, debate amendments, and hold a final passage vote. A second cloture process could also be required.

White House officials are meanwhile considering a bipartisan ethics proposal negotiated by Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego. The proposal would reportedly allow state attorneys general to challenge the Justice Department when it fails to enforce federal ethics rules.

Advertisement

With no floor action yet scheduled, the Senate’s remaining days before recess will determine whether the CLARITY Act advances now or returns to an increasingly crowded agenda in September.

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb says it is moving toward a public listing, with plans to apply for a preliminary listing review in 2027 and complete an initial public offering (IPO) in 2028. The timetable is described as flexible and could shift based on market conditions and the scheduling of relevant regulators.

In a statement released Monday, Bithumb linked its IPO roadmap to internal restructuring efforts designed to clarify responsibilities across business units and reduce potential conflicts of interest. The exchange also outlined operational changes it says are part of its preparation for the scrutiny that comes with becoming a listed company.

Key takeaways

• Bithumb plans to pursue a preliminary listing review in 2027 and target an IPO for 2028, subject to regulatory and market timing.
• The exchange says it reorganized its structure, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, to better separate responsibilities and limit conflicts of interest.
• Bithumb is preparing to strengthen internal controls and transition from domestic accounting standards to K-IFRS.
• The company’s listing push follows a separate incident in February involving an over-crediting error tied to a promotional reward mechanism.

Restructuring and accounting changes ahead of an IPO

Bithumb’s IPO plan is anchored in a set of organizational and compliance steps. According to the exchange, it has reorganized its business structure, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, with the stated goal of clarifying what each unit is responsible for. Bithumb said this approach is intended to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest before it enters the listing review process.

Beyond governance and structure, the exchange also said its preparations include upgrading internal controls. It further stated that it plans to move away from domestic accounting standards and adopt K-IFRS, the international accounting framework used by listed companies in South Korea.

While the company set out a broad timeline—application for preliminary review in 2027 and an IPO in 2028—Bithumb emphasized that the schedule is not guaranteed. It said changes could be required depending on market conditions and how quickly authorities complete their review processes.

A crypto market shifting toward traditional finance ties

Bithumb’s move toward going public is unfolding as several South Korean crypto exchanges tighten their relationships with traditional finance and technology groups. The exchange is among five South Korean platforms that offer fiat currency trading via real-name bank accounts, and it operates that service through a partnership with KB Kookmin Bank.

In the broader sector, the competitive landscape has increasingly reflected corporate and financial integration. Rival exchange Korbit saw a major change when Mirae Asset Consulting took control on July 23, while Upbit operator Dunamu is pursuing a share-swap arrangement that would make it a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Financial, though the transaction is described as subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals.

For investors and market participants, these developments matter because they suggest that the “crypto exchange” category in South Korea is increasingly being treated like a mainstream financial business—one that attracts scrutiny around corporate governance, accounting practices, and the boundaries between crypto operations and affiliated entities.

The February “620,000 BTC” promotional error and governance implications

Bithumb’s listing ambitions arrive after a notable operational failure earlier this year. In a February promotional mistake, the exchange mistakenly credited customer accounts with balances totaling 620,000 Bitcoin instead of distributing 620,000 Korean won in cash rewards, according to earlier coverage. Bithumb later recovered 99.7% of the erroneous credits, but some customers sold about 1,788 BTC before account freezes were applied.

At a February 11 National Assembly parliamentary hearing, Bithumb CEO Lee Jae-won said the exchange’s process for checking the planned distribution against actual holdings had failed. He also stated that the promotional amount had not been set aside in a separate account, a factor that complicated the detection and containment of the error.

While the episode appears to have been addressed through clawback of the majority of the mistaken credits, it is the kind of incident that regulators and auditors often consider when assessing internal controls—precisely the area Bithumb says it is upgrading as part of its IPO preparations.

Listing cleanup for Bithumb-linked public firms continues

Bithumb’s timetable for an IPO also intersects with governance and listing challenges involving entities connected to the exchange. Two Bithumb-linked listed companies have faced ongoing audit and listing issues, with their shares trading suspended since March 2023.

Yonhap reported that Bucket Studio, which indirectly controls Vidente (a major Bithumb shareholder), appointed a former police official as its standing auditor in June. Separately, Vidente has said it plans to appoint a former National Tax Service official to the same auditor role. According to Yonhap, South Korea’s Government Public Service Ethics Committee cleared both hires after concluding there was no close relationship between the officials’ previous duties and their new positions.

These developments are relevant to Bithumb’s listing ambitions because they show how tightly regulated the ecosystem can be in South Korea, not only at the exchange level but also across corporate relationships and audit oversight.

For readers tracking Bithumb’s path to the public markets, the next key indicators will be whether the exchange’s stated internal control upgrades and K-IFRS transition proceed on schedule, and how regulators respond to both the IPO review process and lingering questions raised by prior compliance and governance issues. The 2027/2028 targets are not fixed—so market conditions and authority review timing will likely determine what actually happens next.

Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn has hinted that Coldcard was hit by a fourth wave of attacks on August 3, estimating that the attackers moved 448.7 BTC from 709 wallets belonging to victims.

Thorn based his findings on blockchain analysis rather than device records, describing the addresses as “likely Coldcard victims.”

A Fourth Wave?

Thorn described the addresses hit by the suspected attack as “likely Coldcard victims,” adding that the unspent outputs and transactions matched the vulnerable wallet pattern. Galaxy’s initial snapshot covered blocks 960,778 through 960,792, identifying 218 transactions involving 388.9 BTC and 462 potential victim addresses. The updated estimate expanded the figures to hundreds of transactions involving 448.7 BTC and 709 potential victim addresses.

Thorn posted the findings on X:

“LIKELY 4TH ORGANIZED WAVE COLDCARD ATTACK OCCURING RIGHT NOW THERE ARE STILL SIMILAR TXS IN THE MEMPOOL WAITING TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE PREVIOUSLY-CONFIRMED TXS SIGNAL RBF OPT-IN, CHECK YOUR FUNDS, AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RBF YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS.”

According to Thorn, Galaxy measured 13.8 sweeps per block, a 45x increase compared to 0.3 sweeps per block measured during a pre-incident control period. The siphoned funds were sent to a new address instead of a shared wallet. Some of the stolen funds were subsequently moved to new addresses, making them difficult to track.

Previous Waves

Galaxy has already mapped three prior waves that siphoned 1,367.05 BTC from 4,585 addresses, with the first wave targeting 1,082.05 BTC across 1,196 addresses. The latest wave brings the total figures to 1,815.75 BTC across 5,294 addresses. However, the figures are yet to be confirmed by authorities, Coinkite, or the wallet owners. Additionally, it isn’t clear whether one entity was responsible for all four waves.

Thorn also added that there were transactions awaiting approval in Bitcoin’s mempool, giving holders an escape route. According to Thorn, Bitcoin Core documentation states that unconfirmed opt-in Replace-by-fee transactions can be replaced. This means a user still in control of an affected key could broadcast a conflicting transaction with a higher fee and send the funds to a secure wallet. However, it cannot be replaced once it enters the block, and a replacement is not guaranteed to succeed.

Coldcard Users Must Generate New Seeds

The ongoing issue arises from an RNG integration error that occurred during a March 2021 firmware change. Coinkite estimates that the affected Mk2 and Mk3 seeds have around 40 bits of effective entropy, while seeds generated on affected Mk4, Mk5, and Q releases have 72 bits instead of 128.

Additionally, an engineering team from Block discovered that the firmware called a deterministic MicroPython fallback instead of the hardware random-number generator. However, the Block team clarified they could not confirm exploitability without full empirical testing.

Meanwhile, Coinkite has released version 4.2.0 for Mk2 and Mk3, 5.6.0 for Mk4 and Mk5, 1.5.0Q for Q, and 6.6.0X or 6.6.0QX for Edge releases. However, simply updating the existing firmware does not fully address the vulnerability. Once updated, users must generate a new seed and verify the receiving address. Once verified, they must send a test transaction before migrating the complete balance.

Coinkite also clarified that seeds created using a minimum of 50 fair, private dice rolls are not considered at risk, and that a unique BIP-39 passphrase could serve as a second line of defense. However, it recommended that users complete the migration. The advisory does not cover TAPSIGNER, OPENDIME, and SATSCARD because they use separate codebases.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Widespread wildfires devastate Europe

Fake World Assets (FWAs) have reignited attention on Ethereum’s onchain “gacha” niche—an NFT-based system where users pay to spin for randomly selected collectibles. In just days after launch, the protocol reportedly became a top Ethereum gas consumer by fees, underscoring how quickly gamified mechanics can draw speculative participation.

According to DeFiLlama, FWAs briefly ranked as Ethereum’s largest gas consumer over a 24-hour window in late July, with peak daily fees of about $1.53 million on July 25. The project’s token incentive program and the broader appeal of lottery-like gameplay helped drive rapid traction, though skepticism from some market participants suggests much of the current demand may be incentive-driven.

Key takeaways

• Ethereum activity spiked fast: DeFiLlama data shows FWAs briefly became one of Ethereum’s biggest fee consumers by blockspace usage within days of launch.
• Strong early liquidity metrics: Total value locked (TVL) reportedly climbed above $6.15 million by July 31, indicating more than a purely ephemeral burst of interest.
• Fees have normalized after the initial frenzy: Fee revenue eased to roughly $350,000 per day by the latest figures cited in the reporting.
• Demand may be tied to incentives: Investor Simon Dedic argues current participation could be largely fueled by token rewards rather than sustained end-user desire.
• The core bet is on retention: The “real test” for onchain gacha, as framed by critics, will come once incentives fade and novelty wears off.

FWAs surge: from launch to Ethereum gas leader

FWAs are built around an onchain lottery mechanic that trades random NFT outcomes for player participation. Within four days of launch, the protocol reportedly consumed enough Ethereum gas to briefly top the chain’s gas usage rankings by fees over a 24-hour period, according to DeFiLlama.

At the height of the early activity—July 25—FWAs generated about $1.53 million in daily fees, briefly overtaking major stablecoin issuers’ associated onchain activity in the same fee-consumption comparisons. The project’s creators, TokenWorks, publicly celebrated the protocol’s rapid arrival, posting that it had reached a major milestone just days after launch.

While growth appears to have slowed from the peak, the scale remains notable. TVL reportedly rose to more than $6.15 million by July 31. Fee revenue was cited as easing to around $350,000 per day, which implies an annualized run rate of roughly $268 million based on the figures referenced.

How the onchain gacha works

At its core, Fake World Assets uses NFTs as the prize pool. Users pay to interact with an onchain “gacha” machine that selects a randomly chosen NFT backed by Ether. Instead of purchasing a specific NFT directly, participants buy the right to spin and potentially receive one of many collectibles.

TokenWorks has positioned FWAs as part of the broader onchain gacha evolution. The system is described as “latest” within Ethereum-based protocol experiments that apply randomness and game-like purchasing behavior to tokenized collectibles. The prize catalog, as reported, draws from multiple recognizable collections, including CryptoPunks, Azuki, Lil Pudgys, and Art Blocks.

Those who hold NFTs can also participate in the protocol differently: NFT holders are described as liquidity providers who deposit collectibles alongside ETH and receive a share of protocol fees while their NFT remains in the pool. Players, meanwhile, purchase spins for the chance to receive a random NFT and then decide whether to keep the prize or redeem most of its attached ETH value.

Blockworks Research is referenced in the source reporting for an additional detail: around 70% of purchasers allegedly choose to convert their winnings to FWA rather than keeping the received asset, suggesting the system is currently functioning as much like an ETH-linked bet as it is a pure collectible acquisition.

Supporters see gamified commerce; critics worry about incentives

Not everyone is convinced that FWAs represent durable demand. Simon Dedic, founder of Moonrock Capital and an early backer of onchain collectible platforms, expressed enthusiasm for gamified commerce while singling out specific concerns about FWA’s current appeal.

Dedic’s skepticism centers on whether participation reflects genuine consumer interest or is mainly driven by token incentives. In the remarks cited, he characterized the activity as targeted at “crypto degens” seeking to gamble and speculate—an important distinction because incentive-led engagement can diminish quickly once rewards decline.

Other participants and commentators in the reporting highlight the novelty of the combined roles inside the mechanism. The protocol blends player behavior (seeking a favorable random outcome) with “house” behavior (earning fees as an NFT liquidity provider), which some see as a more engaging primitive than simple onchain lotteries or typical NFT marketplaces.

Still, the source framing makes clear that the sustainability question is unresolved. Dedic argues that the industry may be moving toward more gamified shopping behavior as Gen Z’s purchasing power grows, but he also notes a preference for selling assets people actually want—such as widely demanded collectibles—rather than forcing interest through rewards for assets that have little independent pull.

The retention test: novelty vs. real utility

Even if FWAs can keep drawing transaction volume, the long-term question is whether the protocol can continue without strong incentive support. The early numbers—high peak fees, rising TVL, and significant early volume and purchase counts mentioned in the source—suggest there is real attention and a willingness to pay for the mechanic.

However, “hype” can be measured in weeks, not months. If users continue spinning even after incentives taper off, that would indicate the system has found something closer to a retail use case. If activity drops sharply once token rewards lessen, FWAs may follow the pattern of other short-lived crypto experiments that attract bursts of attention but fail to convert them into durable user demand.

What makes the outcome particularly relevant for the broader market is that onchain gacha is part of a wider trend: tokenized versions of familiar collectibles and randomized purchase mechanics. If FWAs demonstrate sustained retention, they could strengthen the case that gamified retail primitives can coexist with token liquidity models. If they fail, it may reinforce the view that the current wave is mostly speculation riding on incentives.

For now, readers should watch how fee generation and participation evolve as token incentives change, and whether a majority of users keep engaging for the collectible mechanic itself rather than primarily for conversion to incentive-linked rewards.

Circle has acquired nearly 1,000 blockchain patents from IBM, giving the USDC issuer what it describes as the largest blockchain patent portfolio in the United States.

Circle takes control of IBM’s blockchain portfolio

Circle announced the acquisition on July 27, saying it had purchased core assets from IBM’s blockchain patent portfolio. The transaction covers more than 680 patent families and nearly 1,000 issued patents worldwide.

The intellectual property spans blockchain systems, financial services, banking, insurance, supply-chain verification, enterprise infrastructure, and secure cloud operations. Circle did not disclose the financial terms.

Circle said the portfolio would support USDC, the Circle Payments Network, its Arc blockchain, and tools designed for artificial intelligence agents. The two companies also plan to consider further commercial agreements.

“Intellectual property is critical to advancing our mission and expanding adoption of onchain infrastructure,” Circle General Counsel Sarah Wilson said.

Wilson added that the acquisition would expand Circle’s ability to develop infrastructure for internet-based finance.

Patent deal raises concerns over possible enforcement

Circle’s announcement did not state whether the company intends to license the patents, use them defensively, or enforce them against other blockchain businesses.

That lack of detail has prompted questions about how Circle could use its newly acquired intellectual property. In an Aug. 3 commentary, Fortune’s Jeff John Roberts warned that the patents could become legal leverage against competitors or startups.

Roberts argued that Circle could theoretically seek licensing payments, bring infringement cases, or transfer patents to separate entities that pursue enforcement. However, Circle has not announced plans to take any of those actions.

The concerns also stem from IBM’s mixed record in commercial blockchain development. IBM previously backed several enterprise blockchain projects, including supply-chain and trade-finance platforms, but many failed to achieve broad adoption.

A large patent portfolio does not necessarily indicate that the underlying products reached commercial success. Still, issued US patents can give their owner the right to restrict others from using covered inventions, subject to their validity and scope.

Circle has also not announced a public defensive patent pledge comparable to commitments used by some other digital-asset companies. Such pledges generally promise that patents will not be used offensively against developers acting in good faith.

US blockchain firms face new intellectual property risk

Circle’s position as the largest US holder of blockchain-related patents could affect companies building stablecoin, payments, interoperability, and enterprise ledger products.

The practical impact will depend on the language of individual patent claims and whether Circle chooses to enforce them. Any infringement dispute would also face review in US courts, where defendants can challenge whether a patent is valid or applies to their technology.

For Circle, the acquisition may provide protection as it expands beyond reserve income from USDC. Arc, Circle Payments Network, cross-chain services, and agent-based payment tools could expose the company to a broader set of technology competitors.

It may also strengthen Circle’s bargaining position in licensing or partnership negotiations. Still, without an enforcement policy, developers and competitors have limited visibility into whether the portfolio will function mainly as a defensive shield or a commercial asset.

CRCL falls despite initial reaction to IBM deal

Fortune reported that Circle shares rose about 2% following news of the acquisition. That gain did not hold as separate concerns about the company’s USDC business weighed on CRCL on Aug. 3.

Circle shares fell nearly 5% to around $59 after Morgan Stanley downgraded the stock to underweight and cut its price target from $106 to $38. The bank cited weaker USDC supply forecasts, pressure on reserve income, and a potential shift toward lower-margin transaction revenue.

Morgan Stanley reduced its USDC supply estimates by 33% for 2027 and 44% for 2028. The downgrade was separate from the IBM patent acquisition, although both developments reflect Circle’s attempt to establish revenue sources beyond interest earned on USDC reserves.

Investors will now watch for details on how Circle intends to integrate, license, or enforce the patents. Until the company provides those details, claims that it will use the portfolio against competitors remain speculative.