Illinois is facing a fresh legal attempt to pause its new digital asset transaction tax before it begins in January 2027. The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and the Blockchain Association (BA) say they have asked a court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the 0.2% levy, arguing the tax is unconstitutional and that affected companies face immediate, irreversible costs.

In a filing reported by the trade groups on Wednesday, CCI and BA asked the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, to prevent the state from imposing the tax while their underlying lawsuit proceeds. The groups contend Illinois has not provided adequate clarity on what exactly is taxed and when—while companies are already being forced to build compliance systems under the threat of criminal penalties.

Key takeaways

• CCI and BA have filed for a preliminary injunction to block Illinois’ planned 0.2% tax on crypto transactions before the Jan. 1, 2027 start date.
• The groups argue the tax violates constitutional protections and due process rules, and that companies face irreparable harm from near-term compliance spending.
• Illinois’ measure, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker in June, is structured as a “privilege tax” tied to transaction volume rather than income.
• The move escalates a legal dispute that CCI and BA began last month with a constitutional challenge, joined by other industry efforts.
• Illinois is also pursuing restrictions related to prediction markets, with separate litigation involving Kalshi and state actions targeting insider-trading concerns.

Why the injunction request matters ahead of January 2027

According to the motion described by the CCI and BA, the central urgency is timing: the tax is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, but companies say they are already being compelled to prepare for it. CCI CEO Ji Hun Kim said in a statement that firms are being asked to invest “millions” in new systems while the dispute over legality remains unresolved.

Kim’s argument, as presented by the groups, is that this creates irreparable harm because resources and employees are being diverted to compliance planning “under the threat of criminal penalties,” even though the tax’s validity is disputed. The contention is not only about whether the levy should ultimately stand, but whether the state should be allowed to proceed before a court determines the legal issues.

Blocking enforcement temporarily would matter to market participants because a transaction tax can increase operational overhead for exchanges, custodians, and other service providers, and can alter how businesses structure fee models and customer reporting. If compliance systems are built and then later ruled unlawful, the industry says those costs cannot easily be recovered.

Illinois’ crypto transaction tax: the legal theory being challenged

Illinois became the first U.S. state to single out cryptocurrency transactions with a dedicated measure, a point highlighted by the trade groups in their broader campaign against the tax.

As previously reported, Gov. Pritzker signed the legislation into law in June as a “privilege tax” as part of the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget. In this framework, crypto users would be taxed based on transaction volume rather than income, according to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.

Last month, CCI and BA filed a lawsuit challenging the Illinois digital asset tax. The groups said the tax violates multiple legal standards, including the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois constitution, as well as federal and state due process laws. They also cited the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act in their challenge, a position outlined in the complaint linked by the groups. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described that lawsuit and the legal grounds behind it, including the claim that the tax improperly targets digital assets and conflicts with constitutional protections.

In Wednesday’s court filing, CCI and BA argued the state’s “basic questions” about what is taxed and when remain unanswered, while the timeline for enforcement is approaching. Their request for a preliminary injunction therefore aims to pause the practical effects of the law while the courts decide whether the measure can be enforced at all.

Industry pushback expands: why Illinois may not be the last to try

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, warned that the stakes extend beyond Illinois. As quoted in connection with the legal action, Mersinger said the state “loses very little by waiting,” while other states and market participants could suffer if Illinois’ approach is upheld. The logic, according to the association’s view, is that if the act survives legal challenges, it could become a template for other states to pursue similar transaction-based crypto taxation.

This is a key dynamic investors and builders tend to watch closely: state-level taxes can shape product design and compliance strategy across jurisdictions, especially for companies that serve customers nationally. A successful injunction in Illinois could send an early signal that transaction-tax models may face significant legal obstacles—though the outcome will ultimately depend on what the court determines about the likelihood of constitutional violations and the balance of harms.

Separately, another industry group, the Digital Chamber, filed a similar lawsuit days earlier, according to coverage summarized by Cointelegraph. While this article focuses on CCI and BA’s injunction motion, the parallel litigation suggests a broader coalition is attempting to challenge the same core measure from multiple angles.

Illinois actions beyond crypto: prediction markets litigation and restrictions

Illinois’ regulatory agenda in digital-asset-adjacent areas is not limited to taxation. The state has also targeted prediction markets through a combination of statutory and executive actions.

Cointelegraph previously reported that Kalshi filed a lawsuit against Illinois officials over a law that went into effect on July 1. That law, Kalshi said, “expressly bans sports event contracts,” and the company argued it violates federal law by effectively requiring state licensing.

In addition, Pritzker signed an executive order in April banning state employees from betting on prediction-market platforms. The stated purpose was to reduce the risk of insider trading as online prediction markets and event-based gambling contracts grow.

Together, these developments show Illinois is simultaneously addressing multiple parts of the crypto and digital finance ecosystem—taxing transactions in one lane while restricting certain market activities in another. For participants, this kind of multi-front posture can raise uncertainty about how different categories of digital finance will be treated, and whether compliance requirements will evolve quickly through court challenges.

While CCI and BA seek a near-term halt through a preliminary injunction, the most important next signal for market participants will be what the court decides about whether the case meets the standard to pause enforcement. Until then, the legal fight over the constitutionality of Illinois’ 0.2% transaction tax—and the state’s broader approach to digital finance—remains a developing risk to watch.

South Korean crypto exchange Upbit listed Cluster Protocol and Useless Coin on Sept. 8 but canceled Hemi’s scheduled debut after identifying evidence of a token theft.

Upbit initially announced that HEMI and USELESS trading would begin against Bitcoin and Tether at 9:30 p.m. Korea Standard Time. The exchange later updated its notice at 9:12 p.m., 18 minutes before the planned opening, to cancel HEMI support.

The exchange said a security vulnerability had been exploited on the previous day and that HEMI tokens appeared to have been stolen. Upbit said it reviewed how the incident could affect trading before deciding not to open the markets.

Upbit canceled HEMI trading after 124.5 million tokens were stolen

Hemi confirmed that an attacker exploited its legacy Genesis Drop contract at 03:36 UTC on Sept. 7. The project’s post-mortem said approximately 124.5 million unclaimed HEMI tokens were removed.

The attacker used a reentrancy vulnerability in a modified MerkleBox contract. According to Hemi, the contract created token lockups before updating the remaining claimable balance. It also allowed users to configure claim groups with custom lockup contracts.

The attacker created a malicious claim group and repeatedly called the claim function before its accounting updated. The operation used a two-million-HEMI flash loan and recursively executed the claim process 63 times.

Hemi said the attacker sold about 80.15 million HEMI for approximately 158,200 USDT and another 41.4 million for roughly 84,900 USDC. About 2.95 million HEMI were exchanged for 0.3442 hemiBTC.

The sales ultimately generated about $255,000 in stablecoins. The attacker moved the funds across Ethereum, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Optimism, Avalanche and Polygon before converting most of the proceeds into Ether.

Hemi said the attack involved only the Genesis Drop claim contract. It said the HEMI and veHEMI tokens, Hemi Virtual Machine, native tunnels and third-party bridging systems were not affected. These are project statements based on its internal investigation.

CP and USELESS trading proceeded on Upbit

Cluster Protocol began trading at 2:30 p.m. Korea time across Upbit’s KRW, BTC and USDT markets. Deposits and withdrawals are supported only through Base using Upbit’s specified contract.

Upbit described Cluster Protocol as artificial intelligence infrastructure connecting models, data, GPU computing and AI agents through one interface and an onchain payment system. CP supports payments, staking and participant incentives within the protocol.

The exchange initially restricted CP purchases for approximately five minutes. Sell orders priced at least 10% below the previous closing price were also restricted during that period. Only limit orders were available for the first two hours.

USELESS trading proceeded against BTC and USDT at the planned 9:30 p.m. opening. Upbit supports deposits and withdrawals through Solana only.

USELESS does not claim a technical utility. Upbit described it as a community-focused meme coin built around the satirical idea of promising no product or centralized development roadmap.

The two listings follow Upbit’s recent expansion of smaller-token markets. In related coverage, the exchange added eight trading pairs for four altcoins in August. Upbit also recently introduced direct Korean won access for several tokens.

Hemi faces recovery work and further exchange reviews

Hemi said it identified the vulnerability roughly two hours and 44 minutes after the exploit occurred. The project contacted partners and later referred the incident to the SEAL 911 security response service.

The project said no stolen HEMI remained under the attacker’s control because the tokens had already been sold. However, most converted proceeds remained in an Ethereum address associated with the attacker when Hemi published its report.

Hemi did not announce reimbursements, a recovery deadline or a negotiated return of funds. It said it was tracing the proceeds, working with law enforcement and security firms, and exploring recovery options.

Other exchanges may conduct their own reviews. Bithumb placed HEMI under an investment warning after identifying abnormal withdrawals from the Genesis Drop contract. That process could lead to additional restrictions unless the project addresses the exchange’s concerns.

Upbit said it would strengthen its pre-listing review procedures after canceling HEMI trading. The exchange did not give a new listing date, and the cancellation means HEMI will require a fresh assessment before any future Upbit launch.

The action comes as South Korean regulators continue examining exchange security and consumer protection. As crypto.news reported, authorities have opened sanctions proceedings against Upbit operator Dunamu over a separate wallet breach reported in November 2025.

Hunter Biden’s newly launched “LAPTOP” memecoin started trading on Wednesday with sharp losses, dropping 86.5% within the first 30 minutes. The token—issued on Ethereum layer-2 network Base—was trading at $26.88 at 12:30 pm UTC after opening at $199.50, according to CoinGecko, with the rollout accompanied by more than $2.5 million in early trading volume.

In response to backlash, Biden posted on X that the symbol used in an earlier attempt to “end” him had become one of “resilience, redemption and recovery.” He also urged skepticism toward memecoins and described President Donald Trump’s token as a “grift,” warning buyers not to expect him—or anyone else—to make LAPTOP more valuable.

Key takeaways

• LAPTOP’s early price action was extremely volatile, falling 86.5% in its first 30 minutes after opening at $199.50.
• The token is deployed on Base and, per CoinGecko, drew over $2.5 million in trading volume during the initial window.
• Project disclosures describe LAPTOP as a digital collectible with no utility, voting rights, yield, or profit-sharing.
• Tokenomics allocate 2% of the total supply to wallets that lost money on Trump-related tokens, with additional allocations tied to subscribers and future foundation discretion.
• Base founder Jesse Pollak said Base made a “conscious decision” not to assist with the token’s design or promotion.

Launch chaos and a direct response to critics

The LAPTOP memecoin went live after Biden teased the token on X on Monday with a post featuring the ticker and a montage of media coverage related to the “laptop narrative.” The launch attracted immediate criticism from prominent online commentators, including digital investigator Stephen Findeisen (known as Coffeezilla), who called LAPTOP a “shitcoin” and urged people not to buy.

Despite the sharp selloff, the token quickly became a focal point in political crypto culture. Biden framed the launch as reclaiming a story connected to a MacBook reportedly left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019, with later allegations tied to emails and files published before the 2020 US presidential election. Trump allies used that material in attacks against Hunter Biden and his father, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

On Wednesday, Biden’s follow-up message addressed the backlash head-on. He acknowledged widespread cynicism about memecoins, characterized Trump’s crypto efforts as a “grift,” and said buyers should not assume he or anyone else can influence LAPTOP’s value upward.

What the disclosures say about utility—and what they don’t

Project documentation for LAPTOP, hosted as a disclosures PDF, presents the token as a digital collectible with no promised functionality. According to the disclosures, holders receive no utility and do not receive voting rights, yield, or profit-sharing. The token also has a fixed supply of 1 billion, with 350 million tokens circulating at launch.

These terms matter for traders because they clarify that the token’s economic rationale is not tied to revenue generation, staking incentives, or governance mechanics. In practice, memecoins typically rely on attention and liquidity rather than underlying product utility—something the disclosures explicitly align with.

Token allocation, “TRUMP-loss” airdrops, and future governance by discretion

The disclosures allocate 300 million tokens (30% of the total supply) to founders, including Biden. Those tokens are locked for six months and then vested monthly over the following 24 months. Another 30% of the supply is reserved for “political, cultural and crypto predictions,” with tokens burned if specified outcomes occur and released to charity if they do not.

A key point for supporters and skeptics alike is the project’s airdrop plan. The disclosures outline an initial airdrop representing 10% of the total supply. Within that initial allocation, 2% is reserved for wallets that lost money on TRUMP token-related activity, while 8% is earmarked for eligible subscribers to Biden’s “Where’s Hunter” Substack newsletter.

In addition, the disclosures describe a separate 10% future airdrop to be distributed at the foundation’s discretion. Combined, the disclosures suggest that 20% of the total supply is dedicated to airdrops, but the portion specifically linked to “TRUMP-loss” wallets is capped at 2%.

This structure creates an important asymmetry: while the narrative emphasizes reimbursement for those who lost money on TRUMP-related tokens, the explicit cap limits the scale of that outcome. Meanwhile, a meaningful portion remains subject to later discretion, which investors may want to monitor closely—especially if the project’s later criteria become contentious.

Base’s stance and the question of platform involvement

Even with the project deployed on Base, the network’s relationship to the token rollout appears intentionally limited. Base founder Jesse Pollak stated on X that the project contacted his team, but that Base made a “conscious decision” not to help with the token’s design or promotion.

That distinction may influence how readers interpret the launch: while Base hosts the token’s infrastructure, Pollak’s comments suggest it did not provide endorsement or development support. For participants, this is a reminder that token deployments can happen on a chain without the platform taking responsibility for the market outcomes or the promotional strategy surrounding the asset.

Cointelegraph reported that Biden did not respond to its query before publication.

As LAPTOP continues to trade, the next variables readers should watch are straightforward: how liquidity evolves after the initial dump, whether subsequent airdrop criteria and distributions follow the disclosures as written, and how the market reacts to the project’s founder-locked and vested supply schedule.

Hunter Biden says he is preparing to launch a new memecoin called LAPTOP, using as its namesake the laptop that has been a long-running subject of political and legal controversy.

In a post on X on Monday, Hunter Biden shared the token ticker and indicated a Wednesday launch for the memecoin. The move comes as U.S. crypto legislation and high-profile political crypto projects continue to draw public attention.

Key takeaways

• LAPTOP is scheduled to launch on Wednesday, after Hunter Biden posted its ticker on X.
• Reporting from The Wall Street Journal says 20% of the one-billion token supply would be directed to substack subscribers, mailing-list members, and investors in Donald Trump’s memecoin Official Trump (TRUMP).
• The memecoin is tied to the “infamous laptop” story—an issue that has been widely revisited in U.S. politics and has been subject to legal action involving privacy claims.
• According to the same reporting, founders would hold 30% of the supply and could burn up to 30% depending on future conditions.
• Any launch would land amid renewed congressional momentum toward the CLARITY Act, with a Senate cloture vote set for Sept. 15.

How Hunter Biden frames the memecoin launch

Hunter Biden’s announcement points to a deliberate blend of crypto marketing and political narrative. The token’s ticker—$LAPTOP—signals that the memecoin’s central theme is the computer associated with allegations surrounding his family during the 2020 election cycle.

That laptop story has remained prominent in parts of the media ecosystem, and its existence and contents have been discussed repeatedly in connection with privacy-related disputes. Biden, according to the article’s background, has pursued two lawsuits tied to privacy laws connected to the laptop narrative.

While the memecoin announcement itself does not resolve the underlying political controversy, it does show how persistent those narratives remain—and how they can be repackaged into tokenized communities.

Token distribution, supply plan, and conditions for potential burns

Coverage from The Wall Street Journal reports additional details about how the token supply may be allocated. The outlet said Biden plans to allocate 20% of the total one-billion token supply to:

• substack subscribers
• members of a mailing list
• investors in President Donald Trump’s memecoin, Official Trump (TRUMP)

TRUMP’s market performance has been under scrutiny as well; the same report states its value is down roughly 97% from its all-time high reached in January 2025.

The article also notes that the LAPTOP founders hold 30% of the token supply and that they could burn up to 30% of the memecoin supply depending on outcomes that include political and market milestones—such as a Democrat winning the presidency in 2028, Bitcoin reaching a new all-time high, and LAPTOP’s fully diluted value exceeding TRUMP.

For investors and traders, these kinds of conditional supply mechanics matter because they can influence perceived scarcity narratives—even when they depend on future events rather than immediate tokenomics. What remains unclear is how these conditions would be measured in practice, and how transparently they would be implemented once the token is live.

Why this timing could resonate with lawmakers

The announcement also arrives during a period when lawmakers are actively working on broader digital asset rules. The article points to U.S. Senate consideration of a comprehensive market structure bill, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, known as the CLARITY Act.

According to the provided information, the Senate is scheduled to hold a cloture vote on Sept. 15. A cloture vote is a procedural step that can be used to limit debate and move legislation toward a final vote.

Memecoins that are tied to major political figures and prominent political narratives can quickly become a stress test for regulators: they often combine marketing-driven community incentives with token distribution structures that resemble traditional fundraising dynamics, but without the same level of clarity investors may expect from regulated products.

Earlier coverage in the same ecosystem has also highlighted how politicians’ crypto projects continue to draw scrutiny and controversy, suggesting that legislators may face pressure to define how these tokens should be treated—especially when they appear to be aligned with political stakeholders.

Hunter Biden’s crypto posture and the contrast with World Liberty

Beyond the memecoin itself, the launch fits into a broader pattern described in the article: since Joe Biden left office in January 2025, Hunter Biden has increased his public rhetoric on crypto and blockchain.

The piece highlights criticism from Biden aimed at the Trump family’s involvement with the industry through World Liberty Financial. It cites Biden calling World Liberty “corruption at a scale we’ve never seen,” drawing comparisons to the defunct exchange FTX, and pointing to alleged ties to foreign governments such as the UAE.

It also references comments from June where Biden said “decentralized digital currency and the blockchain are the inevitable future.” In the context of a memecoin launch, those statements underscore an apparent tension: Biden can be both an outspoken critic of certain crypto-linked political enterprises and a promoter of the idea that blockchain networks will continue to expand.

What remains to be seen is how LAPTOP will be positioned once it launches—whether it remains primarily an attention-driven cultural token or evolves into something with more operational transparency that would better satisfy the standards lawmakers may be considering during the CLARITY Act process.

As Wednesday’s release approaches, readers should watch closely for whether the announced distribution and any proposed supply burns are documented clearly on-chain, and how the project’s mechanics are communicated—especially as U.S. regulators move toward potential market-structure rules in the coming weeks.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson said on Sept. 9 that artificial intelligence had advanced further in formal mathematics than he expected.

His comments followed OpenAI’s claim that an internal system produced a solution to the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem.

During a broadcast, Hoskinson called the reported capabilities “pretty remarkable.” However, he also addressed unresolved questions about the work’s provenance and the privacy of research submitted to cloud-based AI services.

Cardano founder says AI moved beyond collaboration tools

Hoskinson said he originally expected formal systems to help larger teams of mathematicians collaborate and verify human-written proofs. He did not expect large language models to generate complete proofs themselves so soon.

“We never anticipated the extent to which AI would come in,” Hoskinson said. He added that the idea of AI fully writing a proof had previously appeared “pretty far out.”

Hoskinson has a direct connection to formal mathematics research. In 2021, he donated $20 million to Carnegie Mellon University to establish the Hoskinson Center for Formal Mathematics, according to the university’s announcement.

His latest comments also fit Cardano’s broader experimentation with artificial intelligence. As crypto.news previously reported, Hoskinson has defended Cardano AI agent experiments involving communications, community activity and the privacy-focused Midnight ecosystem.

OpenAI claims its system resolved Navier–Stokes

OpenAI published its research on Sept. 8. The company said an internal model coordinated roughly 10,000 agents and produced a proposed solution after 88 hours. GPT-6 Astra then spent another 17 hours formalizing and checking the argument in Lean.

The proof attempts to establish that an initially smooth, stationary fluid can develop a singularity in finite time when subjected to a smooth external force. OpenAI said this satisfies statements C and D in the official Millennium Prize formulation.

The company also released an analytical paper and Lean code. A Lean formalization provides machine-checkable verification that the encoded steps follow from the stated assumptions. It does not independently establish that every definition and assumption accurately represents the intended mathematical problem.

OpenAI said it does not plan to seek the associated $1 million prize. The company nevertheless described its work as a resolution of the problem.

Clay has not recognized the claimed solution

The Clay Mathematics Institute still labels the Navier–Stokes problem  “unsolved.” Its website had not recognized OpenAI’s proposed proof as an accepted solution at the time of reporting.

Clay does not accept proposed solutions through direct submissions. Under its rules, a solution must appear in a qualifying publication. At least two years must then pass, and the work must gain general acceptance from the global mathematics community.

That process means OpenAI’s announcement and formal proof do not constitute immediate institutional recognition. Mathematicians must examine whether the construction satisfies the precise problem statement and whether its use of external forcing answers the question as commonly understood.

A provenance dispute raises research privacy questions

The announcement also drew scrutiny involving New York University mathematician Tristan Buckmaster and Anthropic researcher Levent Alpöge. The researchers had been working on a related Euler-equation result using a forcing approach.

Buckmaster questioned whether private work entered into OpenAI’s Codex system could have contributed to the company’s result. He stopped short of alleging proven misconduct, saying: “I do not know whether our data was used.”

OpenAI denied accessing their specific work. However, the company said it could not completely rule out the possibility that de-identified data from their product use had helped improve its models. OpenAI maintained that its proof was developed independently and differed from the researchers’ work.

Hoskinson argued that the dispute should concern researchers handling unpublished ideas. He said scholars using centralized AI services should consider whether prompts, notes and research logs remain confidential.

The next phase will involve public examination of OpenAI’s paper and Lean formalization. Until specialists review the assumptions and Clay’s formal conditions are met, the work remains a claimed solution rather than a recognized resolution.

XRP exchange-traded funds appeared in institutional collateral arrangements and attracted fresh investor money on Sept. 8, offering two distinct signs of their expanding role in U.S. markets.

A Charles Schwab Family of Funds regulatory filing contained eight XRP ETF collateral line items valued at approximately $11.39 million. Separately, the five XRP products tracked by SoSoValue received nearly $2 million of net inflows during Tuesday’s trading session.

The collateral disclosure does not show Charles Schwab buying XRP ETFs or holding the underlying cryptocurrency. Instead, the shares secured repurchase agreements between Schwab Prime Advantage Money Fund and two Wall Street counterparties.

XRP ETF collateral totaled $11.39 million

The Schwab Prime Advantage Money Fund reported the collateral in a Form N-MFP3 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 8. The report covers the fund’s portfolio as of Aug. 31.

A review of the filing’s underlying XML identifies eight XRP ETF entries from Bitwise, Canary Capital, Franklin Templeton and Grayscale. Their reported collateral values total approximately $11.39 million.

The $11.39 million calculation reflects the aggregate value of all eight line items in the SEC filing. Two Canary entries carry identical share counts and values but belong to separate JPMorgan repurchase agreements. They are therefore reported line items, although the document alone does not establish whether they represent economically distinct blocks of shares.

An earlier estimate of approximately $4.8 million counted only three entries: $1.01 million in Grayscale shares, $3.07 million in Canary shares and $702,000 in Franklin shares. It excluded five XRP ETF collateral entries contained elsewhere in the same filing.

Schwab did not report buying XRP ETFs

The securities appeared as collateral for repurchase agreements, commonly known as repos. In a repo transaction, a money market fund provides short-term cash to a counterparty. The counterparty transfers securities as collateral and agrees to repurchase them under specified terms.

Form N-MFP3 requires money market funds to describe securities securing their repo investments. The SEC’s filing instructions expressly define the listed underlying securities as collateral.

JPMorgan Securities was the counterparty for XRP ETF entries valued at approximately $7.20 million. BofA Securities accounted for the remaining $4.19 million. The collateral pools also contained conventional equities, bonds, mortgage-backed instruments and numerous unrelated ETFs.

Advertisement

The disclosure therefore does not establish that Schwab selected XRP ETFs for investment exposure. It also does not show that Schwab pledged the shares or borrowed against them. The Schwab fund was the cash provider receiving collateral from the two securities dealers.

That distinction separates this filing from Form 13F disclosures, which report qualifying long positions held by institutional investment managers. As crypto.news previously explained, institutional crypto holdings reported on Form 13F represent ownership through listed securities rather than collateral received in repo transactions.

XRP ETFs drew nearly $2 million as rivals lost money

The collateral disclosure arrived as XRP ETFs posted the only meaningful positive flow among the main U.S. spot crypto ETF categories on Tuesday. The five products attracted nearly $2 million, according to SoSoValue.

Their cumulative net inflows reached approximately $1.69 billion. The products also collected about $173 million over the preceding 30 days, showing that Tuesday’s result formed part of a longer positive run rather than an isolated session.

The rest of the larger U.S. crypto ETF market moved in the opposite direction. Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded approximately $46.65 million in combined net outflows on Sept. 8.

Advertisement

Grayscale’s GBTC led the withdrawals with roughly $65.51 million in redemptions. Positive flows into BlackRock’s IBIT, Bitwise’s BITB, Ark and 21Shares’ ARKB and Morgan Stanley’s MSBT partly offset that amount. Together, those four products added approximately $41 million.

The Bitcoin fund group still finished negative because GBTC’s redemptions exceeded the combined inflows and activity across the remaining products. The result ended a four-session run of positive Bitcoin ETF flows.

Collateral use and inflows show different developments

The two data points should not be combined into a single measure of institutional demand. ETF inflows track net creations and redemptions. Collateral disclosures identify securities pledged to support financial transactions.

The Schwab filing shows that XRP ETF shares were eligible to enter repo collateral pools assembled by major securities dealers. Tuesday’s inflow data separately shows investors added modest net capital to XRP products while Bitcoin and other major categories experienced withdrawals.

Advertisement

XRP ETF demand had already strengthened before the filing emerged. In related coverage, the products reached record trading volume as cumulative inflows crossed $1.57 billion in August. The latest SoSoValue total extends that figure to approximately $1.69 billion.

Other filings also show direct ownership by financial firms. Goldman Sachs disclosed $86.5 million across five XRP ETFs for the second quarter of 2026 after reporting no such exposure at the end of the previous quarter.

Future monthly N-MFP3 reports will show whether XRP ETFs remain in Schwab’s repo collateral pools after the disclosed agreements mature or roll over. Daily fund-flow reports will separately indicate whether investor demand continues after the recent $173 million monthly intake.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Advertisement

Hunter Biden officially launched the politically themed “LAPTOP” memecoin on Wednesday, marking a high-profile entry into the crypto space for a figure long tied to US political drama. Early trading was volatile: the token was reported by CoinGecko at $2.0977 at 3:45 p.m. UTC after opening at $199.50, representing a sharp first-hour slide of 95.7%. CoinGecko also shows more than $13.4 million in volume during that initial period.

On-chain data analyst Bubblemaps said most of the largest holders appear to be wallets funded within the past 10 days, pointing to a rapidly assembled distribution rather than long-term accumulation. The project’s launch quickly drew both backlash and engagement across social media.

Key takeaways

• According to CoinGecko, LAPTOP’s opening price of $199.50 fell to $2.0977 within about the first hour, down 95.7% at 3:45 p.m. UTC.
• Bubblemaps data indicates a concentration of top holders in recently funded wallets, suggesting short-term positioning around the launch.
• Project disclosures describe LAPTOP as a tokenized digital collectible with no utility and no rights to profits, governance, or yield.
• Founders received 30% of the 1 billion-token supply, locked for six months and then vested monthly over 24 months.
• Airdrop allocations include up to 2% reserved for wallets that lost money on Trump-linked crypto, with eligibility tied to specific conditions outlined in the disclosures.

Launch volatility and early holder concentration

LAPTOP debuted on Ethereum’s Base layer-2 network and saw a rapid, dramatic drawdown from its first trade range. CoinGecko data, cited in the report, shows the token trading at $2.0977 at 3:45 p.m. UTC after an opening at $199.50. Trading activity accelerated quickly, with volume reported above $13.4 million in the early window.

Beyond price action, distribution patterns also stood out. Bubblemaps said that most of the top holders are wallets funded in the past 10 days, implying the token’s early ownership skewed toward accounts that positioned themselves close to the launch rather than participants with longer holding histories.

Such “fresh wallet” clustering is common in memecoin launches, but it can amplify downside risk for new buyers—particularly when supply dynamics include locked founder allocations and marketing-driven initial hype. Traders typically watch for whether holder counts stabilize after the first day and whether liquidity deepens, but those longer-term signals were not part of the early snapshot.

Biden’s response amid backlash over memecoins

Hunter Biden addressed the backlash publicly on X during Wednesday’s market reaction. In a post, he responded to criticism by framing the token’s ticker as “resilience, redemption and recovery.” He also said he understood the cynicism around memecoins and described President Donald Trump’s token as a “grift,” while warning buyers not to expect him—or others—to make LAPTOP more valuable.

The launch campaign is positioned around the “laptop narrative,” referring to a MacBook that Biden reportedly left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019. In the lead-up to the 2020 election, Trump allies promoted material they said came from that device, according to reporting referenced in the article.

Before the official launch, Biden teased the memecoin on Monday by posting the ticker alongside a montage of media coverage related to the laptop. The announcement drew criticism from prominent crypto commentators, including digital investigator Stephen Findeisen (known as Coffeezilla), who urged followers not to buy LAPTOP and called it a “shitcoin.” Other accounts told Biden there was “still time to walk this back,” underscoring that the project entered a market already primed for debate.

Base founder Jesse Pollak also weighed in, saying the project had contacted his team, but that Base made a “conscious decision” not to help with the token’s design or promotion. In other words, while the token launched on Base, the platform’s founder indicated the broader development and promotion workflow was not supported by the network’s team.

What the disclosures say: collectible framing, fixed supply, founder vesting

The project’s own disclosures, published as a PDF, describe LAPTOP as a digital collectible with no utility and no rights to governance, voting, yield, or profit-sharing. The disclosures set a fixed supply of 1 billion tokens, with 350 million tokens circulating at launch.

Founder allocation is central to understanding how the token’s supply may behave after the initial trading frenzy. The disclosures state that founders—including Biden—receive 300 million tokens (30% of the total supply). Those tokens are locked for six months and then vested monthly over the following 24 months. That schedule can matter for investors because it defines when additional tokens may enter the market under the project’s control, potentially affecting liquidity and price pressure during vesting windows.

Another 30% of supply is allocated to a mechanism tied to “political, cultural and crypto predictions,” with tokens burned when specified outcomes occur and released to charity if outcomes do not occur as described. The disclosures also outline airdrop structure, including an initial round representing 10% of total supply.

Within that initial airdrop framework, 2% of the total supply is reserved for wallets that lost money on TRUMP, while 8% is allocated for eligible subscribers to Biden’s “Where’s Hunter” Substack newsletter. The disclosures also describe a separate 10% future airdrop distributed at a foundation’s discretion, which means overall airdrops account for 20% of supply—but the specific TRUMP-loss allocation remains capped at 2%.

For readers assessing risk, the combination of a fixed supply, locked and vested founder tokens, and conditional burning/release mechanisms suggests LAPTOP’s long-term behavior may depend less on external demand shocks and more on whether vesting schedules and outcome-based rules play out as outlined.

Why the TRUMP-loss allocation became part of the narrative

Even before the launch day price action, the memecoin drew attention for tying its distribution to a “reimbursement”-style concept aimed at wallets that lost money on a Trump-linked token. That approach immediately raises questions—especially in memecoins—about eligibility, enforcement, and what qualifies as a “loss.” The disclosures cap the relevant allocation at 2% of total supply, but they do not change the underlying reality that only a limited slice of supply is earmarked for that purpose.

Hunter Biden’s earlier criticism of Trump-adjacent crypto ventures also helped shape the hypocrisy debate surrounding the launch. Earlier posts, as referenced in the article, accused a Trump-linked finance project of leveraging political influence and centralized control to benefit founders. The launch of LAPTOP then positioned Biden as both critic and participant—an asymmetry that appears to have fueled the intensity of social media reactions.

For traders, the key watchpoint is whether the token’s early speculative demand fades into sustained activity, and whether any follow-through occurs around claimed “laptop narrative” momentum beyond day-one attention. For builders and compliance-minded participants, the explicit disclosures are noteworthy: the project is framed plainly as a collectible without utility or profit rights, which can help clarify expectations during ongoing debate about memecoin value propositions.

Going forward, market participants are likely to focus on three things: how much liquidity remains after the initial volatility, whether holder concentration shifts away from newly funded wallets, and how the project’s vesting and airdrop rules—particularly the TRUMP-loss portion capped at 2%—are handled in practice as eligibility and execution become clearer.

BitMart appointed Alvarez & Marsal as its financial adviser on Sept. 9 as the crypto exchange reviews its financial position, withdrawal restrictions and possible paths following the suspension of trading.

The exchange said A&M would work alongside its legal advisers to assess its finances, stakeholder matters and arrangements for an “orderly withdrawal” process. BitMart also said it would examine a potential phased business restart and proposals from unidentified third parties.

The appointment does not reverse BitMart’s trading halt or provide users with a confirmed repayment schedule. The exchange has not published independently verified asset and liability figures, customer shortfall estimates or expected recovery rates.

BitMart gives itself three weeks to produce an action plan

BitMart said it would progressively announce its proposed action plan, user consultation process and feedback mechanisms during the next three weeks. That timetable points to further information by approximately the end of September, although the company did not provide a specific date.

The exchange plans to establish a dedicated website through which users can submit opinions about withdrawals and BitMart’s future direction. It promised to publish the link within five business days of the Sept. 9 announcement.

A&M will review BitMart’s current operations and asset position before the exchange releases related financial information. BitMart said independent review was needed to ensure that future disclosures were accurate.

However, the announcement did not specify what records A&M would examine, whether its findings would be published in full or whether users would receive an independently audited balance sheet. A search of A&M’s public website did not identify a separate statement confirming the engagement at the time of reporting.

Withdrawal arrangements remain unresolved

BitMart acknowledged that users had faced withdrawal restrictions and resulting uncertainty. It said withdrawal arrangements, asset status and future procedures were among the matters now being reviewed.

The exchange did not say how many users remain unable to withdraw, which assets are affected or how much customer property is awaiting release. It also did not provide a date for clearing pending withdrawal requests.

BitMart said it would appoint another independent third party to oversee operations and asset custody during the review. The company did not identify that party or explain its authority over wallets, private keys and transaction approvals.

This leaves several central questions unanswered. Users still lack verified figures showing BitMart’s available assets against customer liabilities. No court-supervised restructuring, bankruptcy petition or regulator-led creditor process has been announced publicly.

Claims on social media that assets are missing or that every withdrawal has failed remain unverified. BitMart’s own acknowledgement of withdrawal restrictions confirms an operational problem, but it does not establish the size or cause of any potential shortfall.

BitMart had already halted trading during its wind-down

BitMart announced an orderly wind-down on July 26, citing its operating conditions, market environment and future strategy. The original notice scheduled the end of spot, futures and other trading services for Aug. 26.

The exchange initially planned to complete the wider platform closure by Jan. 31, 2027. It encouraged users to close positions, complete identity checks and submit withdrawals as early as possible.

BitMart later began considering a restructuring that could combine creditor distributions with a phased restart. It appointed White & Case as restructuring counsel and promised an update by Sept. 9.

As crypto.news previously reported, the exchange was evaluating creditor distributions and a phased operational restart without disclosing reserve figures, creditor eligibility rules or payout percentages. The A&M appointment satisfies the promised update but does not answer those financial questions.

The company’s support pages and main website remain online. Some promotional product pages also remain visible, but their presence does not establish that centralized trading services have resumed.

A business restart remains only one possible outcome

BitMart said it would explore “various feasible follow-up actions.” Those options include a possible orderly restart and third-party proposals, but the exchange did not identify potential investors, buyers or financing providers.

The company also did not commit to reopening. Any restart would depend on the financial review, available assets, legal advice and negotiations with affected stakeholders.

User feedback may influence the assessment, according to BitMart. However, the feedback portal is a consultation channel rather than a formal creditor vote or legally binding claims process.

The next confirmed deadline is the publication of that portal within five business days. Users should then expect additional action-plan details within three weeks. The most consequential disclosures will be independently verified asset and liability figures, the status of pending withdrawals and the identity of the proposed custody supervisor.

Until those disclosures appear, BitMart’s financial condition and users’ expected recoveries remain unknown.