Wall Street bank JPMorgan and credit card giant Mastercard said they have completed the first cross-border, cross-bank redemption of a tokenized US Treasury fund, working with Ripple’s XRP Ledger and interbank settlement rails.

The pilot transaction involved blockchain tokenization platform Ondo Finance redeeming the US Ondo Short-Term US Government Treasuries (OUSG) fund for Ripple on the XRP Ledger. Mastercard’s Multi-Token Network then routed the settlement instructions for JPMorgan’s blockchain platform, Kinexys, to deliver US dollars to Ripple’s Singapore bank account.

“For the first time, a public blockchain and global banking infrastructure settled a cross-border transaction of a tokenized fund together in real time,” Ondo Finance said Wednesday.

Source: Ben Grossman

The pilot reflects growing collaboration between crypto firms and TradFi institutions seeking to build faster, lower-cost, global payment and settlement systems that run outside of traditional banking hours.

The pilot involving OUSG builds on an earlier one in which JPMorgan and Ondo Finance participated in May 2025, when the tokenized US Treasury fund was moved across a public and permissioned blockchain network. 

Real-world asset tokenization has drawn growing interest from Wall Street leaders, who envision tokenizing everything from stocks and bonds to money market funds and real estate. 

More than $31.1 billion worth of real-world assets, excluding stablecoins, is currently tokenized onchain, according to RWA.xyz data. Boston Consulting Group estimated in 2022 that the tokenization market could rise to $16 trillion by 2030, while McKinsey & Co. said it could reach a more conservative $2 trillion over the same time frame. 

Related: Stablecoins behave like FX markets as liquidity splits: Eco CEO 

The New York Stock Exchange’s parent, Intercontinental Exchange, announced in January that it would launch a tokenization platform for 24/7 trading and instant settlement of stocks and exchange-traded funds using a blockchain post-trade system, marking one of the biggest developments in the tokenization space to date.

Tokenization needs regulation before widespread adoption

Despite the developments, the International Monetary Fund flagged several concerns in an April report, including that tokenization shifts risk from the banking system to shared ledgers and smart contract code, making it more difficult to intervene during “stress events.” 

The IMF added that without legal clarity over ownership records and settlement finality, tokenized markets risk being “fragmented and peripheral.” 

Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary aired these concerns on Wednesday at Consensus Miami 2026, saying that significant capital will not be tokenized until crypto market structure legislation is passed in the US and is compliant with Securities and Exchange Commission rules.

“When that occurs, it’s going to change everything,” O’Leary said at the conference.

Magazine: North Korea denies crypto hacks, Upbit’s bank tests Ripple: Asia Express

Hut 8 (HUT) shares surged nearly 30% Wednesday as the company announced a 15-year, $9.8 billion lease tied to a large-scale AI data center project in Texas. Hut 8 also said the lease structure includes options that could increase total contract value to about $25.1 billion if all renewal terms are exercised.

The Beacoin Point campus was originally intended for bitcoin BTC$82,164.36 mining but was repositioned for AI infrastructure as demand for high-performance computing capacity accelerated, Hut 8 said.

The company’s pivot comes at a time when publicly listed bitcoin miners face increasingly challenging economics as they face losses of approximately $19,000 per coin produced, and are rapidly pivoting toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing infrastructure. More than $70 billion contracts have been signed, and some miners could derive up to 70% of their revenue from AI by the end of 2026

Hut 8 said it has commercialized the first phase of its Beacon Point campus in Nueces County through a 352-megawatt (MW) IT capacity lease with a high-investment-gerade tenant. The agreement supports AI training and inference workloads and marks Hut 8’s second major AI data center deal.

The lease brings hut 8’s total contracted AI data center capacity to 597 MW, with aggregate base-term contract value reaching about $16.8 billion. The company said it expects the Beacon Point lease to contribute roughly %655 billion in annual net operating income once stabilized.

Hut 8 said the new funding stream will support its AI infrastructure platform, including development of additional capacity at Beacon Point and growth across its broader pipeline. The campus has secured 1,000 MW of utility capacity, with initial energization expected in Q1 2027.

“Beacon Point underscores why we start with power and maintain flexibility across end markets,” said Chief Executive Asher Genoot. “Operating across multiple applications lets us underwrite assets that single-use-case developers cannot, then redirect them toward higher-value commercialization pathways as demand evolves.”

The company said the project is designed to NVIDIA’s DSX reference architecture and will be developed with partners including American Electric Power, Vertiv and Jacobs. Initial delivery of the first data hall is expected by Q3 2027, it added.

Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase was sued in California federal court over frozen crypto allegedly tied to a $55 million DAI phishing theft from August 2024.

The complaint, filed Monday in a San Francisco federal court, alleges that after laundering the proceeds through crypto mixer Tornado Cash, the attacker deposited part of the “traceable stolen funds” into a Coinbase retail user account, where the funds remain frozen. 

The Puerto Rico-based plaintiff is asking the court to declare him the rightful owner of the frozen assets and order Coinbase to return them. The lawsuit also names an unknown John Doe defendant accused of carrying out the theft.

The lawsuit questions the responsibility of cryptocurrency exchanges in handling stolen funds that were traceably sent to these platforms after an exploit. The complaint claims that Coinbase has “acknowledged” that it holds these traced funds and has “indicated that a court order adjudicating ownership is required before it will release the frozen assets.”

The case highlights a problem in crypto theft recovery where exchanges may freeze suspected stolen funds after receiving alerts, but often require a court order before releasing assets to a claimant.

The lawsuit comes nearly two years after an exploiter stole $55 million in Dai stablecoins through a sophisticated phishing attack that deceived the victim into clicking a malicious link to a fraudulent DeFi Saver login, authorizing the attacker to gain access to his account and wallets.

Cointelegraph has reached out to Coinbase for more details surrounding the stolen funds and the path towards user recovery.

Coinbase sued for funds linked to the $55 million DeFi Saver hack. Source: CourtListener

Crypto wallet drainer was used to facilitate $55 million exploit

The $55 million exploit was carried out using the malicious Inferno Drainer platform, which offers a scam-as-a-service malware for malicious actors seeking to facilitate digital asset theft without the need to exploit code-level protocol vulnerabilities.

In addition to notifying law enforcement, the victim contracted crypto analytics platforms Zero Shadow and Five Stones intelligence to trace the stolen crypto. The companies found evidence linking the laundering of the funds to Ukrainian citizen Okelsiy Oleksandrovych Gorelikhin.

On Nov. 30, 2024, Zero Shadow notified Coinbase that stolen funds linked to the theft had been deposited into a Coinbase address, asking the exchange to conduct due diligence and freeze the assets.

On Dec. 2, 2024, Coinbase confirmed that the address belongs to a Coinbase retail user and that it implemented “friction measures” preventing dissipation of those funds pending investigation.

The court filing argued that the stolen cryptocurrency held in the Coinbase account was “identifiable property traceable to Plaintiff’s stolen assets” and added that the defendant had previously demanded the return of the assets.

Related: Arbitrum voters consider $71M ETH release for Kelp recovery

The year 2024 was a breakout year for scam-as-a-service tools, with usage of Inferno Drainer tripling in the first half of the year, rising from roughly 800 malicious decentralized applications created at the start of the year to over 2,400 by the end of it, according to blockchain security firm Blockaid.

Magazine: AI-driven hacks could kill DeFi — unless projects act now

U.S. prosecutors have become increasingly aggressive in freezing digital assets believed to be traceable to illicit activities such as money laundering, “pig butchering” schemes, sanctions violations, and other financial crimes. Digital asset freezes take on a new dimension, however, when the freeze is voluntarily initiated by the issuer at the government’s request, bypassing the legal protections of a traditional asset seizure. In such instances, digital asset holders are often caught off guard, unaware that their funds are allegedly tainted and suddenly deprived of access to assets or income acquired through legitimate means.

Traditional asset seizures

In traditional financial crime investigations, the federal government’s authority to restrain or seize assets is governed by established legal and constitutional safeguards. Law enforcement typically must demonstrate a connection between the property and alleged criminal activity and obtain judicial authorization, such as a seizure warrant, before restricting access to those assets.

Seized assets are then subject to the federal forfeiture regime, which operates through overlapping authorities, including civil forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 983, and criminal forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 982.

Digital asset blacklisting

Voluntary digital asset freezes represent a departure from traditional seizure processes. Rather than obtaining judicial authorization, law enforcement may request that an issuer freeze or blacklist specific wallet addresses. This practice has been reinforced by the GENIUS Act, which requires stablecoin issuers to maintain the technical capability to freeze, burn, or otherwise restrict tokens to comply with law enforcement directives.

For affected digital asset holders, recourse through the stablecoin or other digital asset issuer is often limited because those issuers generally defer to the requesting government agency and do not know the underlying basis for the freeze. As a result, individuals and entities whose assets have been frozen typically must engage directly with the relevant governmental authority to seek relief.

These challenges are compounded by two defining features of blockchain systems: pseudonymity and traceability. While wallet addresses do not inherently reveal the identity of their owners, blockchain transactions are publicly visible and can be traced across multiple transfers absent the use of mixers or other privacy-enhancing services. Law enforcement agencies thus routinely use blockchain forensic tools to follow the movement of funds originating from wallets suspected of involvement in illicit activity.

At the same time, tracing funds across a decentralized network introduces significant uncertainty due to wallet pseudonymity. Although investigators may identify an initial source of illicit activity, they are often unable or choose not to expend the resources required to differentiate between downstream wallets controlled by individuals who are involved in the criminal scheme and those controlled by innocent bystanders who have unwittingly received the allegedly tainted funds.

In our experience – including the successful unlocking of tens of millions of dollars in wrongfully frozen funds – it is not enough to point to the number of transactions, or “hops,” between the upstream illicit activity and the downstream frozen wallet. Government agencies will instead seek to understand how and why the funds were acquired and demand contemporaneous documentary evidence of the legitimacy of the transactions – unfairly but unmistakably shifting the burden of proof from the investigating agency to the digital asset holder whose funds have been frozen.

Simply put, U.S. law enforcement’s approach is to freeze first, and ask questions later – and then to require owners of the frozen digital assets to prove their innocence to get their funds back. This tactic, combined with U.S. law enforcement’s expansive view of U.S. jurisdiction, puts all holders of stablecoins or other digital assets anywhere in the world at risk, whether they unwittingly acquired the assets five, 10, or even 20 hops downstream from illicit activity.

Practical tips for stablecoin issuers and those affected by stablecoin freezes

Notwithstanding the challenges involved, participants on both sides of governmental digital asset freeze requests – both issuers and holders – retain a variety of ways to protect themselves:

Individuals and entities affected by digital asset freezes

When a wallet is frozen, the window to respond effectively can be narrow, and early missteps can be difficult to unwind. To minimize these risks, we recommend digital asset holders:

• Engage counsel with experience not only in criminal defense and engaging with governmental agencies, but also specifically in digital asset matters, digital asset transactions and tracing.
• Assemble a clear factual record: how the funds were acquired, the purpose of the transactions, and any due diligence performed on counterparties. For entities, this should also include relevant internal policies governing digital asset use. The objective is to present a coherent and well-supported account demonstrating that the funds were obtained and used for legitimate purposes, without knowledge of any underlying upstream illicit activity.
• Consider a proactive approach. In some cases, it may be advantageous to engage proactively with the government agency responsible for the freeze, rather than waiting for further action. Early engagement, if carefully handled, can help shape the narrative before the government’s speculative assumptions solidify into hardened narratives.
• And of course, exercise caution. Communications with issuers or investigators may carry legal consequences, and statements made without a full understanding of the facts or legal posture can complicate efforts to secure the release of funds.

Digital asset issuers

To reduce exposure to civil litigation by users who believe their assets have been improperly frozen, digital asset issuers can:

• Adopt clear, consistent procedures when responding to governmental freeze requests, including how and whether issuers respond to user requests for information.
• Maintain an internal policy governing when and how such requests are honored, particularly where the request is not supported by a court order or other compulsory process.
• Make clear in the user terms of service or other documentation that the issuer complies with governmental freeze requests, including those that are not accompanied by a court order or other compulsory process if applicable.
• Maintain a record of all communications with governmental agencies or users in connection with specific freeze requests, and the basis for effecting the freeze.

US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand signaled that any floor vote on a proposed digital asset market structure bill would hinge on three key conditions: robust consumer protections, strong illicit-finance controls, and a rigorous ethics framework. Speaking at the Consensus conference in Miami, she argued that lawmakers should harmonize the draft with the version approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee and attach formal ethics language before moving forward. If those elements are in place, Gillibrand said a vote could occur before the August recess, which begins on Aug. 10.

“There will be no one voting for this bill if we don’t have an ethics provision,” Gillibrand told attendees, underscoring the concern that insider advantages and pay-for-play dynamics must be barred as the industry continues to evolve rapidly. The senator emphasized that a combined package—integrating consumer protections, anti-illicit-finance measures, and ethics language—could unlock a path to consideration in a relatively tight legislative window.

While Gillibrand did not name President Donald Trump, the remarks come amid broader scrutiny of political ties to the crypto sector as lawmakers weigh the CLARITY Act. The debate has grown more acute as elected officials assess potential conflicts of interest and the governance of digital-asset markets in a U.S. regulatory framework.

On the policy front, last week senators on the Senate Banking Committee announced a deal on a stablecoin yield compromise that could help advance the market-structure legislation. However, they did not address language related to conflicts of interest by public officials, a gap that critics say remains essential to close before any vote.

Crypto industry figures weighed in on the timing and content of the bill as Consensus unfolded. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse warned that lawmakers should act in the near term to avoid the issue getting buried by midterm dynamics, while Summer Mersinger, a former CFTC commissioner and CEO of the Blockchain Association, framed the moment as a window of opportunity that could reopen after the August recess if momentum returns.

Key takeaways

• The CLARITY Act’s path to a floor vote now hinges on three conditions: consumer protections, illicit-finance safeguards, and ethics language.
• A merged bill—combining elements from the package approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee with the current draft—could allow a vote before the August recess if ethics provisions are included.
• Industry voices warn that timing matters: a narrow window exists to push the bill before political dynamics pull focus toward midterm campaigns.
• Senate Banking Committee activity remains in flux, with a markup not yet rescheduled after January’s postponement and industry observers split on how the draft treats DeFi, stablecoins, and tokenized equities.
• Market expectations reflect divergent odds: Polymarket prices a roughly 65% chance of CLARITY Act passage by year-end 2026, while Kalshi assigns about a 49% chance of passage before August.

Gillibrand’s conditions sharpen the debate on a path forward

Gillibrand’s framing of the three prerequisites reframes what a prospective vote would need to address beyond technicalities. The first pillar—consumer protection—signals a push for clearer disclosures, robust product-safety standards, and safeguards against misleading marketing in a sector that blends traditional financial activity with high-velocity innovation. The second pillar—illicit-finance controls—highlights the administration’s interest in anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing measures that can stand up to fast-moving on-chain activity and cross-border transactions. The third pillar—ethics—goes straight to governance and credibility: lawmakers argued that any framework should prevent senior officials or insiders from profiting from regulatory ambiguity or preferential access to information.

By tying these elements together, Gillibrand signaled a potential redesign of the bill’s final form rather than a narrow tweak to existing language. The question for investors and builders is how aggressively the administration would codify ethics rules, what form consumer-protection requirements take for wallet providers and exchanges, and how strictly the bill would police on-chain entities operating in gray areas of DeFi and tokenized assets. She also hinted that achieving this alignment quickly would require close coordination between the House and Senate, and a willingness to compromise on contentious points that have sparked opposition from various industry stakeholders.

Industry voices outline the timing and the stakes

Supporters and critics alike have eyed the clock as Consensus highlighted how fast-moving policy signals can reshape funding, product launches, and exchange participation. Ripple’s Brad Garlinghouse argued that lawmakers need to address the bill in the next couple of weeks to preserve momentum before election-season distractions intensify. He framed timely action as essential to avoid a muddier political atmosphere that can stall progress on comprehensive digital-asset regulation.

Meanwhile, Summer Mersinger, who previously served as a CFTC commissioner and now leads the Blockchain Association, stressed that there is a limited “window of opportunity” to act. “That doesn’t mean the window’s not going to open again,” she noted, acknowledging the unpredictable arc of legislative momentum. Her point: even if a gap closes in August, the topic could resurface after the recess if market activity and constituent interest demand renewed attention.

The politics of timing are intertwined with the policy content. Industry participants have long argued that any final framework must provide clarity for innovation ecosystems—ranging from DeFi protocols to tokenized equities—without stifling consumer confidence or exposing U.S. markets to regulatory arbitrage. The current discourse reflects a tension between advancing a clear national standard and accommodating a rapidly evolving landscape where firms operate across borders and across product types.

Legislative pace, market bets, and what comes next

As of midweek, the Senate Banking Committee had not re-scheduled a markup on the market-structure bill after a January postponement. The delay comes at a delicate moment for the ecosystem: while some lawmakers press for swift action, others have expressed concerns about the bill’s stance on DeFi, stablecoins, and tokenized equities. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly voiced opposition to the bill as drafted, arguing it did not adequately address several core concerns, a stance echoed by other stakeholders who fear overreach on innovative financial instruments.

The industry’s sentiment is reinforced by market-oriented bets on policy outcomes. Polymarket currently assigns about a 65% probability of the CLARITY Act becoming law by the end of 2026, reflecting a belief that compromise could emerge in the second half of this decade. Kalshi’s pricing, meanwhile, sits closer to 49% for passage before August, underscoring the sense that the policy timeline remains highly uncertain and deeply contingent on partisan dynamics and committee actions.

Looking ahead, observers will watch for whether the Banking Committee resumes its markup, how ethics and conflict-of-interest language is negotiated, and whether a stablecoin-yield framework can be reconciled with broader market-structure protections. The unfolding debate will influence not only regulatory clarity but also how market participants design products, allocate capital, and manage risk in a regime that seeks to balance innovation with consumer safeguards.

Related coverage continues to explore public sentiment toward crypto and AI in a political funding environment, underscoring how consumer trust and political finance dynamics intersect with policy design. Readers can follow ongoing developments around the CLARITY Act and related regulatory initiatives as Congress weighs the next steps in this evolving space.

As discussions proceed, investors and builders should monitor not only the textual changes in the bill but also the procedural signals from the Senate Banking Committee and the broader political calendar. The outcome will shape the rules of the road for a fast-moving industry over the coming quarters—and could set the pace for global regulatory alignment in digital assets.

Miami Beach — The stablecoin universe, dominated by Tether and Circle, hampers competition that could lead to better product-market fit for some important use cases, according to Ben O’Neill, Bridge’s head of money movement.

“I think it’s a net bad for the growth of stablecoins as a whole, because you have two counterparties that have pros and cons to what they’ve built, and the design choices they’ve made. But they don’t work for every use case,” O’Neill said on a panel about stablecoin growth at Consensus Miami.

Tether’s USDT, with its gargantuan market capitalization of approximately $189.5 billion, and Circle’s USDC, which has grown to around $71 billion, each emerged at different generational eras in the crypto evolution.

Tether, launched in 2014 as Realcoin, won the Chinese export trade, O’Neill said, and built this shadow economy of dollars that people can use without the U.S. financial system. Circle, launched in association with Coinbase in 2018, sought to do the exact opposite: a U.S.-regulated stablecoin, which later leaned hard into decentralized finance (DeFi).

For O’Neill, the perspective of a large payments firm, such as Bridge-owner Stripe, illustrates the shortcomings of the two dollar-pegged token giants.

“As a payments company, I need certainty on how things are going to work,” he said. “So with Tether, they say we’ll burn for 10 bips, which is crazy expensive for a payments company, or you can trade on the open market, which means I have no certainty.”

“For Circle, their whole business is AUM, and they keep kind of notching up those burn fees. So again, if I’m someone like Visa, and I want to do trillions of dollars of card settlement and stablecoins, I’m burning a bunch of USDC, and that’s gonna be a net bad,” O’Neill said.

The solution, “which needs to come pretty quickly over the next couple of years,” is more stablecoins built for specific use cases, so they can be optimized for those use cases. The other part is the rise of the clearing house, “a sexy topic for founders and VCs” to make it “as efficient as possible swapping between stablecoins,” he added.

Closing out his argument, O’Neill said, “You need more competition, otherwise [Tether and Circle] are going to just keep upping the fees. They’re not gonna share the yield. They’re gonna disincentivize you from burning it. They’re gonna make it harder and harder to make it feel like money at each turn.”

The White House is aiming for July 4 for Congress to pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, told CoinDesk’s Consensus Miami conference on Wednesday.

“We’re targeting July 4th. I think that would be a tremendous birthday present for America, celebrating our 250th,” Witt said. The mechanics, according to Witt, are: Senate Banking Committee markup this month, four working Senate weeks in June for floor passage and enough runway for a U.S. House of Representatives vote before the Independence Day deadline.

That timeline runs ahead of the prediction Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand shared on the same stage earlier in the day, when the New York Democrat predicted Clarity would reach the president’s desk by the first week of August.

“There’s not a lot of slack left in the rope right now,” Witt said. “But it is an achievable timeline.”

The path to markup opened when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) released a compromise on the bill’s stablecoin-yield provisions in early May, banning bank-deposit-equivalent yield on stablecoins while leaving room for rewards tied to spending. Witt said the White House convened banks and crypto firms to fashion the language, then handed it to the senators, who ran their own process and arrived at a text both sides found equally unsatisfying.

“Crypto is unhappy, banks are unhappy, but they’re both about equally unhappy,” Witt said. “And so we know that we got the right compromise.” Witt considered that the stablecoin-yield issue “is closed.”

The White House is also closing in on a deal on the conflict-of-interest provision that has divided Democrats and the administration. Witt said the negotiating posture is to accept rules that apply “across the board, from the president all the way down to the brand new intern on Capitol Hill,” but reject anything that singles out a particular office or officeholder. “We’re not going to allow targeting of anyone’s family, any one particular politician,” he said. “I’m optimistic that we’re going to be able to close that out.”

Speaking on what happens if Clarity slips past 2026, Witt said “If we’re not setting the standard, if we’re not writing the rules, then we are going to be a rule follower, and we’re going to be following somebody else’s rulebook on this. And God forbid it’s China that’s ultimately writing those rules.”

U.S. leadership in global capital markets, he added, is one of the things that “underwrite American hegemony.”

Witt also discussed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, the stablecoin-issuer law passed last year, where rulemaking by the Treasury Department, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and other agencies is closing in on a one-year July deadline.

“These are complicated issues. They require following the Administrative Procedures Act, soliciting comments. And we received a flood of comments,” Witt said. The law, he added, exemplifies “the efficient frontier of regulation: just enough to allow an industry to flourish… but not so much that you overly burden an innovation into irrelevance.”