Kraken has secured a $22 million arbitration award against its former auditor Mazars USA, with co-CEO Arjun Sethi linking the dispute to what he described as Operation Chokepoint 2.0.

According to a letter published Tuesday by Kraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi, parent company Payward has asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to enter judgment on the arbitration award after prevailing against Mazars USA. The dispute centers on the firm’s withdrawal from Kraken’s nearly completed 2022 audit, which Sethi said caused financial damage to the exchange.

Sethi wrote that Mazars ended the engagement despite finding no fraud, raising no concerns about Kraken’s management and reporting no disagreements with the company. He argued that the decision disrupted access to banking relationships, licensing processes and other essential business services that rely on completed independent audits.

Describing audits as critical infrastructure for financial companies, Sethi wrote that “an audit is not a favor. It is oxygen,” while arguing that lawful crypto firms were denied access to basic financial services during the period.

Sethi ties audit dispute to regulatory pressure

In the letter, Sethi attributed Mazars’ withdrawal to Operation Chokepoint 2.0, a term used by parts of the crypto industry to describe alleged coordinated pressure on banks, auditors and service providers to distance themselves from digital asset companies.

To support that argument, the letter pointed to several regulatory developments during 2023. These included joint guidance issued by U.S. banking regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s since-rescinded Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121, and the collapse of crypto-focused banking networks Silvergate SEN and Signature Bank’s Signet payment system.

Sethi also urged Congress to pass the CLARITY Act, saying a dedicated crypto market structure law would provide clearer operating rules for digital asset companies instead of relying on enforcement actions.

Offering his own reaction on X, Kraken co-CEO Dave Ripley said the arbitration case represented only part of what happened during that period. Ripley described the $22 million award as compensation for financial harm that he said resulted from a coordinated campaign against the crypto industry.

Meanwhile, U.S. regulators have continued reviewing banking oversight tied to digital assets. In February, the Federal Reserve requested public feedback on a proposal to remove “reputation risk” from bank supervision after its 2025 directive instructing supervisors to stop pressuring banks to close customer accounts over reputational concerns. Critics of the previous framework argued the proposal could help end practices associated with Operation Chokepoint 2.0.

Kraken expands products while IPO plans continue

Even as the legal dispute moves through the Delaware court, Kraken has continued adding new institutional and trading products.

As previously reported by crypto.news, the exchange recently began allowing eligible users outside the United States to use selected tokenized stocks and exchange-traded funds as collateral for futures and margin trading on Kraken Pro.

The launch covers 10 xStocks assets, including SPYx, QQQx, AAPLx, GOOGLx, TSLAx, NVDAx, HOODx, MSTRx, GLDx and CRCLx, allowing traders to back leveraged crypto positions without selling those holdings.

The collateral initiative follows other recent product launches. In May, Payward partnered with Franklin Templeton to introduce tokenized money market products for collateral and cash management on Kraken. A month later, Kraken and Maple launched an institutional crypto lending structure using a bankruptcy-remote vehicle for crypto-backed loans.

Founded in 2011, Kraken has also been preparing for a public listing. The company disclosed in November 2025 that it had confidentially submitted a draft Form S-1 registration statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

However, reports published in May said the IPO may be delayed until 2027 because of weaker crypto market conditions and ongoing cost-cutting efforts.

Nigel Farage has resigned as a Member of Parliament after confirming he will seek re-election in a by-election while facing scrutiny over multimillion-dollar gifts from figures linked to the crypto industry.

According to statements Farage made during an X livestream on Tuesday, the Reform UK leader stepped down as the MP for Clacton so local voters could decide whether he should continue representing the constituency while parliamentary investigations into his financial declarations continue.

Key Highlights

• RZLV declined 1.34% following the introduction of Auditable AI technology.
• The new platform feature provides clear explanations for product recommendations.
• Rezolve targets enhanced enterprise trust in AI-powered commerce systems.
• The solution offers visibility into customer data and operational business logic.
• Company research indicates a 3.7x enhancement in transparency metrics.

Resolve AI PLC (RZLV) closed at $2.7328, declining 1.34% after pulling back from intraday highs to settle near the day’s lower range. The organization unveiled a new AI-driven feature designed to enhance transparency within commerce technology. This development extends its enterprise offerings and seeks to bolster trust in AI-powered product suggestions.

Rezolve AI PLC, RZLV

Platform expansion introduces transparent recommendation engine for enterprise users

Rezolve Ai unveiled Auditable AI as an integrated component of its enterprise commerce infrastructure. This innovation clarifies each product suggestion by referencing shopper preferences, transaction histories, product specifications, and operational guidelines. Through this approach, companies gain enhanced understanding of how recommendation algorithms arrive at specific conclusions.

The organization developed this solution to overcome transparency obstacles that have historically hindered enterprise AI implementation. Numerous current AI frameworks produce suggestions without revealing underlying logic. In response, this new functionality delivers human-readable explanations accessible to both businesses and end users.

Rezolve emphasized that this feature bolsters enterprise trust while encouraging wider commercial integration. The system additionally provides organizations with improved visibility throughout recommendation workflows during consumer engagements. As such, merchants can more effectively verify results and strengthen internal governance throughout digital commerce channels.

Enhanced platform capabilities reinforce commitment to reliable AI infrastructure

This recent introduction continues Rezolve’s ongoing platform enhancements centered on enterprise dependability. The organization previously tackled recommendation precision through specialized architecture that minimized erroneous AI outputs. Subsequently, it broadened supervision functionalities by launching monitoring solutions for autonomous AI behaviors.

Through this latest enhancement, Rezolve now delivers precision, responsibility, and clarity within a consolidated enterprise system. This comprehensive methodology supports organizations pursuing explainable artificial intelligence for business applications. Furthermore, the infrastructure aims to enhance confidence without compromising operational performance.

The organization also engineered the framework to function across various artificial intelligence architectures. Accordingly, enterprises can uphold uniform transparency benchmarks while deploying different AI technologies. This adaptability accommodates businesses managing varied technology ecosystems throughout retail and commerce operations.

Supporting studies demonstrate commercial advantages and wider sector applicability

Rezolve indicated that transparent recommendations can enhance consumer confidence throughout buying journeys. Shoppers can comprehend recommendation rationale through explanations derived from their documented preferences and prior behavior. Subsequently, retailers may deepen customer relationships while minimizing uncertainty during transactions.

The infrastructure also detects ambiguous customer signals before finalizing recommendation workflows. Rather than producing vague suggestions, the framework solicits supplementary information when required. This approach enables businesses to obtain more dependable recommendation results while minimizing unsuitable product pairings.

Based on company-sponsored studies, the technology achieved a 3.7-fold enhancement in transparency relative to traditional large language model frameworks. The supporting investigation also earned acceptance for presentation at the International Conference on Social Robotics 2026 in London. Concurrently, Rezolve intends to incorporate this technology throughout its Brain Suite platform as part of its ongoing enterprise commerce initiative.

European Parliament lawmakers have adopted a formal policy position on digital assets, urging the European Commission to examine whether key areas of the crypto ecosystem should be brought more clearly within the EU’s regulatory framework following the rollout of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime.

The Parliament’s stance, approved Tuesday in a vote on the report “Digital assets – challenges for the competitiveness and integrity of the European Union’s financial system,” does not itself amend MiCA or impose new direct legal duties on market participants. Instead, it signals the direction EU legislators want regulators and the Commission to consider as MiCA’s initial implementation period concludes.

Key takeaways

• Parliament calls for clearer regulatory coverage of activities such as DeFi, crypto lending and borrowing, staking, and NFTs, subject to an EU-wide review.
• Lawmakers stress the need for consistent MiCA application across member states to avoid fragmented rules for the digital asset market.
• The vote turns the report into the Parliament’s official policy position, without directly changing MiCA legislation.
• MiCA’s transitional period for covered providers ended on July 1, increasing the importance of how regulators treat activities outside the current framework.

Policy position after MiCA’s rollout

MiCA provides a licensing and conduct framework for crypto-asset service providers and issuers of certain token types. However, the Parliament report reflects an ongoing debate in Brussels about how the EU should approach parts of the sector that are not fully addressed under the current scope of MiCA.

In particular, lawmakers asked the European Commission to assess whether activities including decentralized finance (DeFi), crypto lending and borrowing, staking, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) should be brought more explicitly into the EU’s regulatory perimeter. The report also raises the question of how tokenized financial assets fit within the broader regulatory architecture.

Beyond expanding the regulatory gaze, the paper warns against the emergence of national rules that could break the EU’s single market for digital assets into separate regimes. That point matters for companies operating cross-border: inconsistent interpretations across member states could complicate compliance planning and product rollout, even where MiCA is formally meant to harmonize rules.

DeFi, staking, lending and NFTs remain central questions

Although MiCA established baseline requirements for certain crypto actors, policymakers have continued to discuss how to regulate or classify decentralized and hybrid models—especially where services are offered through protocols rather than clearly identifiable intermediaries. The Parliament’s push to examine DeFi, staking, and crypto lending suggests lawmakers want a more structured approach to these activities as market participation grows.

The report also signals that NFTs and other tokenized forms of digital assets remain politically salient. While tokenized assets can span everything from collectibles to financial representations, the Parliament’s call for an assessment indicates that legislators want clarity on when existing rules adequately protect users and when regulatory gaps remain.

Commission review and the stability-stablecoin debate

The European Commission has already been exploring whether MiCA should be adapted. In May, the Commission opened a public consultation on potential changes to the framework, including whether additional crypto activities should fall within scope. The consultation also covered whether restrictions on interest-bearing stablecoins should be revisited.

By adopting Tuesday’s position paper, Parliament effectively adds legislative weight to that review. The report’s emphasis on expanding the regulatory perimeter where needed—and keeping implementation consistent—fits the broader narrative that MiCA is both a foundation and a starting point rather than a final endpoint.

Lawmakers also framed the discussion in terms of EU competitiveness. The Parliament’s report takes a more supportive tone toward tokenization and euro-denominated stablecoins, arguing that well-regulated digital assets could strengthen the competitiveness of EU financial markets if rules are applied consistently across the bloc.

What MiCA transition ending changes for compliance

One practical driver behind the timing is MiCA’s implementation timetable. According to Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage, MiCA’s transitional period ended on July 1, meaning crypto-asset service providers covered by MiCA can no longer rely on the transition to continue operations across the EU without authorization under the new licensing framework.

This matters in the policy debate because authorization processes and conduct rules already create immediate compliance obligations for covered providers. At the same time, activities that sit outside MiCA’s current scope—such as parts of the DeFi stack or certain token types—can become more controversial as regulated entities seek clarity and as market participants test the boundaries of existing rules.

Parliament’s warning about fragmented national approaches therefore lands with particular force as companies navigate both the MiCA licensing regime and unresolved questions about how the framework will treat broader categories of crypto activity.

Over the coming months, market participants should watch for how the European Commission responds to the consultation process and to Parliament’s newly adopted position—especially around whether DeFi, staking, lending, and NFTs move closer to MiCA’s regulatory perimeter, and how Brussels plans to maintain consistent application across member states as providers transition fully to the authorization model.

Bitcoin is trading near $64,000 and is still down sharply from its most recent cycle high above $126,000 reached in October 2025. The drawdown is less dramatic than in earlier cycles, but the rally that followed the 2025 post-halving momentum and exchange-traded fund (ETF) inflows has clearly cooled—leaving analysts to debate not only where the market will go next, but what “a cycle bottom” even means in a market increasingly shaped by traditional finance.

As bearish and bullish camps clash, the common thread is that Bitcoin’s current moves are harder to interpret using old playbooks. Several analysts argue that liquidity and macro conditions are still driving outcomes, while others say ETF-linked institutional demand has shifted the dynamics enough that standard cycle signals may not fully reset. Meanwhile, one view increasingly framed the question as an issue of global capital allocation—whether crypto can again attract marginal risk capital versus AI and equities.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin’s decline from the October 2025 peak has not triggered a clear consensus on whether a durable bottom is already in.
• One camp links downside risk to macro liquidity and expected retests of lower ranges, rather than crypto-native cycle indicators.
• Another camp points to sell-side exhaustion signals and suggests downside may be limited, even if the final bottom remains unconfirmed.
• A structural perspective argues that ETFs and the growing role of derivatives mean Bitcoin may build a broader base rather than print a sharp V-shaped low.

Why bulls and bears disagree on the meaning of “bottom”

In the run-up to the October 2025 high, Bitcoin’s strength was tied to a mix of post-halving momentum and renewed institutional demand, with spot Bitcoin ETF flows playing a prominent role. Since then, price action has turned downward, but the magnitude of the pullback—roughly half from the cycle peak—has been enough to keep both sides engaged.

Standard Chartered and other bullish institutional desks have suggested Bitcoin may have already found a cycle bottom, citing improving long-term capital flows and structural ETF-related demand. In contrast, Galaxy Research argued in June that traditional cycle signals may not have fully reset, meaning investors should not assume the worst is over simply because the market has declined materially.

That tension has become more pronounced because Bitcoin’s trading environment is now different. ETFs increase off-chain participation, macro liquidity affects risk appetite more directly, and the way derivatives markets feed into day-to-day pricing can blur the signals that historically defined cycle turning points.

Downside scenarios: Bitcoin still tied to macro liquidity

On the more cautious end, Russell Thomson, chief investment officer at Hilbert Capital, told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin remains in a downcycle and could break below recent lows before forming what he considers a durable base.

Thomson’s path is explicit: he expects Bitcoin to first revisit the $56,000 to $52,000 area, which corresponds to summer 2024 lows. If that range does not stabilize the market, he pointed to a further extension toward approximately $40,000 to $45,000, which he associates with prior consolidation phases early in 2024.

He also framed timing in terms of the broader cycle rhythm, suggesting a potential low around October 2026, while emphasizing that macro policy changes could move that timeframe earlier. Thomson singled out Fed rate cuts and the potential passage of the CLARITY Act as examples of developments that could bring the bottom forward.

Importantly, his argument is not that Bitcoin is insulated by institutional participation—it is that institutional capital may have increased Bitcoin’s sensitivity to global liquidity. In his characterization, Bitcoin behaves less like a detached, crypto-native asset and more like a “high-beta macro instrument.”

That framing aligns with research coverage from Citibank. Reuters reported on July 1 that Citi cut its 12-month Bitcoin price target to $82,000 from $112,000, citing ETF flows turning negative and broader market dynamics. Reuters also emphasized that the growing integration of Bitcoin into traditional markets may have strengthened correlations with risk assets and macro liquidity rather than reducing volatility.

Late-stage bear market view: exhaustion signals, but confirmation lacking

André Dragosch, head of research (Europe) at Bitwise, offers a middle position: he sees the environment as consistent with a late-stage bear market, where multiple indicators already point to downside exhaustion.

Dragosch told Cointelegraph that sentiment deterioration has reached levels last seen after the collapse of FTX in 2022, a period often associated with seller fatigue. However, he stopped short of declaring that the cycle bottom is definitively in place, saying he does not believe the final bottom has been confirmed—though the market is probably “very close.”

He also cautioned against treating any single indicator as definitive for identifying a cycle bottom, especially as the market structure evolves. With ETFs and institutional participation increasing off-chain trading, Dragosch argued that some historical cycle indicators may be less reliable than they were in prior cycles.

Even with that uncertainty, he suggested that risks may be increasingly limited at current levels. He added that Bitcoin could potentially outperform artificial intelligence equities over the coming months if macro conditions stabilize—an observation that reinforces the broader theme: the next stage may depend less on internal crypto metrics and more on whether the macro backdrop shifts in favor of risk assets.

Galaxy Research’s base-case scenario, referenced in the same discussion, similarly points to the possibility of further downside—projecting a range of roughly $40,000 to $46,000—depending on how liquidity and macro conditions evolve.

Structural shift: derivatives and ETF-era competition complicate cycle calls

Dean Chen, an analyst at Bitunix Exchange, approached the debate from a structural angle. He told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin remains in a downcycle, but that the decline is increasingly defined by global liquidity competition rather than internal crypto market structure.

Chen argued that the approval of US spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2024 created a structural capital base that supports Bitcoin’s valuation range, even if price is still trending downward. In his view, ETFs have made institutional demand more persistent, but they have also placed Bitcoin into direct competition with other major global narratives for incremental liquidity—particularly artificial intelligence and equities.

This is a key distinction. If Bitcoin is competing for marginal capital rather than acting as a self-contained asset within crypto-specific cycles, then “bottom calling” may need to shift. Chen said the more important question is not simply when Bitcoin bottoms, but when crypto once again becomes the most attractive destination for global risk capital.

He further noted that derivatives markets play a larger role in price discovery now than in previous cycles. With funding rates and open interest increasingly influencing short-term volatility, Chen argued that Bitcoin may not print a sharp, single-moment V-shaped bottom. Instead, he suggested it could spend a prolonged period building a structural base.

A cycle that may not fit the old template

Taken together, the competing views highlight a deeper disagreement than just where prices might land. Thomson emphasizes macro-driven downcycle risk and expects additional retests before a durable base. Dragosch points to late-stage bear market characteristics and seller fatigue signals, but stresses that the final bottom still isn’t confirmed. Chen argues that ETF-era structure, derivatives-driven volatility, and competition for liquidity make historical “cycle bottom” frameworks increasingly incomplete.

In this cycle, the dispute appears to be shifting from “what price is the bottom?” to “whether a bottom still behaves like a single, discrete event.”

For investors and traders, the next signals to watch may be less about finding a precise turning-point label and more about whether macro liquidity conditions improve, how ETF-linked flows behave, and whether derivatives positioning stabilizes. Until those forces align, the question of a confirmed bottom is likely to remain open—even if downside exhaustion is already visible in sentiment.