Strategy has unveiled the Bitcoin Security Consortium, a new coalition of financial institutions and Bitcoin-focused companies aimed at strengthening the network’s resilience against the potential impact of future quantum computing breakthroughs. In a Thursday announcement, Strategy said the group plans to commit an aggregate $15 million over the next three years toward developer efforts focused on “quantum security” work for Bitcoin.

The initiative adds formal institutional backing to a debate that has been running through the Bitcoin ecosystem for years: how and when (or whether) quantum computers could force a shift in how the network secures transactions. While experts disagree on timelines, the consortium’s creation signals that large players are preparing for long-horizon security challenges rather than waiting for consensus to harden.

Key takeaways

• Strategy says the consortium will fund $15 million over three years to support developer work on Bitcoin’s quantum security.
• Founding members include major asset managers and crypto firms such as BlackRock, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Blockstream.
• Day-to-day coordination will be handled by Mike Schmidt, a volunteer executive director of Brink, a non-profit focused on Bitcoin open-source developers.
• Galaxy pledged up to $5 million in separate grants earlier this week and formed a quantum-advisory council for research on migration solutions.
• Bitcoin’s quantum risk timeline remains contested, with industry estimates ranging from decades away to only a few years.

A consortium built around long-term quantum resilience

According to Strategy’s press release, the Bitcoin Security Consortium brings together financial institutions and Bitcoin companies with the shared goal of supporting work designed to protect the network against a potential quantum-security threat. Strategy’s stated focus is enabling developers to pursue approaches that would help Bitcoin adapt if quantum capabilities reach a threshold that undermines existing cryptographic assumptions.

The consortium’s plan is structured as a multi-year funding pool: $15 million in total commitments over the next three years. While the announcement does not detail specific deliverables or milestones, the emphasis on developer support indicates that the effort is intended to translate research and engineering into practical upgrades and implementation work over time.

Who’s involved, and how the work will be managed

The consortium names a broad set of founding participants. In addition to Strategy, the list includes Anchorage Digital, ARK Invest, BlackRock, Block, Blockstream, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Galaxy, among others.

Strategy also said the consortium’s daily operations will be coordinated by Mike Schmidt in a volunteer capacity. Schmidt is described as the executive director of Brink, a non-profit that supports Bitcoin open-source developers. The operational link to a developer-support organization matters because quantum security work is likely to require sustained engineering capacity—areas like cryptographic tooling, testing, and migration planning often take longer than headline news cycles.

Recent quantum-security funding momentum from Galaxy

In the same broader timeframe, Galaxy Digital separately announced support for quantum security-related development. Earlier coverage noted that Galaxy pledged up to $5 million in grants for developers working on Bitcoin’s quantum security and formed a council of quantum-advisory experts to study quantum-resistant migration options.

While the consortium and Galaxy’s grants are distinct efforts, together they reinforce a pattern: institutional capital is increasingly targeting the “preparation” phase—funding research and engineering before a crisis scenario forces rushed changes.

Disagreement on timelines, but shared urgency on preparedness

Bitcoin’s quantum risk debate is not purely academic. It influences how investors evaluate the durability of the network’s security model and how engineers prioritize long-term roadmap items.

Community concern is tempered by disagreements about when a meaningful quantum threat might arrive. Strategy’s announcement points to the ongoing debate rather than resolving it. In November 2025, Blockstream CEO Adam Back said Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years, according to earlier reporting from Cointelegraph in an article about the topic (“Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years,” Back said).

Other viewpoints compress that timeline dramatically. In April, investment manager Bernstein suggested Bitcoin has roughly three to five years to prepare for a post-quantum security upgrade, as discussed in Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage (Bernstein said Bitcoin has about three to five years to prepare).

This split matters because it shapes what “useful funding” looks like. In a decades-ahead scenario, the priority is gradual research and maintainable upgrades. In a short-window scenario, the emphasis shifts toward accelerating migration planning and ensuring that any transition path can be executed with high confidence.

Institutional backing signals confidence in core development capacity

Alongside the consortium announcement, Strategy’s partner ecosystem includes large traditional finance and crypto incumbents. BlackRock’s involvement, for example, is tied to its view that Bitcoin developers are doing critical work. As stated in the announcement, Robert Mitchnick, BlackRock’s global head of digital assets, said Bitcoin core developers do “incredibly important work” and that BlackRock is pleased to provide “significant additional funding” to support Bitcoin’s long-term security needs.

For investors and market participants, that message carries a specific implication: quantum security is being treated not as a speculative side project, but as a core infrastructure concern worthy of institutional budget lines. Even if the exact timing of quantum risk remains uncertain, multi-year funding structures are better aligned with how protocol security improvements actually get built—through testing, peer review, and coordinated development rather than emergency patching.

At the same time, it’s worth noting the consortium does not claim to settle the timeline question. Instead, it appears designed to fund the unknowns: research gaps, migration options, and implementation readiness that could become valuable under multiple scenarios.

Looking ahead, the key question is how the consortium and parallel grant efforts translate funding into concrete engineering outputs—such as migration research, candidate upgrade work, and developer tooling—while the broader community continues to debate quantum timelines. Observers should watch for updates that clarify priorities and measurable milestones over the consortium’s three-year window.

BitMEX’s utility token (BMEX) has suffered a dramatic collapse following the exchange’s announcement that it will wind down operations. Data from CoinGecko shows the token fell by nearly 90%, dropping to as low as $0.002 from about $0.06, and it was trading around $0.0063 at the time of writing.

The selloff started shortly before the shutdown became public. According to CoinGecko pricing, BMEX began sliding at around 7:00 am UTC—approximately an hour before BitMEX posted its shutdown notice on X, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.

Key takeaways

• BMEX lost almost all of its value after BitMEX announced it would cease operations, with CoinGecko data indicating a move from ~$0.06 to near $0.002.
• The token’s drop began about an hour before the public shutdown message on X, suggesting markets were already repricing quickly ahead of confirmation.
• CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju linked the decision to BitMEX’s reduced Bitcoin futures share, citing ~0.08% and about $84 million in daily BTC futures volume.
• Blockchain research firm 10x Research told Cointelegraph the exchange’s owners explored a possible $1 billion sale in 2025 before opting for an orderly wind-down.

What triggered BMEX’s sharp repricing

The immediate catalyst for BMEX’s decline was BitMEX’s decision to wind down. The token’s value had recently traded closer to $0.06, but it then experienced a sudden, sustained fall as the market absorbed the implications of an exchange shutting down.

CoinGecko’s timestamps place the start of the selloff around 7:00 am UTC, roughly an hour before BitMEX’s shutdown announcement on X. That timing matters for traders because it suggests the market had already begun anticipating severe downside—or at least a major operational change—before the message was made public.

BitMEX’s shrinking futures footprint

In explaining the broader context for BitMEX’s exit, CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju pointed to the exchange’s declining position in Bitcoin derivatives. He said BitMEX’s share of the Bitcoin futures market had fallen to about 0.08%, alongside roughly $84 million in daily Bitcoin futures trading volume.

Ju also emphasized the exchange’s historical impact, saying on X that it helped shape the industry and that it was now “passing the torch” to newer platforms that grew out of the model BitMEX pioneered.

BitMEX cofounder Arthur Hayes later echoed the sentiment in a separate X post, writing that it had been “an amazing ride” and that the team had “done something special together.”

Details behind the wind-down: sale talks and operational reality

Beyond the headline closure, 10x Research shared additional context with Cointelegraph: BitMEX’s owners had explored a potential $1 billion sale in 2025 before selecting an orderly wind-down process.

The report suggests the shutdown wasn’t simply an abrupt break with operations, but the outcome of a longer decision cycle—one where finding an acquirer may have been considered, but ultimately did not materialize into a transaction.

This matters to investors in tokenized exchange ecosystems because “utilities” tied to a platform’s activity can lose their economic meaning when the underlying venue stops operating. When wind-down plans advance, holders often anticipate reduced buyback or incentive mechanics (if any existed), weaker demand for token usage, and—most importantly—a fading buyer base for any token that derives value from exchange activity.

A legacy built on perpetual swaps, now ending

BitMEX previously highlighted its industry role by marking its 11th anniversary in November 2025. The exchange credited its influence in creating the perpetual swap—a futures contract structure with no expiration date—that became a cornerstone for modern crypto derivatives trading.

That legacy contrasts sharply with BMEX’s post-announcement price action. The disconnect underscores a key point for market participants: reputational and historical contributions do not automatically translate into ongoing token value once market structure changes, derivatives competition intensifies, and operational costs rise.

Cointelegraph also reported that a restructuring advisor and CEO of investment firm Echo Base, Roshan Dharia, described the closure as part of wider “structural corrections” across digital asset markets. He linked the pressures to a combination of a more competitive environment, increasing regulatory and compliance costs, and reduced tolerance for operational inefficiency.

In other words, BitMEX’s ending appears less like an isolated event and more like an outcome of sector-wide tightening—where exchanges that cannot maintain scale or profitability face limited pathways forward.

Going forward, attention is likely to shift to what happens to BMEX holders as the wind-down proceeds—whether any remaining token incentives, liquidity provisions, or related mechanisms persist, and how quickly markets reprice any residual expectations. With the timeline and final operational steps not detailed in the available reporting here, traders and long-term observers should watch for further updates from BitMEX, plus signals from analytics and on-chain activity that indicate how derivatives volume migrates to competing venues.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit over its investigations into Ethereum, according to a joint status report filed July 22.

History Associates Inc. and the SEC asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the case after reaching a settlement deal. Under the agreement, the agency will produce the remaining responsive documents and pay the flat fee to cover the plaintiff’s legal fees.

History Associates, which provides professional historical research, writing and archival services to government agencies, filed the lawsuit in June 2024. Working on behalf of Coinbase, the firm had submitted three public records requests the year before. Those filings sought documents on SEC investigations into Zachary Coburn and Enigma MPC, along with records on how Ethereum shifted to a proof-of-stake system.

The lawsuit compelled the SEC to hand over thousands of documents, with the court explicitly ordering the agency to prioritize all records and communications sent, received or evaluated by then SEC Chair Gary Gensler concerning Ethereum’s migration from a proof-of-work blockchain to a proof-of-stake network.

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has backed the CLARITY Act even as seven Senate Democrats oppose its latest draft and banking groups fight its stablecoin reward rules.

Politico reported that Solomon was “very supportive” of moving the bill forward so the United States could establish a crypto market structure and advance digital asset development. Although he acknowledged that the proposal was imperfect and open to debate, the Goldman chief argued that passing a framework remained more important than resolving every disagreement first.

Solomon told the publication that the legislation could create a level playing field, strengthen market stability and let digital asset markets develop under clearer rules. His endorsement places the head of one of Wall Street’s largest banks alongside crypto executives who have urged Congress to complete the bill, even as banking trade groups seek tighter limits on stablecoin rewards.

The comments separate Goldman’s public position from the campaign led by banking associations against the current draft. Solomon did not directly endorse its reward provisions, but his support for advancing the full legislation contrasts with groups warning that the text could pull deposits from traditional lenders.

Stablecoin rewards keep banks opposed

Under the latest Republican draft, crypto companies could offer rewards tied to customer activity, while payments on stablecoins held in idle balances would remain prohibited. Banking associations argue that this distinction lets crypto platforms compete for deposits through incentives, creating a risk that money moves away from community banks.

In a May letter to Senate Banking Committee leaders, several banking trade groups called for stronger safeguards against deposit flight. The groups argued that funds leaving banks for stablecoin products could reduce credit available to households and businesses, particularly in communities that depend on smaller lenders.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has also criticized the legislation, adding a prominent Wall Street voice to the industry’s objections. Solomon’s support therefore does not suggest that banks have reached an agreement; it shows that major executives differ over whether the reward dispute should stop the bill.

Earlier this week, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce sent Senate leaders a letter supporting the banks’ concerns. The USHCC warned that deposit losses could hurt small-business lending, community development and economic opportunities in Hispanic communities. It also cited analyses that, according to the chamber, showed net outflows connected to crypto activity at community banks.

Republican concerns have resurfaced despite a compromise negotiated earlier in 2026. Punchbowl News reported that Senators John Curtis and John Cornyn shared the banks’ concerns about deposit flight, while Senator Thom Tillis opposed the current ethics provision. Their objections add internal Republican pressure as party leaders seek enough votes to pass the measure.

Democratic resistance blocks an easy vote

Seven Democratic senators, Catherine Cortez Masto, Angela Alsobrooks, Cory Booker, Ruben Gallego, John Hickenlooper, Mark Warner and Raphael Warnock, have rejected the latest text while keeping negotiations open. In a joint statement, they said provisions covering ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity required more work.

Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren also criticized the draft, arguing that its ethics language did not adequately address President Donald Trump’s crypto business interests. Warren further maintained that the bill lacked sufficient investor and national security protections.

Republicans added restrictions on crypto activity by senior elected officials after Democrats made an ethics clause a condition for continuing talks. Trump accepted the provision earlier this week, but the agreement left enforcement to the Department of Justice and failed to settle Democratic concerns.

Alsobrooks objected to making the DOJ the sole enforcer and described the arrangement as “unserious,” according to reports cited by crypto.news. She said she would oppose the legislation if the language reached the Senate floor unchanged. Her position carries added weight because she was one of two Democrats who helped advance the bill through the Senate Banking Committee in May.

Democratic resistance has cut the bill’s estimated 2026 passage odds by 15 percentage points from their July 21 peak, according to crypto.news. Republicans need Democratic support to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, leaving Solomon, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong pressing lawmakers to act before the August recess.

Garlinghouse endorsed a similar argument from Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty on July 22. Alderoty described the CLARITY Act as a consumer protection measure that would strengthen anti-money laundering and customer-verification rules while giving law enforcement and state authorities clearer tools against misconduct.

With the vote count still short, Goldman’s endorsement gives the legislation another powerful supporter but does not resolve either dispute holding back a Senate agreement.

Kazakhstan has approved a strategic crypto mining framework that grants large-scale miners regulated electricity access in exchange for contributing part of their mined digital assets to a state-backed reserve.

According to Kazakhstan-based news outlet Zakon.kz, the government approved the new rules on July 18 through Government Resolution No. 638, published in the PRG.kz legal database. 

The framework introduces a new category known as strategic digital mining, allowing qualifying companies to receive electricity quotas at regulated tariffs after agreeing to transfer a portion of their mined cryptocurrency to Astana Hub, a government-backed technology cluster.

The measure adds another layer to Kazakhstan’s effort to tie its digital asset industry more closely to state-backed infrastructure rather than treating mining as a standalone commercial activity. The rules will take effect on Aug. 1, 2026.

Large mining operators face strict eligibility requirements

Only miners meeting extensive infrastructure standards will qualify for strategic status under the new framework.

As reported by Zakon.kz, applicants must own a digital mining data center with at least 150 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity. Mining equipment deployed at those facilities must also provide a minimum computing power of 150 terahashes per second (TH/s) per unit.

Beyond hardware requirements, companies must employ qualified technical personnel, maintain repair facilities within their mining sites, secure contracts with multiple internet service providers and remain current on taxes and other mandatory payments before receiving approval.

Once approved, operators will be required to sign agreements with Astana Hub’s autonomous cluster fund and purchase electricity from eligible power generation companies designated under the framework.

The resolution also requires participating miners to contribute part of their mined cryptocurrency to a reserve mechanism administered through Astana Hub. Although the government document does not specify the percentage, several local media outlets have reported that the contribution could be set at 10%. Cointelegraph, however, said it could not independently verify that figure.

The arrangement links electricity access directly to participation in Kazakhstan’s state-backed digital asset reserve, creating an incentive for miners willing to commit part of their production under government-approved terms.

Policy builds on Kazakhstan’s digital asset strategy

The latest mining rules arrive after several initiatives that have expanded Kazakhstan’s involvement in regulated cryptocurrency markets.

As crypto.news previously reported, the country launched the state-backed Alem Crypto Fund in September 2025 to build long-term digital asset reserves. Its first investment involved BNB through a partnership with Binance Kazakhstan, giving the fund an initial exposure to digital assets.

Earlier this year, Reuters also reported that Kazakhstan’s central bank planned to allocate up to $350 million from its roughly $69 billion in gold and foreign exchange reserves into crypto-linked investment products. 

Instead of directly purchasing Bitcoin or Ethereum, the National Bank said it would invest through funds, index products and digital asset infrastructure companies, making Kazakhstan one of the few countries to dedicate part of its sovereign reserves to the sector.

Regulated crypto payments have also moved forward. Earlier in July, Alatau City Bank partnered with Binance Kazakhstan to launch Crypto Pay, allowing users to make purchases with cryptocurrency through QR codes and point-of-sale terminals connected to the bank’s acquiring network. The rollout formed part of the government’s effort to expand regulated financial services tied to digital assets.

At the same time, Kazakhstan has continued tightening oversight of the industry.

In January, authorities blocked access to more than 1,100 unlicensed cryptocurrency exchange platforms, according to government reports cited by crypto.news. The enforcement campaign directed users toward licensed exchanges while reinforcing the country’s regulated digital asset market.

Kazakhstan strengthens its position as a mining destination

Kazakhstan remains one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining jurisdictions following the migration of miners after China’s crackdown on the industry in 2021.

The Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report published in April 2025 ranked Kazakhstan fifth globally by Bitcoin mining activity, underscoring the country’s continued importance within the mining sector.

Rather than simply expanding mining capacity, the newly approved framework links access to electricity with participation in government-backed digital asset initiatives, placing state reserve development alongside industrial mining policy.

The direction is consistent with other technology projects announced over the past year. Earlier this month, Balaji Srinivasan’s Network School signed a memorandum of understanding with Kazakhstan to establish a new campus focused on education, artificial intelligence, startups and technology research. 

The agreement came as the organization encountered regulatory challenges in Malaysia and added another international technology initiative to Kazakhstan’s digital economy plans.

BitMEX has announced it will shut down on September 23, following “a strategic review of the business and the broader crypto industry.”

The Arthur Hayes-founded exchange revealed earlier today that it was closing down, but didn’t expand on what exactly caused the closure. Users were encouraged to withdraw their funds and close any positions they may hold.

BitMEX stressed that assets are safe and remain in users’ control, and explained that it’s simply giving a timely warning to “ensure a smooth withdrawal process for everyone.”

At time of writing, the exchange holds over $739 million worth of customer assets, along with an insurance fund with $239 million worth of BTC and $31 million worth of USDT.

The exchange is the 35th most active crypto derivatives exchange and 65th largest crypto exchange overall.

The exchange’s BMEX token was also unstaked for every user, and has collapsed 97% across the last four hours. BMEX was already down 99.87% from its 2022 all-time high. 

BitMEX’s shuttering coincides with a crypto bear market that’s seen multiple crypto firms lay off staff. Since January 2026, the company’s trading volume has only crossed $1 million 14 times. 

Read more: Crypto firms cut jobs as bear market and AI shift bite

Going forward, no new BitMEX accounts can be created, with all services due to be closed in September (except withdrawals). Accounts with funds remaining will be charged monthly at “USD50 equivalent or 1% per annum (whichever is greater).”

BitMEX hasn’t commented on plans for its $270 million insurance fund after September 23. Protos reached out to BitMEX regarding its plans for its insurance fund but did not receive a response prior to publication time.

The insurance fund has grown over time, mostly due to BitMEX profits from trading fees and liquidations. Although some people have called it ‘one of the best performing funds of all time,’ its outperformance partially came at the expense of exchange-affiliated marketmakers trading against BitMEX customers.

BitMEX warned that winding down a company can allow criminals to take advantage of uncertainty. “Be vigilant for phishing attempts using this news, or promising priority or accelerated withdrawals – no such expedited service is available,” it told users.

It added, “While this news is difficult to share, we are proud of everything that has been built at the company since its launch as a pioneer of crypto derivatives.”

BitMEX was bad at stopping money laundering

BitMEX was founded in 2014 by Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo, and Samuel Reed. Together they created the 100x leverage perpetual swap, which BitMEX claimed at one point to have been “the most traded product in the crypto industry.” The holding company of BitMEX has been 100x Group, named after that product.

In February 2022, Hayes and Delo pled guilty to breaking the Bank Secrecy Act and violating anti-money laundering (AML) laws. Reed pled guilty one month later to similar charges.

For a time under their stewardship, the exchange had limited KYC or AML checks. This resulted in a Department of Justice enforcement action for compliance failures.  

Q. Not all tokenized equity products are the same. What is the most important distinction to understand?

The central question is what the token actually represents. In the strongest model, the token is the share itself, meaning ownership, voting rights and dividends travel with it. In a synthetic wrapper, the investor owns a contractual claim against another entity, not the underlying share, introducing counterparty risk, tracking risk and the possibility that corporate actions do not pass through correctly.

Two tokens with the same ticker can represent very different instruments. The SEC’s January 2026 staff statement drew this distinction explicitly. For advisors evaluating these products, the structure is not a technical detail. It determines what rights the holder actually has.

Q. How developed is the regulatory framework at this point?

More developed than most people realize, but with gaps remaining. In the past eight months, the SEC issued a no-action letter for DTC tokenization services, published a staff statement establishing ownership taxonomy and approved Nasdaq’s proposal to trade tokenized securities alongside conventional shares. DTCC completed its first live production transactions this month.

Despite the progress, uncertainty still exists. Tokenized equities remain largely restricted to non-U.S. or accredited investors, the CLARITY Act has not been enacted, and third-party synthetic models carry more legal uncertainty than issuer-sponsored structures. The framework is building in a clear direction, but there is still much to accomplish to drive confidence and adoption.