Crypto World

What is a bridge asset? How XRP and XLM are meant to move value

Published

1 month ago

1 July 2026

What is a bridge asset? How XRP and XLM are meant to move value

A bridge asset is a cryptocurrency used as a neutral middle step to move value between two different currencies without pre-funding accounts in each one. XRP and XLM were both built for this job. Here is how a bridge asset works, the problem it solves, and the hard question of whether being a bridge makes a token valuable.

Summary

A bridge asset is a cryptocurrency used as a neutral intermediary to convert one currency into another, source currency into bridge asset into destination currency, without holding pre-funded accounts in every currency.
The problem it solves is the cost of traditional cross-border payments, where banks must lock up capital in pre-funded accounts around the world; a bridge asset frees that capital by settling in seconds.
XRP and XLM are the two most prominent bridge assets, designed respectively for Ripple’s payment network and the Stellar network, both aiming to move value between currencies quickly and cheaply.
The hard question is whether serving as a bridge creates lasting demand for the token, because a bridge asset is held only momentarily during a transfer, a tension known as the velocity problem.
Stablecoins increasingly compete as bridge instruments, offering price stability that a volatile bridge token cannot, which complicates the long-term value case for bridge assets.

A bridge asset is a cryptocurrency that serves as a neutral intermediary for moving value between two different currencies, allowing a sender to convert from one currency into the bridge asset and then out into another currency, without needing to hold pre-funded balances in each currency along the way. The idea sits at the heart of one of crypto’s oldest and most practical use cases, cross-border payments, and it is the design purpose behind two of the largest cryptocurrencies by market value, XRP and XLM.

In a world where moving money across borders is slow, expensive, and capital-intensive, a bridge asset promises a faster and cheaper path: instead of a bank needing accounts pre-funded with local currency in every country it pays into, it can convert the source currency into a bridge asset, send that asset across a blockchain in seconds, and convert it into the destination currency on the other side. The bridge asset is the universal middle step, the common denominator that connects any currency to any other without requiring a direct relationship between them.

Understanding the bridge-asset concept is the key to understanding what XRP and XLM were actually built to do, and also to understanding the central debate about whether that role makes them valuable. This guide explains what a bridge asset is and the specific problem it solves, how the mechanics work step by step, how XRP and XLM each implement the idea, a worked example of a cross-border payment, the crucial difference between a bridge asset and a cross-chain bridge, and then the hard part: the unresolved question of whether being a bridge asset creates sustained demand for a token, including the velocity problem and the growing competition from stablecoins.

The aim is to give you both the clear mechanical picture and the honest analytical debate, because the bridge-asset story is genuinely useful technology wrapped around a genuinely contested investment thesis, and you cannot understand one without the other. This is educational material, not investment advice.

The problem a bridge asset solves

To see why a bridge asset is useful, you have to understand the problem with how cross-border payments traditionally work, because the bridge asset is an answer to a specific and expensive inefficiency. When money moves across borders through the conventional banking system, it travels through a network of correspondent banks, each holding accounts with the others. To pay out in a foreign currency, a bank typically needs a pre-funded account in that currency, sitting in a bank in the destination country, a setup known in the industry as nostro and vostro accounts.

The bank fills these accounts in advance with the local currency so that when a payment needs to be made, the money is already there to send. Multiply this across every currency and every corridor a large bank operates in, and the result is enormous amounts of capital locked up around the world, sitting idle in pre-funded accounts purely so that payments can be made when needed. That trapped capital has a cost, and it is one of the reasons cross-border payments are expensive, slow, and inaccessible to smaller players.

A bridge asset attacks this problem directly by eliminating the need for pre-funding. Instead of holding local currency in an account in the destination country, an institution can convert the source currency into the bridge asset at the moment of payment, send the bridge asset across a blockchain to the destination in a matter of seconds, and convert it into the local currency there, where it is paid out. Because the whole round trip happens almost instantly, there is no need to keep capital parked in advance; the liquidity is sourced and settled on demand. This is the core promise of a bridge asset: it replaces pre-funded, idle capital with just-in-time conversion, freeing up the money that would otherwise be locked in nostro accounts and making cross-border settlement faster and cheaper.

A neutral bridge asset is especially powerful because it does not belong to any one country or currency, so it can connect any pair of currencies without requiring a direct trading relationship between them. Rather than maintaining liquidity between every possible pair of currencies, which grows impossibly complex as you add currencies, institutions only need liquidity between each currency and the single common bridge. The bridge asset becomes the hub that every spoke connects to.

How the mechanics work

The mechanics of a bridge-asset payment follow a consistent pattern regardless of which asset is used, and walking through the steps shows why speed is everything. The process begins when a sender wants to move value from a source currency to a destination currency.

First, the source currency is converted into the bridge asset, typically on an exchange or liquidity venue in the source market, turning, say, dollars into the bridge token at the current market rate.

Second, the bridge asset is transferred across its blockchain from the source side to the destination side, a step that takes seconds on the networks designed for this purpose.

Third, on the destination side, the bridge asset is converted into the local currency at a liquidity venue in that market, turning the token into, say, pesos or euros, which are then paid out to the recipient.

The entire sequence, convert in, transfer, convert out, completes in seconds rather than the days a traditional cross-border transfer can take. The reason speed matters so much is that it is what makes pre-funding unnecessary, and it also limits the risk of holding the bridge asset. Because the bridge token is only held for the few seconds between conversion in and conversion out, the parties are exposed to its price for only a moment, which limits the risk that the token’s volatility moves against them during the transfer. This is essential, because bridge assets like XRP and XLM are themselves volatile cryptocurrencies, and no institution would want to hold a volatile asset for long simply to make a payment.

The design solves this by minimizing the holding time to near zero. It also depends on deep liquidity at both ends: there must be enough of a market to convert the source currency into the bridge asset, and the bridge asset into the destination currency, without large price slippage, which is why bridge-asset systems concentrate on building liquidity in the corridors they serve. When liquidity is deep and the transfer is fast, the bridge-asset path can be cheaper and faster than the correspondent-banking alternative. When liquidity is thin, the conversions become expensive and the advantage erodes, which is one of the practical limits of the model and one reason adoption has concentrated in specific corridors rather than spreading evenly everywhere.

How XRP and XLM implement the idea

XRP and XLM are the two most prominent bridge assets, and although they share the core concept, they come from related but distinct lineages. XRP is the native asset of the XRP Ledger and is the bridge asset used by Ripple’s cross-border payment offering, where it functions as the intermediary for sourcing liquidity on demand instead of pre-funding destination accounts. Ripple’s branded implementation of this, its on-demand liquidity service, is the productized version of using XRP as a bridge between currencies for institutional payments, and it is the clearest real-world deployment of the bridge-asset concept at scale.

The XRP Ledger settles transactions in a few seconds with very low fees, which are the properties a bridge asset needs, and XRP’s entire original design rationale was to serve as this neutral settlement intermediary between currencies. When people describe XRP as a “bridge currency,” this is what they mean: an asset meant to sit in the middle of cross-border value transfers, converted in and out within seconds.

XLM, the native asset of the Stellar network, was designed with a closely related purpose, and Stellar’s architecture makes the bridge role especially explicit. Stellar was built to move money between currencies cheaply, with a particular focus on payments, remittances, and financial inclusion. On Stellar, institutions called anchors issue tokens that represent fiat currencies, backed by reserves, and the network includes a built-in decentralized exchange and a feature called path payments that automatically finds the cheapest route to convert one asset into another. XLM serves as a bridge in this system, a neutral asset that can connect currency pairs that lack a direct market, and it is also used to pay the network’s small transaction fees.

So both assets are built around the same fundamental idea, a fast, cheap, neutral intermediary for moving value between currencies, but XRP is most associated with institutional, bank-facing cross-border payments through Ripple, while XLM is most associated with a more open, anchor-based network oriented toward payments and financial inclusion. Both illustrate the bridge-asset concept in production, and both face the same hard question about whether the role translates into lasting token value.

A worked example

Trace a single payment to make the concept concrete. Imagine a business in the United States needs to pay a supplier in Mexico the equivalent of $10,000, and consider how this works with and without a bridge asset. In the traditional model, the US business’s bank would rely on having a pre-funded account holding Mexican pesos at a bank in Mexico, or on a chain of correspondent banks that do. The payment instruction passes through this chain, the pesos are paid out from the pre-funded account, and the whole process can take one to several business days, with fees taken at multiple points and a large amount of peso liquidity sitting idle in that account at all times to make such payments possible. The cost of that idle capital, plus the intermediary fees, is what makes the traditional transfer expensive.

In the bridge-asset model, the same payment takes a different path. The $10,000 is converted into a bridge asset, say XRP or XLM, on a liquidity venue in the United States, turning dollars into the token at the current rate. The bridge asset is then sent across its blockchain to Mexico in a matter of seconds. On the Mexican side, the bridge asset is immediately converted into pesos on a local liquidity venue, and the pesos are paid out to the supplier.

The entire round trip completes in seconds, and at no point did anyone need to keep pesos pre-funded in advance, because the liquidity was sourced on demand at the moment of payment. The business’s bank did not need idle peso capital sitting in Mexico; it converted exactly what it needed, exactly when it needed it. If the liquidity on both ends is deep, the total cost of the two conversions plus the tiny network fee can be lower than the traditional route, and the settlement is far faster. This is the bridge asset doing its job: replacing days and pre-funded capital with seconds and just-in-time conversion. The token was held for only the few seconds of the transfer, which is the whole point of the design, and also, as the next sections explain, the source of the central debate about its value.

Bridge asset versus cross-chain bridge

A crucial point of confusion deserves its own section, because the word “bridge” is used in two very different ways in crypto and conflating them leads to real misunderstanding. The bridge asset described in this guide is about moving value between currencies, an asset used as a neutral intermediary to convert one currency into another in a payment. A cross-chain bridge, by contrast, is about moving tokens between blockchains, a piece of infrastructure that lets you take a token on one blockchain and represent or transfer it onto a different blockchain, for example moving an asset from Ethereum to another network. These are entirely different concepts that happen to share a word. A bridge asset is a currency playing a role in a payment; a cross-chain bridge is software connecting two blockchains, often by locking a token on one chain and minting a wrapped version on another.

The distinction matters for several reasons. First, the risks are completely different. Cross-chain bridges have been among the most exploited pieces of infrastructure in crypto, with several large hacks resulting from vulnerabilities in the smart contracts that lock and mint tokens across chains, so “bridge risk” in that context refers to the security of that connecting infrastructure. A bridge asset used in a payment carries different risks, mainly the price volatility of the token during the brief moment it is held and the depth of liquidity on each side, not smart-contract exploit risk of a chain-connecting bridge.

Second, the purpose is different: a bridge asset answers “how do I move value from one currency to another,” while a cross-chain bridge answers “how do I move a token from one blockchain to another.” When you read about XRP or XLM as bridge assets, the meaning is the currency-to-currency payments sense, not the chain-to-chain infrastructure sense. Keeping the two ideas separate is essential to understanding both the technology and the risks, because a discussion that mixes them will mislead on both. The shared word is an unfortunate accident of terminology, and the careful reader learns to ask which kind of bridge is meant.

Does being a bridge asset make a token valuable?

Now the hard question, the one that turns a clean technical story into a truly contested investment debate: does serving as a bridge asset actually create lasting demand for the token, and therefore support its value? The intuitive answer is yes, surely a token used to move large volumes of cross-border payments must capture value from that usage. But the reality is more complicated, and the complication has a name: the velocity problem.

A bridge asset, by design, is held for only the few seconds of a transfer. It is bought, used, and sold almost instantly, never accumulated. High transaction volume through a bridge asset therefore does not necessarily translate into sustained holding demand, because the same units of the token can be reused over and over for many transfers without anyone needing to hold a growing stockpile. A token can process enormous payment volume while generating little persistent demand to own it, because payments require the token to flow through, not to be held. This is the core tension in the bridge-asset value thesis, and it is why critics argue that network usage and token price can diverge: the network can be busy while the token is weak.

There is a serious counterargument, and the honest treatment gives it weight. Proponents contend that very large and growing payment volume does require deeper liquidity pools at every conversion point, and that maintaining those pools effectively takes a meaningful float of the token out of circulation, creating a baseline of demand that scales with usage. They argue that if a bridge asset became the settlement layer for a significant share of global cross-border value, the liquidity required to support that volume without slippage would be substantial and persistent, supporting the token’s value even if no individual holder keeps it for long.

The debate, then, is between the velocity critique, which says payments flow through without creating holding demand, and the liquidity-depth argument, which says sufficient scale forces a persistent float. Layered on top is a growing competitive threat: stablecoins. A stablecoin pegged to a currency can serve as a bridge instrument too, moving value between parties quickly, and it offers something a volatile bridge token cannot, price stability, so neither sender nor receiver bears volatility risk during the transfer.

As regulated stablecoins proliferate, including ones issued by the very companies behind bridge-asset networks, some of the cross-border settlement role that bridge tokens were meant to fill may flow to stablecoins instead, which would weaken the demand case for the volatile bridge asset. None of this is settled, and a careful reader should hold all of it at once: the bridge-asset technology is real and useful, the velocity problem is a genuine challenge to the token-value thesis, the liquidity-depth rebuttal is a legitimate counter, and stablecoin competition is a real and growing complication. The mechanism works; whether it makes the token valuable is the open question.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a bridge asset in crypto?

A bridge asset is a cryptocurrency used as a neutral intermediary to move value between two different currencies. Instead of converting one currency directly into another, or keeping pre-funded accounts in every currency, a sender converts the source currency into the bridge asset, sends that asset across a blockchain in seconds, and converts it into the destination currency on the other side. The bridge asset is the common middle step that can connect any currency to any other without a direct relationship between them. XRP and XLM are the two most prominent examples, both designed to make cross-border payments faster and cheaper by replacing idle pre-funded capital with just-in-time conversion through the bridge token.

How is XRP used as a bridge asset?

XRP is the native asset of the XRP Ledger and serves as the bridge in Ripple’s cross-border payment system. Instead of a bank pre-funding accounts with local currency in every destination country, it can convert the source currency into XRP, send the XRP across the ledger in a few seconds at very low cost, and convert it into the destination currency on arrival. Ripple’s branded version of this is its on-demand liquidity service, the productized use of XRP as a settlement bridge for institutional payments. XRP’s original design purpose was exactly this neutral-intermediary role, which is why it is described as a bridge currency: an asset meant to sit briefly in the middle of cross-border value transfers.

Is XLM the same as XRP?

They share the same core idea but are distinct assets on distinct networks. XLM is the native asset of the Stellar network, which was built to move money between currencies cheaply with a focus on payments, remittances, and financial inclusion. On Stellar, institutions called anchors issue fiat-backed tokens, and the network’s built-in exchange and path-payment feature find the cheapest route to convert one asset into another, with XLM serving as a bridge between pairs that lack a direct market and paying the network’s small fees. XRP, by contrast, is most associated with institutional, bank-facing cross-border payments through Ripple. Both are bridge assets built around fast, cheap, neutral settlement, but they come from different networks with different emphases.

What problem does a bridge asset solve?

It solves the cost and slowness of traditional cross-border payments, specifically the need to pre-fund accounts. In the conventional system, a bank must keep accounts filled in advance with local currency in every country it pays into, known as nostro and vostro accounts, which locks up enormous amounts of capital sitting idle around the world. A bridge asset removes this need by sourcing liquidity on demand: the institution converts into the bridge asset and out into the destination currency at the moment of payment, in seconds, so no capital has to sit pre-funded. This frees up trapped liquidity and can make cross-border settlement faster and cheaper, which is the central promise of the bridge-asset model.

Does high payment volume make a bridge asset valuable?

Not necessarily, and this is the central debate. A bridge asset is held for only the few seconds of a transfer, so it is bought, used, and sold almost instantly instead of accumulated. This means high payment volume does not automatically create sustained demand to hold the token, because the same units can be reused for many transfers, a tension known as the velocity problem. Proponents counter that very large volume requires deeper liquidity pools, which take a meaningful float out of circulation and create demand that scales with usage. The question is unresolved, and it is complicated further by stablecoins, which can serve as bridge instruments too while offering price stability a volatile token cannot.

Is a bridge asset the same as a cross-chain bridge?

No, and confusing them is a common error. A bridge asset is a currency used to move value between two different currencies in a payment. A cross-chain bridge is infrastructure that moves tokens between two different blockchains, often by locking a token on one chain and minting a wrapped version on another. They share the word “bridge” but are entirely different concepts with different risks. Cross-chain bridges have been frequently exploited through smart-contract vulnerabilities, so their risk is about infrastructure security, while a bridge asset’s risks are mainly the token’s price volatility during the brief holding period and the depth of liquidity on each side. When XRP or XLM are called bridge assets, the meaning is the currency-to-currency payments sense.

This article is educational information, not financial or investment advice. Descriptions of XRP, XLM, and their networks reflect their design and general operation as understood in mid-2026 and can change. Nothing here is a recommendation about any asset, and the question of whether bridge assets accrue value is truly contested. Cryptocurrency is volatile, and you can lose money. Do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making any decision.

Source link

Crypto World

Bitcoin Price Rebounds as Trump Calls Off Iran Strikes and Hints at a Deal

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Bitcoin’s price is on the move today, prompted by the latest developments on the US-Iran war front, but this time in the opposite direction.

After it slipped to another multi-week low yesterday evening, the cryptocurrency has rebounded by approximately $1,500 and now sits at around $63,500. The reason for this is the major de-escalation announced by the POTUS hours ago.

US President Trump announced on his social media platform, Truth Social, that although his country’s military remains “locked and loaded” to continue attacking Iran, they were asked by the Middle Eastern country and other nations in the region to pause the strikes for now.

He added that those countries are working on a new deal that would include the “immediate, complete and total opening of the Hormuz Strait, and an end to Iran’s nuclear threat.”

“Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL. The Country of Israel joins me in this commitment. Get to work, everybody, and get it DONE.”

As mentioned above, BTC reacted immediately with a notable rebound. It had dipped to an 18-day low at $62,200 yesterday evening as the tension between the two had increased once again, with new planned strikes. In addition, there are other factors, such as ETF exodus and technical indicators, that suggested the cryptocurrency could face another leg down soon.

For now, though, the war developments appear to have the most significant impact on bitcoin’s price moves, and essentially every de-escalation brings back hope to the market. The actual impact is likely to be experienced on Monday morning, as it has happened numerous times in the past several weeks.

The post Bitcoin Price Rebounds as Trump Calls Off Iran Strikes and Hints at a Deal appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Strategy Posts $8.2B Q2 Loss as Coinbase Revenue Falls 19%

Published

2 hours ago

2 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Leading Bitcoin treasury company Strategy’s results for the second quarter show a loss of over $8 billion, while crypto exchange Coinbase reported a 14% quarterly revenue loss.

According to the two companies’ latest earnings reports released on Thursday, Strategy lost over $8.23 billion in its operations after recording an unrealized loss of $8.32 billion in the second quarter of 2026. The largest crypto exchange by volume in the U.S., Coinbase, also suffered a 19% annual revenue decline, while its trading volumes went down 24% to slightly above $145 billion.

Q2 2026 Bitcoin Price Cooldown Sees Strategy Draw Losses

Strategy grew its BTC holdings by 846 units within the three-month period ending June 30. In its report, the company’s chief executive, Phong Le, said it reduced its convertible debt to just under $7 billion and increased its U.S. dollar holdings and Bitcoin per share by 12% and 5%, respectively. The Bitcoin treasury had seen a $10 billion income in the second quarter of 2025, but Bitcoin’s dull price performance this year has supposedly caused a net loss of $8.22 billion.

“Our objective is for STRC to trade over time at $99 to $100. If STRC trades below $100, we intend to repurchase STRC shares in a regular and disciplined manner, scaling our repurchases according to market price and liquidity. These repurchases are an attractive use of capital that reduces our future preferred dividend requirements at a discount while allowing independent market demand to establish a healthy and sustainable market,” the CEO explained.

In the total revenue column for the quarter, Strategy announced it had a 6.9% increase in the last 12 months, jumping from $114.5 million in Q2 2025 to over $122 million in Q2 2026. The gross profits made by the company’s business reached $81.6 million, which it counted as a 69% gross margin compared to the previous year’s second quarter’s $78.7 million.

“In the midst of this phase of muted bitcoin sentiment and market skepticism, we continue to evolve our business model and establish Digital Credit as a new asset class. Our plan is to return STRC to health with stable demand, high liquidity, and low volatility trading near par. We believe this is the best way to create shareholder value over the long term,” executive chairman and founder Michael Saylor told reporters.

Coinbase Revenue Drops after Trading Slump, Prediction Market Thrives

Meanwhile, Coinbase’s first half of the year continues to yield lower-than-expected earnings following a continued loss trend in both quarters, but its prediction market sector has risen by more than $100% quarter-over-quarter. The exchange revealed its revenue had taken a 19% hit in the 12 months ending June 30, and its transaction revenue dropped 21%. As seen in the report on net losses, the trading company’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization reached $208 million, while it recorded over $300 million in losses after adjustments.

Coinbase’s fee collection from subscriptions and services slumped by 5% in the quarter but accounted for almost half of its net revenue in that period. Consumer transactional revenue also fell by 20% compared to Q1 2026, which the company attributed to a 24% decline in crypto spot trading volume. At the end of the quarter, the average amount of USDC held across Coinbase products hit a record high of $20 billion, accounting for more than 30% of all USDC in circulation.

The post Strategy Posts $8.2B Q2 Loss as Coinbase Revenue Falls 19% appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

FTX Case Advances as Polymarket Dispute and $35K Penalty Emerge

Published

7 hours ago

1 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Federal prosecutors are continuing to litigate the fallout from the collapse of FTX, as defense teams push back on what juries can hear and how certain market activities are regulated. In the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Michelle Bond—whose husband, former FTX executive Ryan Salame, is serving a 90-month sentence after pleading guilty in 2023—has asked the court to block references to that guilty plea in a campaign finance case.

At the same time, other SDNY-related crypto-adjacent legal fights are highlighting how prediction markets and event contracts can collide with insider-trading and commodity regulation arguments. Separate actions involving a former congressman’s Kalshi trades and a US soldier accused of making a large Polymarket bet underscore that courts may soon be forced to clarify both evidentiary rules and the legal classification of event contracts.

Key takeaways

Michelle Bond’s legal team asked SDNY to exclude evidence tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing it has little relevance to Bond’s alleged intent or knowledge.
In a separate CFTC case, former New York Rep. George Santos was ordered to pay $35,000 over trades on Kalshi’s event contracts, with the regulator citing misleading posts about his planned attendance at the 2026 State of the Union.
A US soldier accused of earning more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts is seeking dismissal, challenging whether the Commodity Exchange Act can clearly apply to event contracts as “swaps.”
Across these matters, the central pressure points are evidentiary fairness for defendants and regulatory clarity for prediction-market participants.

Bond seeks to bar Salame’s guilty plea in campaign finance fight

According to a Friday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Michelle Bond’s attorneys asked the court to preclude the government from introducing evidence about Ryan Salame’s guilty plea or any “related plea materials” in her campaign finance case.

Bond faces charges over alleged unlawful campaign funding tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. The prosecution’s theory, as described in the filing, is that contributions supporting Bond’s campaign were partially funded through FTX arrangements facilitated by Salame.

Salame pleaded guilty in 2023 and is currently serving a 90-month sentence connected to conduct arising from FTX’s 2022 collapse. In Bond’s motion, her lawyers argued that Salame’s plea—where he admitted to making political contributions in Bond’s name funded by transfers from accounts associated with an FTX-linked entity—should not be treated as evidence against Bond herself.

“The Court should preclude the government from introducing or referring to Mr. Salame’s guilty plea or any related plea materials, because their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Bond,” the filing states.

Bond’s team further said that the plea materials do not meaningfully bear on Bond’s state of mind. They characterized the plea as an admission of Salame’s own guilt, not proof of Bond’s knowledge or participation in the charged conduct, quoting from the motion: “[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”

How personal litigation could become part of the argument

Bond’s motion also requested that the court allow information connected to her “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.” Her lawyers appear to be positioning that personal context to rebut the government’s characterization of Bond as an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor,” despite her and Salame having divorced before the alleged criminal conduct.

While the filing’s request reflects a broader strategy often used in criminal litigation—attempting to shape how jurors interpret the campaign contributions and the parties’ relationship—the court’s decision will determine what personal-history evidence, if any, is ultimately presented.

CFTC penalizes George Santos for Kalshi event-contract trading

Separate from the FTX-linked litigation, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued an order involving George Santos, a former member of the US House of Representatives who was expelled from Congress in 2023. The CFTC ordered Santos to pay $17,500 in a civil monetary penalty plus $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned through prediction market trading on Kalshi.

According to the CFTC, the relevant trades were tied to event contracts betting on whether Santos would appear at the 2026 State of the Union in Washington, DC. The regulator said Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the event, and that these posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”

The CFTC added that after the posts, contract prices moved in a direction favorable to Santos’ positions, enabling him to earn over $17,500.

As part of the CFTC order, Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years.

The case also sits in the shadow of Santos’ criminal proceedings. Earlier coverage notes Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison in 2025 for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, though he served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump, as reflected in the article’s background.

Polymarket insider-trading allegations tested under “swap” debate

A more direct challenge to prediction-market regulation is underway in another SDNY matter. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier accused of making more than $400,000 trading Polymarket event contracts, is attempting to dismiss the indictment.

As outlined in the background of the case, prosecutors allege that Van Dyke traded using nonpublic information connected to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The US Department of Justice alleges he used that alleged insider information to wager on whether Maduro would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges filed in April.

In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s attorneys submitted a 51-page memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss. Among other arguments, they contend that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) is ambiguous in how it treats event contracts as “swaps,” which is relevant to three of the charges.

Van Dyke’s lawyers argue that the ambiguity affects basic fairness: if the “swap” definition is not clear across Congress, agencies, and courts, ordinary citizens may lack “fair notice” that their prediction-market wagers fall under the CEA.

“If Congress, executive branch agencies, and courts all find the ‘swap’ definition ambiguous, how can ordinary citizens have fair notice that prediction market wagers are covered by the CEA?” the filing asks.

The defense also contrasts with the position taken by the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig, which has argued it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps.” The dismissal motion suggests that—at least for some counts—those jurisdictional assumptions may not survive if the law is too unclear.

Why these cases matter beyond one courtroom

Taken together, the filings point to two urgent fault lines for the crypto-adjacent prediction market space: what evidence courts allow juries to consider when guilt and intent are contested, and whether the regulatory framework—especially the CEA’s treatment of event contracts—offers enough clarity for enforcement.

As courts weigh motions like Bond’s request to exclude plea materials and Van Dyke’s bid to dismiss based on legal ambiguity, traders, builders, and public officials using event-contract platforms may want to watch how judges define relevance, prejudice, and “fair notice.” The next procedural rulings could signal how far prosecutors can stretch existing statutes—and how tightly defendants can force regulators to justify their classification theories.

Source link

Crypto World

Crypto Hacks Drain $1.1B in First Half of 2026 Amid 212 Security Incidents

Published

8 hours ago

1 August 2026

NewsAdmin

The first half of 2026 was the most active six months for crypto exploits on record.

This is according to a new report from Blockaid, which shows hackers stole $1.1 billion across 212 incidents.

Crypto Hacks Top $1.1B in H1 2026

The Blockaid report found that four major incidents involving KelpDAO, Drift, Resolv, and CoW Swap made up roughly $707 million of the total losses.

KelpDAO suffered the largest loss, after hackers stole $292 million worth of crypto by faking a cross-chain message that siphoned off the protocol’s Ethereum reserves. Drift Protocol, a perpetuals exchange built on the Solana chain, also suffered a similarly huge hit, as it was exploited for $285 million within 12 minutes.

Blockaid linked both cases to TraderTraitor, a state-sponsored North Korean subset of the larger Lazarus Group. Humanity Protocol’s $32 million loss was also connected to the same attacker cluster, bringing DPRK-linked losses to $609 million, which is about 55% of all funds stolen during the period.

The pace of attacks also increased through the year, with monthly incidents going from 18 in January to 57 in June. April proved to be the most painful month, as the KelpDAO and Drift Protocol hacks wiped out a combined $577 million to push total losses in that month to $635 million.

Privileged key misuse was the most costly attack type in the first half of 2026, with losses of approximately $790 million, or close to three-quarters of all funds stolen in the period, said Blockaid. Unbacked mint exploits came second in value, led by the $80 million Resolve breach. But the hacks at the code level caused the most casualties, accounting for nearly four out of five attacks by count.

Attack Vectors Change as New Threats Emerge

The report named AI agents as a new target after hackers in May used a prompt injection attack to fool Bankr’s AI agent into approving an unauthorized transaction for about $216,000.

Cross-chain bridges also took a major hit, with attackers breaching the verification systems of KelpDAO and Taiko through forged proofs and attestations accepted by the destination chains.

In addition, security teams faced newer attack methods in 2026, with Blockaid identifying four incidents involving EIP-7702 wallet delegation attacks, where a wallet can hand control to a smart contract. Legacy smart contracts also continue to be a common vulnerability, with data showing around five cases in May and June, including two involving Aztec Connect and one targeting Raydium’s AMM V3.

Recent incidents outside the report period showed the same pressure on crypto infrastructure. For instance, on July 23, AFX Trade, BSquaredNetwork, and Verus were hit in separate attacks on the same day that collectively caused more than $35 million in losses. Recall that Verus had already suffered another exploit about two months earlier, and Blockaid linked both incidents to the same bridge contract and bug class.

Recovery results varied depending on the type of attack. Per the report, code-related incidents sometimes allowed teams to freeze funds or negotiate returns, while attacks involving stolen keys usually ended with the money moving through mixers or cross-chain routes.

The post Crypto Hacks Drain $1.1B in First Half of 2026 Amid 212 Security Incidents appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Michael Saylor and team maintain 12% dividend for STRC

Published

8 hours ago

1 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Strategy signals another bitcoin buy as company needs just 2% annual BTC growth to cover dividends

Holders of Strategy’s (MSTR) high-yielding preferred stock STRC will not see a dividend increase in August.

Led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, Strategy is maintaining the current 12% dividend on the shares.

STRC investors may have been expecting as much as a 50-basis-point hike in the dividend as Strategy has customarily raised the payout anytime the stock traded sizably below its par value ($100) for the month.

As recently as July 1, Strategy had lifted the dividend 50 basis points following June’s plunge in STRC to as low as $71.

While that hike — along with Strategy’s sale of some bitcoin to fund dividends, and a bit of stabilization in the price of bitcoin — helped STRC bounce in July to the current $89.46, that level is still significantly below par.

CEO Phong Le yesterday said Strategy’s Corporate Objective is for STRC to trade at $99-$100 over time.

Nevertheless, the company is under no obligation to raise the dividend and chose not to do so this month.

Source link

Crypto World

Key On-Chain Legal Updates This Week

Published

8 hours ago

1 August 2026

NewsAdmin

A Friday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeks to limit what prosecutors can use in the campaign-finance case involving Michelle Bond, the wife of former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame.

Bond’s attorneys argued that evidence tied to Salame’s 2023 guilty plea—while relevant to his own conduct—should not be admitted against her because it carries a risk of unfair prejudice and, in their view, offers little direct proof of Bond’s knowledge or intent. The motion also asks the court to factor in details from Bond’s contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.

Key takeaways

Michelle Bond wants the court to exclude evidence and “related plea materials” tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing they are not probative of her state of mind.
Bond’s campaign-finance charges stem from allegations that contributions to her 2022 congressional bid were influenced by FTX-linked activity facilitated by Salame.
The SDNY motion also requests inclusion of information about Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings, contending she was not an “ordinary” donor.
Separately, the CFTC ordered former congressman George Santos to pay $35,000 in total—$17,500 in penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement—over trades connected to Kalshi prediction market event contracts.
A soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts linked to a military operation asked the SDNY court to dismiss charges, citing ambiguity in how “swap” definitions apply to event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Bond asks SDNY to keep Salame’s guilty plea out of her case

Bond faces campaign finance charges tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. According to the criminal allegations, contributions to her campaign were partly funded through FTX-related channels that were facilitated by her husband, Ryan Salame.

In the latest SDNY filing, Bond’s legal team asked the court to preclude prosecutors from introducing Salame’s guilty plea and related plea materials. The filing points to the core logic of the request: Bond is not being tried for Salame’s admissions, and the defense claims the government’s use of those materials would not meaningfully establish Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent.

Bond’s attorneys argued that Salame’s plea is an admission of his own conduct, not evidence about Bond’s mental state or participation in the charged offense. They said the materials’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Bond.

Prosecutors are expected to weigh heavily on the narrative connecting alleged campaign funding to the conduct of individuals tied to FTX’s collapse. Bond’s motion, however, signals an effort to narrow what jurors are allowed to consider—particularly evidence that may influence them emotionally or circumstantially rather than strictly proving the elements of the charges against her.

Why the defense is raising divorce and custody proceedings

Alongside the evidentiary dispute over Salame’s plea, Bond’s filing also requested that the court include information related to Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings that were underway around the same time as the alleged crime.

Bond’s lawyers’ position is that the circumstances of her family life affect how her campaign-related donor status should be viewed. The filing argues that Bond should not be treated as an ordinary individual donor solely because she is facing personal charges in connection with her political bid, even if she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged conduct.

Whether and to what extent these family-law details will be admissible is likely to be a key procedural issue. It can shape the tone and framing of the case—especially if the government seeks to portray the campaign finances as closely connected to Salame’s network rather than to Bond’s independent circumstances.

George Santos ordered to pay over Kalshi predictions market trading

In a separate development involving prediction markets, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ordered former New York representative George Santos—who was expelled from Congress in 2023—to pay a total of $35,000. The figure breaks down into a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement of profits.

The regulator said the action was tied to Santos trading on event contracts on Kalshi connected to whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC. The CFTC stated that Santos made social media posts about his plans to attend or not attend the event and that those posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”

According to the CFTC, after the posts, the contract prices moved in a way that became favorable to Santos’ positions and allowed him to make more than $17,500.

As part of the same order, Santos was barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years. The order also comes against the backdrop of criminal proceedings: Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by U.S. President Donald Trump, as noted in earlier reporting.

Polymarket insider-trading allegations head toward dismissal arguments

Another SDNY filing, this time from the defense of Gannon Ken Van Dyke, challenges the legal foundation of allegations that he profited from Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information.

The U.S. Justice Department says Van Dyke was involved in a military operation connected to the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, and prosecutors allege he later used insider information to bet whether Maduro would be removed from power—leading to criminal charges announced in April. The defense filing argues Van Dyke is facing accusations involving more than $400,000 in alleged profits from Polymarket event contracts.

Van Dyke’s attorneys filed a 51-page memo supporting a motion to dismiss the indictment based on multiple legal theories. One focus is the Commodity Exchange Act’s treatment of event contracts as “swaps,” which the defense characterizes as ambiguous.

While the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has asserted that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers say the uncertainty itself is enough to dismiss at least some charges. In the filing, they argue that if lawmakers, executive agencies, and courts consider the “swap” definition ambiguous, then ordinary citizens cannot reasonably have fair notice that prediction market wagers fall under the CEA.

The case is expected to proceed on a timeline that could lead to trial in late 2026 or early 2027, based on a schedule submitted in June, and Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The defense’s arguments also extend beyond Van Dyke’s personal exposure. The filing suggests the ruling could matter for lawmakers and government officials who have used prediction markets in connection with political events or public statements. Earlier coverage referenced by the filing indicates that Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly placed more than $100,000 in bets on Kalshi event contracts tied to presidential speeches, underscoring how prediction markets can draw interest from political circles.

Across these cases, courts are being asked to decide what evidence is fair game, what definitions govern crypto-adjacent instruments, and how much clarity regulators must provide before individuals can be held criminally liable—issues that could determine how future crypto and prediction-market enforcement plays out.

Source link

Crypto World

What Happened In Crypto Legal News This Week

Published

8 hours ago

1 August 2026

NewsAdmin

What Happened In Crypto Legal News This Week

Wife of former FTX executive seeks to preclude her husband’s guilty plea

In a Friday filing with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) over campaign finance charges, Michelle Bond’s legal team asked the court to consider precluding evidence related to former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame, her husband who is currently serving a 90-month sentence after he pleaded guilty in 2023.

Bond faces campaign finance charges alleging that her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York was partially funded by contributions from FTX facilitated by Salame. As part of the filings this week, Bond asked the court to exclude evidence of her husband’s guilty plea and “related plea materials,” in which the former executive admitted to making “political contributions in [his] name that were funded by transfers from the bank accounts” of an entity tied to FTX.

Bond’s lawyers added:

“[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”

The motion also requested the court include information related to Bond’s “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings,” arguing that though she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged crime, the former FTX executive was not an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor” contributing to her campaign.

The criminal case is one of the latest involving individuals tied to the defunct crypto exchange following its 2022 collapse. Salame, former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison were all sentenced to prison for their role in the misuse of customer funds and related charges.

Former congressman ordered to pay $35,000 over Kalshi bet

George Santos, a former New York House representative who was expelled from Congress in 2023, was ordered to pay a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned over bets placed on prediction markets platform Kalshi. The order from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stemmed from Santos trading on event contracts betting on his appearance at the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC.

“While buying and selling positions in this market, Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the SOTU,” said the CFTC. “In his social media posts, Santos made a series of material misrepresentations and omissions about whether he would attend the SOTU. After these posts, the SOTU contract prices moved in a direction that was favorable to Santos’ positions which allowed him to make over $17,500.”

February X post about his State of the Union attendance. Source: George Santos

Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years as part of the order. He was also previously sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump.

US solider accused of making $400,000 Polymarket bet seeks to dismiss charges

Gannon Ken Van Dyke is a US soldier who faces charges for allegedly making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information tied to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. He was involved in the operation removing Maduro, according to the US Justice Department, and allegedly used insider information to bet whether the Venezuelan president would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges in April.

In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s legal team filed a 51-page memo in support of a motion to dismiss the indictment based on different legal theories, including that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) at the center of three of the charges was “ambiguous” in treating event contracts as “swaps.”

Although the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has claimed that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets on the basis that event contracts are treated as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers said the lack of clarity was sufficient to dismiss some of the charges.

The case is expected to have significant implications for lawmakers and government officials using prediction markets. Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly made more than $100,000 using Kalshi event contracts related to the president’s speeches.

Based on a schedule filed in June, Van Dyke is potentially looking at a trial beginning in late 2026 or early 2027. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Magazine: Here’s why the CLARITY Act’s ethics deal may be so hard to reach

Source link

Crypto World

Goldman traders are on pace for a record year. A close-up look at how they’re doing it

Published

9 hours ago

1 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Goldman traders are on pace for a record year. A close-up look at how they're doing it

Source link

Crypto World

Bitcoin cold-wallet attack spreads to 4,500 addresses as losses near $89 million

Published

10 hours ago

1 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Russia-linked Grinex exchange halts operations after $13 million ‘state-backed’ hack

The attacker working through Coldcard-generated keys is now emptying wallets worth a few thousand dollars each.

Galaxy Research flagged a third wave of sweeps early Sunday, roughly 208 bitcoin drained from 1,912 addresses between Friday midday and Saturday morning UTC.

That is just over a tenth of a bitcoin per victim. The July 30 opening wave averaged close to a full coin, 1,083 bitcoin from 1,196 addresses in 41 minutes.

Observed losses across all three waves now total 1,367 bitcoin, nearly $89 million, from 4,585 addresses.

Wave three sends each victim’s coins to its own destination rather than the handful of shared collector addresses that made the first two easy to map, and parks them in pay-to-witness-script-hash outputs, a format that can carry multisignature or timelock conditions, instead of the plain single-key outputs used before.

It batched an average of six victims into each sweep where wave one took exactly one at a time, and it scanned only the default derivation path, the standard branch of the key tree a wallet checks first, instead of testing several branches per seed.

Source link

Crypto World

XRP Price Dips to ‘Battlefield’ Zone, but Analysts See Major Reversal Opportunity

Published

10 hours ago

1 August 2026

NewsAdmin

Perhaps due to the quickly re-escalating tension in the Middle East, the cryptocurrency market has posted fresh losses over the past few hours, with BTC dropping to $62,000 after failing to reclaim the $63,000 support during the day.

XRP was not spared, as it just slipped below $1.05. The asset was rejected at $1.20 during the mid-July rally after the favorable US inflation data for June, and eventually lost the coveted $1.10 support. Now, it fights for the last line of defense before the bulls would have to defend the $1.00 zone.

Popular analyst EGRAG CRYPTO outlined the significance of the $1.05 level, calling it the ‘battlefield’ region. Although he noted earlier today that the cross-border token had managed to maintain that level, he acknowledged the predominantly bearish structure of lower highs on the 4-hour chart.

The short-term path of recovery would be a successful defense of $1.05 before XRP can bounce above $1.083 and eventually reclaim the $1.10 level, which now acts as resistance.

EGRAG laid out an even more promising road ahead for the asset if it manages to continue its recovery, with the “major price target” set at $1.30.

However, a decisive breakdown below $1.05 would essentially mean that XRP will head toward the notable liquidity zone at around $1.00, he warned.

Mikybull Crypto also believes XRP has the strength to stage a surprising comeback. The analyst claimed that the asset’s bullish reversal run is currently loading despite the negative outlook.

His long-term chart compares the current market structure with the one from two years ago when XRP was highly compressed at around $0.60. Once it broke out the upper boundary, though, it rocketed to a fresh all-time high within less than a year.

“Before the last run, I screamed for you to buy at a crazy discount. The opportunity is presenting again,” he said now.

History is not on XRP’s side at the moment, though, as August has been quite a painful month for the asset. As reported earlier today, the cross-border token was deep in the red in all four previous editions.

The post XRP Price Dips to ‘Battlefield’ Zone, but Analysts See Major Reversal Opportunity appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link