Crypto World
What is a crypto trust bank? Charters, custody, and the Fed Master Account
A wave of crypto firms, from Ripple to Circle, have won national trust bank charters, and several are chasing a Federal Reserve master account. This guide explains what a crypto trust bank actually is, what a charter does and does not grant, and why the real prize sits at the central bank.
Summary
- A crypto trust bank is a chartered trust institution that custodies digital assets and manages stablecoin reserves, bringing crypto custody inside the regulated banking system without being a full retail bank.
- A national trust charter lets a crypto firm custody its own assets and reserves and obviate the patchwork of state money-transmitter licenses, but it cannot take ordinary deposits or carry federal deposit insurance.
- In 2025 and 2026, a wave of crypto firms, including Ripple, Circle, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, and others, won conditional national trust charters.
- The bigger prize is a Federal Reserve master account, which would give direct access to the central bank’s payment rails and let a firm hold reserves at the Fed itself, something no crypto-native firm has yet achieved.
- Charters and master accounts primarily benefit stablecoins and custody businesses by deepening their regulatory standing, marking crypto’s convergence with traditional banking.
A crypto trust bank is a chartered financial institution, supervised like a bank, whose purpose is to custody assets and provide fiduciary services rather than to take deposits and make loans, and which a crypto firm uses to hold digital assets and manage stablecoin reserves inside the regulated banking system. That definition contains the key to understanding the whole subject: a trust bank is a real, regulated bank, but a specialized kind, built around safekeeping and trust services rather than the deposit-taking and lending that define ordinary retail banks.
In 2025 and 2026, a remarkable wave of crypto firms obtained or pursued these charters, transforming companies once seen as outside the financial system into federally supervised institutions, a shift that marks one of the clearest signs yet of crypto converging with traditional banking. This guide explains what a trust bank is, what a national trust charter actually grants a crypto firm and what it pointedly does not, why so many crypto companies suddenly wanted one, the even larger prize of a Federal Reserve master account, and what the whole development means for stablecoins, for the industry, and for users.
The reason this matters is that the relationship between crypto and the banking system has been one of the defining tensions of the industry’s history. For years, crypto firms depended on traditional banks to hold their customers’ money and connect them to the financial system, a dependence that became a serious vulnerability during periods of regulatory pressure and bank failures, when crypto companies found their accounts closed or their banking partners collapsing.
The move to obtain trust charters is, in large part, an effort to end that dependence by bringing crypto firms inside the regulated banking system on their own terms. This guide covers what a trust bank is, the powers and limits of a charter, the 2025-2026 wave of approvals, a worked example of how a charter changes a stablecoin issuer’s position, the central-bank master account that is the ultimate goal, what it all means for stablecoins, and the genuine limits and risks that the headlines often gloss over.
What a trust bank is
Start with the institution itself, because the word “bank” carries assumptions that a trust bank does not always meet. In traditional finance, a trust bank is a bank that specializes in custody and fiduciary services rather than in the deposit-taking and lending that most people associate with banking. Its core business is holding assets on behalf of clients, safeguarding them, and managing them in a fiduciary capacity, meaning with a legal duty to act in the client’s interest.
Trust banks have long existed to custody securities, manage estates and trusts, and provide safekeeping for institutions, and they are regulated as banks, but their activities are narrower and, in important ways, less risky than those of a full-service commercial bank, because they are not lending out customer money or running the maturity mismatches that make ordinary banking risky.
This specialization is exactly what makes the trust bank model attractive to crypto firms. A crypto company’s central regulated need is custody: safely holding digital assets and, for stablecoin issuers, holding and managing the reserve assets that back their tokens. A trust bank charter is purpose-built for precisely this kind of safekeeping and fiduciary activity, which is why crypto firms gravitated to it instead of to a full commercial banking charter that would saddle them with powers and obligations they neither need nor want.
By becoming a trust bank, a crypto firm gains the regulated standing and supervisory oversight of a banking institution while staying within the narrower scope of custody and trust services that match its actual business.
Understanding that a trust bank is a custody-and-fiduciary institution, not a deposit-and-lending one, is the foundation for understanding everything a crypto trust charter does and does not provide.
What a national trust charter grants, and what it does not
A national trust charter, granted in the United States by the federal regulator that oversees national banks, gives a crypto firm a specific and valuable set of capabilities, and it is important to be precise about both what it includes and what it excludes. On the positive side, the charter allows the firm to operate as a federally supervised trust bank, custodying digital assets and, under expanded rules, managing stablecoin reserves and providing certain payment-related services.
Crucially, it lets the firm custody its own assets and reserves directly, instead of depending on a third-party bank, and it can obviate the need for the patchwork of separate state money-transmitter licenses that crypto firms have historically had to collect state by state, replacing a fragmented compliance burden with a single federal charter. It also confers the legitimacy and oversight of a banking institution, which matters enormously to the institutional clients a crypto firm wants to serve.
The exclusions are just as important, and they are where headlines often mislead. A national trust charter does not make a crypto firm a full bank in the everyday sense. It does not permit the firm to take ordinary deposits, the way a retail bank accepts checking and savings accounts. It does not come with federal deposit insurance, the government protection that backs ordinary bank deposits up to a limit, because trust banks generally do not hold the kind of deposits that insurance covers.
And it does not authorize the firm to lend, to run the credit business at the heart of commercial banking. So when a crypto firm “becomes a bank” via a trust charter, it gains custody, reserve management, and regulated standing, but it does not gain the ability to take insured deposits or make loans. This distinction is not a quibble; it is central to understanding what these charters actually mean, because a customer who assumes a chartered crypto trust bank offers the same protections as an insured retail bank would be mistaken, and that misunderstanding could matter a great deal in a crisis.
Why crypto firms suddenly want them
The sudden rush of crypto firms toward trust charters in 2025 and 2026 was not coincidental, and understanding the motivations explains the strategic logic. The first and most fundamental driver is independence from third-party banks. For most of crypto’s history, firms relied on partner banks to hold customer funds, custody reserves, and connect to the financial system, and that dependence proved dangerous: during periods of regulatory pressure and amid a series of bank failures, crypto companies found their banking relationships severed or their partner banks collapsing, threatening their operations through no fault of their own. A trust charter lets a firm custody its own assets and reserves directly, removing that single point of failure and the strategic vulnerability it created.
The second driver is regulatory tailwind. A shift in the political and regulatory environment toward a more accommodating posture on crypto opened a path for these charters that had been effectively closed before, and the federal regulator approved a cluster of crypto firms in a coordinated wave, signaling a broader acceptance of crypto-native institutions in the banking system.
The third driver is the rise of stablecoin regulation: as comprehensive rules for stablecoins took shape, holding a trust charter aligned a firm with the likely requirements, particularly around the custody and management of reserves, positioning compliant issuers ahead of the curve. The fourth is simple competitive and reputational advantage: a federally chartered trust bank carries a legitimacy that a lightly regulated startup cannot match, and for firms courting banks, asset managers, and corporations as clients, that regulated standing is a powerful selling point.
Together, these drivers, independence, regulatory opening, stablecoin alignment, and legitimacy, explain why a long list of major crypto firms pursued charters at once, turning what had been a fringe idea into an industry-wide movement.
A worked example: a stablecoin issuer with and without a charter
To see why a charter matters in practice, compare a stablecoin issuer’s position before and after obtaining one, because the contrast makes the abstract benefits concrete.
Without a charter, a stablecoin issuer must rely on third-party banks to hold the reserve assets that back its tokens, the cash and short-term government securities that give the stablecoin its value. This dependence creates several vulnerabilities. The issuer is exposed to the health of its partner banks, so if one of them fails or freezes the account, the reserves and the stablecoin itself are jeopardized, a danger that became vividly real when a stablecoin temporarily lost its peg after a bank holding part of its reserves collapsed. The issuer must also navigate a patchwork of state-by-state money-transmitter licenses, a costly and fragmented compliance burden, and it lacks the regulated standing that would reassure cautious institutional users.
With a national trust charter, the same issuer’s position is transformed. It can custody its own reserve assets directly through its chartered trust bank, under federal supervision, removing the dependence on potentially fragile third-party banks. In some cases the firm gains oversight at both the federal and state level, a dual-supervision structure that few stablecoin issuers can match and that serves as a strong signal of credibility to institutions evaluating whether to trust the stablecoin.
The single federal charter can replace much of the state-by-state licensing burden, simplifying compliance. And the regulated standing of a trust bank reassures the banks, asset managers, and corporations the issuer wants as customers, lowering the barrier to adoption. The worked comparison shows the charter’s real value clearly: it converts a stablecoin issuer from a firm dependent on outside banks and a fragmented license patchwork into a federally supervised institution that controls its own reserves and carries banking-grade legitimacy. That transformation is precisely why stablecoin issuers were among the most eager pursuers of these charters.
The real prize: a Federal Reserve master account
As valuable as a trust charter is, it is a stepping stone to something larger, and the ultimate goal for the most ambitious crypto firms is a Federal Reserve master account. A master account is the account a financial institution holds directly with the central bank, and it represents the deepest possible integration into the financial system. It grants direct access to the central bank’s payment rails, the core networks through which money moves between institutions, and access to base money held at the central bank itself, instead of balances held at a commercial bank. For most of the financial system, this kind of direct central-bank access is reserved for traditional banks, and obtaining it is the difference between operating at the edge of the system and operating at its core.
For a crypto firm, particularly a stablecoin issuer, the appeal of a master account is profound. It would allow the firm to hold the reserves backing its stablecoin directly at the central bank, the safest possible place to keep them, eliminating the counterparty risk of relying on commercial banks and giving institutions unparalleled confidence in the stablecoin’s solvency and the safety of its redemptions. It would also allow direct settlement through the central bank’s payment systems, a powerful capability for a payments-focused firm.
The obstacle is that the bar is extraordinarily high, and no crypto-native firm has yet been granted a master account. The central bank has historically been cautious about extending this access to non-traditional institutions, uninsured trust banks face the most stringent review, and previous attempts by crypto-adjacent firms to win access have been denied. Several chartered crypto firms have applied and are waiting, with no guaranteed outcome and no clear timeline. The master account is the real prize precisely because it is so hard to win and so transformative if won, marking the moment a crypto-native firm would plug directly into the heart of the financial system.
What it means for stablecoins and the industry
Stepping back, the trust-charter wave is, more than anything, a stablecoin story, and seeing why clarifies the whole development. The firms most eager for charters were heavily those with stablecoin businesses, because the charter speaks directly to a stablecoin issuer’s central regulated needs: custodying and managing the reserve assets that back the token, doing so under credible supervision, and removing the dependence on third-party banks that has repeatedly threatened stablecoins in the past.
As comprehensive stablecoin regulation took shape, a trust charter became close to a prerequisite for operating a serious, institutionally trusted stablecoin in the United States, and the firms that obtained charters positioned their stablecoins as the most credible and best-supervised in the market. The dual oversight some of them gained, federal and state, became a competitive selling point, a way to signal to institutions that the stablecoin’s reserves are held to banking-grade standards.
The broader significance is the convergence of crypto and traditional banking. The trust-charter wave marks the moment when crypto firms stopped operating outside the regulated banking system and began entering it as supervised institutions, accepting the obligations of banking regulation in exchange for its legitimacy and stability. This is a profound shift from crypto’s early ethos of operating apart from, and often in opposition to, the traditional financial system. It signals a maturing industry in which the leading firms seek the same regulated standing as banks, and in which the line between a crypto company and a financial institution blurs. For the industry, this convergence brings legitimacy, stability, and access, the ability to custody assets safely, serve institutional clients, and integrate with the financial system.
It also brings the constraints of regulation, the compliance burdens, capital requirements, and supervision that come with a banking charter. The trust-charter wave is, in essence, crypto’s leading firms choosing to join the financial system instead of replacing it, which is one of the most consequential shifts in the industry’s trajectory.
Risks and limits to understand
For all the significance of the trust-charter movement, several risks and limits deserve clear attention, because the headlines tend to overstate what these charters mean. The most important point for any user is the one already emphasized: a crypto trust bank is not a full, insured retail bank. It does not carry federal deposit insurance, so assets held with a chartered crypto trust bank do not enjoy the government protection that backs ordinary bank deposits up to a limit.
A customer who assumes a “crypto bank” offers the same safety net as an insured retail bank is mistaken, and in a failure scenario, that misunderstanding could be costly. The charter brings supervision and legitimacy, which are real, but it does not transform custody into an insured deposit, and that distinction must not be lost.
Other limits and risks are substantial. The Federal Reserve master account that many firms seek remains unattained by any crypto-native firm and is far from assured, so the deepest integration into the financial system, and the reserve-safety benefits that come with it, are still aspirational instead of achieved. The charters themselves are often conditional, meaning the firms must still satisfy capital, governance, and risk-management standards before operating fully, and conditional approval is not the same as a fully operational bank.
Traditional banking groups have opposed extending charters and central-bank access to crypto firms, citing systemic-risk concerns, and that opposition could shape how far the privileges extend. There is also regulatory and political risk: the accommodating posture that opened the path to these charters could shift, and supervisory expectations could tighten. And the convergence itself carries a subtler risk, that bringing crypto firms inside the banking system concentrates new kinds of risk within the regulated perimeter in ways regulators are still learning to assess.
None of this negates the genuine progress the charters represent, but anyone evaluating a chartered crypto trust bank, whether as a user, an investor, or an observer, should hold a clear view of what the charter does and does not provide, treat the master account as a hope instead of a fact, and never mistake banking-grade supervision for deposit insurance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a crypto trust bank in simple terms?
A crypto trust bank is a chartered, bank-supervised institution built around custody and fiduciary services instead of deposits and lending, which a crypto firm uses to hold digital assets and manage stablecoin reserves inside the regulated banking system. It is a real, regulated bank, but a specialized kind: its job is safekeeping and trust services, not taking checking accounts or making loans. Crypto firms pursue this model because their central regulated need is custody, and a trust charter is purpose-built for exactly that, giving them banking-grade standing without the powers and obligations of a full commercial bank.
What does a national trust charter let a crypto firm do?
It lets the firm operate as a federally supervised trust bank, custodying digital assets and, under expanded rules, managing stablecoin reserves and providing certain payment-related services. Crucially, it lets the firm custody its own assets and reserves directly instead of depending on third-party banks, and it can replace the patchwork of state money-transmitter licenses with a single federal charter. It also confers the legitimacy and oversight of a banking institution. What it does not grant is the ability to take ordinary insured deposits or to make loans, so it is not a full retail bank.
Does a crypto trust bank have deposit insurance?
No, and this is one of the most important things to understand. National trust charters generally do not come with federal deposit insurance, the government protection that backs ordinary bank deposits up to a limit, because trust banks do not hold the kind of deposits that insurance covers. So assets held with a chartered crypto trust bank do not enjoy the safety net that an insured retail bank provides. A customer who assumes a “crypto bank” offers the same protection as an insured bank is mistaken, and that distinction could matter greatly in a failure. The charter brings supervision and legitimacy, not deposit insurance.
Why did so many crypto firms get charters in 2025 and 2026?
Several reasons converged. The biggest was independence from third-party banks, since crypto firms had repeatedly been hurt when partner banks closed their accounts or failed, and a charter lets a firm custody its own assets directly. A more accommodating regulatory environment opened a path that had been effectively closed, and the regulator approved a cluster of firms together. The rise of comprehensive stablecoin regulation made a charter close to a prerequisite for a serious stablecoin. And the legitimacy of a federal charter is a powerful selling point to institutional clients. Together these drove an industry-wide rush.
What is a Federal Reserve master account and why does it matter?
A master account is an account held directly with the central bank, granting direct access to its payment rails and to base money held at the central bank itself, instead of balances at a commercial bank. For a stablecoin issuer, it would allow holding reserves directly at the central bank, the safest possible place, eliminating commercial-bank counterparty risk and giving institutions strong confidence in the stablecoin’s safety. It is the real prize because it represents the deepest integration into the financial system, but the bar is extremely high, no crypto-native firm has yet been granted one, and applications remain pending with uncertain outcomes.
What does the trust-charter wave mean for the crypto industry?
It marks the convergence of crypto and traditional banking. The leading crypto firms are choosing to enter the regulated banking system as supervised institutions, accepting banking regulation in exchange for its legitimacy, stability, and access, a profound shift from crypto’s early ethos of operating apart from the traditional system. It is largely a stablecoin story, since charters speak directly to issuers’ need to custody reserves credibly. The convergence brings legitimacy and integration but also the constraints of regulation, and it signals a maturing industry whose leading firms increasingly resemble, and seek to operate alongside, traditional financial institutions.
This article is educational information, not legal, financial, or investment advice. Charter approvals, master account decisions, and regulations are evolving, and details reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, which can change quickly. Crucially, a chartered crypto trust bank is generally not covered by federal deposit insurance. Verify current information from primary sources before relying on anything described here.
“This is a really important time for Taiwan,” she says. “Are we going to go toward war or toward peace across the Strait? This is really why I decided to take the party chair.”
Standing 5 ft. 10 in., Cheng is an arresting presence with a reputation for chest-thumping speeches. Sure enough, during our interview, her answers betray a bombastic staccato honed on the stump. Behind the scenes, however, she is amiable and slightly introverted.
“I actually am a very, very quiet person,” she says. “I don’t like to see people, and I don’t like to talk to people. I like to keep to myself.”
It’s a surprising revelation given Cheng’s political journey under the spotlight, which in many ways reflects the complicated social dynamics of Taiwan, where political fault lines have historically been drawn between native islanders and mainland arrivals following the Civil War.
Cheng grew up in the southern city of Tainan, the daughter of a Taiwanese mother and a KMT soldier father from China’s southwestern Yunnan province, who fled to Taiwan in 1953 via Southeast Asia’s arcane Golden Triangle. “My father really hated politics, hated war, and hated the army,” Cheng says. “He hated the KMT. My father thought all politicians are assholes!”
[PRESS RELEASE – Curacao, Curacao, August 11th, 2026]
BetFury, a leading crypto casino, closed its Fury World Cup ’26 on July 27. The campaign turned the 2026 FIFA World Cup into a platform-wide event with a $600,000 prize pool spread across five parallel promotions. The final numbers show what an event scaled to the world’s biggest football tournament can deliver for a platform and its community.
Growth Across Every Core Metric
Measured against the 43 days before the event, every core participation metric rose. Active users climbed 66.06%. Total bets grew 16.93% and deposits increased 7.53%. The scale of the user gain against a far smaller deposit increase points to broad participation rather than concentrated spending. Regarding the World Cup, the final match between Argentina and Spain was the most popular in terms of users, bets and a total wager.
A Build-Up that Started Before Kick-Off
Before the main phase of the Fury World Cup ’26, users could add the event to their calendar and get No Risk Bet rewards. The Fury World Cup ’26 Giveaway brought 30 random users $100 each in Free Bets. Along with other additional activities, they fueled interest in the upcoming group stage and playoff matches.
Rewards across the main promotions
In each of the three sports Battles (First Kick, Final Whistle, and Midfield), 150 winners split $40,000 in BFG tokens and Free Bets. The Sport Missions Journey covered 115 Missions. The Mundial Prediction Event ran free to enter, awarding 2 to 12 points per correct match-winner call, based on the World Cup phase. The top 100 users shared a $20,000 prize pool. The Golden Ticket Raffle closed the campaign, handing $100,000 to random holders of lucky lottery tickets.
Why Does the Event at this Scale Matter?
The scale produced returns on three fronts. For players, all the promotions and the $600,000 pool turned six weeks of soccer into daily competition and free rewards. For the business, the rise in active users and revenue converted a global cultural moment into measurable platform performance. For the wider industry, the campaign offers an example of how a crypto sportsbook can connect predictions, missions, competitions, and rewards around a major sporting event instead of limiting its activity to advertising around the tournament.
“A tournament that comes around once every four years deserved more than a standard promotion, so we built an event on the same scale,” said the CEO of BetFury. “What matters most is how many of our users took part, and a 74.66% jump in GGR shows that engagement translated into real commercial return. That is the foundation we will keep building future events around.”
Therefore, Fury World Cup ’26 has ended, but its effect on BetFury holds: a larger active base, stronger platform metrics, and a proven blueprint for the next large-scale campaign.
About BetFury
BetFury is a leading crypto casino with 3.5M registered players and $11.5B wagered, founded in 2019. The platform offers over 13,000 games, 24 Original games with RTP up to 99.28%, and 80+ sports for betting with odds higher than the market average. Beyond gaming, BetFury provides a full suite of crypto tools: Crypto Staking with up to 60% APR, Futures, Crypto Swap, etc. Moreover, it has a BFG Staking for accumulating more native tokens or collecting payouts in BFG or USDT. BetFury continuously evolves based on user feedback and is committed to responsible gambling practices. Learn more at betfury.com.
The post BetFury Closes Fury World Cup ’26 With $600,000 Awarded and 66% User Growth appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Only 281 of 1,343 crypto service providers operating across the European Economic Area have secured MiCA authorization after the EU’s final transition period expired on July 1, leaving more than 1,000 firms without approval under the bloc’s licensing regime.
Summary
- Only 281 of 1,343 EEA crypto service providers secured MiCA authorization by July 1.
- High or Severe risk ratings applied to 12% of unauthorized firms, compared with 2% of authorized providers.
- Unauthorized firms sent $5 billion directly to sanctioned counterparties, about three times the $1.7 billion recorded among authorized firms.
- Germany authorized 55 firms, while Poland issued no authorizations despite its previous register exceeding 1,800 entries.
According to blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs, 1,062 firms in its dataset had not obtained authorization under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation by the deadline and must now leave the market, restructure their operations or transfer customers to an authorized provider.
The gap extends beyond licensing. TRM found that 12% of firms without authorization carry a High or Severe risk rating, compared with 2% of authorized providers, while every firm assigned a Severe rating belonged to the unauthorized group.
Most providers in both groups have little direct contact with illicit funds. However, TRM identified a small number of unauthorized firms sending between 1% and 12% of their volume directly to illicit addresses. No authorized provider recorded direct illicit exposure above 1%.
MiCA authorization has left more than 1,000 firms outside the regime
Before MiCA, crypto companies operated under separate registration or licensing systems maintained by individual European countries, creating major differences in the requirements firms faced depending on where they registered.
TRM identified 383 operating firms under Lithuania’s previous registration system and 241 in Poland. Poland’s official register contained more than 1,800 entries, although the blockchain intelligence firm said most showed no observable crypto activity.
At the other end, Slovenia had three identified providers and Belgium had two. TRM cautioned that its figures track firms it could identify as actually providing crypto services rather than every entry on national registers, meaning countries without public registers may be undercounted.
MiCA replaced the national systems with a common authorization framework. Companies legally operating before Dec. 30, 2024, could continue under Article 143(3) while seeking authorization during the transition period, with July 1 serving as the final EU-wide cutoff.
As crypto.news explained shortly before the deadline, individual member states were allowed to set shorter transition periods, but none could extend the grandfathering system beyond July 1. Firms without the required authorization after their applicable deadline could no longer legally provide covered crypto services in the EU.
Licensing numbers had already shown how much the market could contract. In May, the ESMA register contained 204 authorized CASPs, including 51 approved during the first five months of 2026. Germany accounted for 55 at the time, followed by the Netherlands with 25 and France with 17.
A separate June report found that more than 3,000 crypto firms had been registered across Europe before MiCA, while only 194 had secured authorization by May. Hogan Lovells estimated at the time that roughly 75% of firms registered under the previous systems could lose their status as national transition periods expired.
Germany and smaller EU states have taken more firms through MiCA
Authorization has been uneven across individual European jurisdictions, according to TRM’s July 1 dataset.
Germany authorized 55 firms, while France and the Netherlands each authorized 29. Malta approved 20 and Cyprus 19, compared with nine home authorizations issued by Italy despite 145 firms operating there.
Malta, Cyprus, Ireland and Luxembourg together accounted for 63 of 272 home authorizations identified by TRM, even though only 101 operating firms came from their previous registers.
Lithuania produced a very different conversion rate. Eight firms obtained authorization from a previous register containing more than 400 providers, while Poland issued none despite its old register exceeding 1,800 entries. Greece and Portugal also issued no home authorizations in TRM’s dataset.
The figures also show how MiCA’s passporting system can separate where a provider operates from which regulator supervises it. Germany’s BaFin authorized 55 of the 57 licensed providers operating in the country, while Italy hosted 37 licensed firms but issued nine home authorizations. Spain hosted 34 and authorized 12.
Under MiCA, a CASP approved in one member state can use passporting rights to provide covered services elsewhere in the bloc. For example, B2C2 secured Luxembourg authorization in May, allowing the liquidity provider to offer regulated over-the-counter spot crypto trading across all 27 EU member states and three additional EEA markets.
The same system has allowed firms including Coinbase, Bitpanda and Kraken to operate from different regulatory bases while serving customers across multiple European markets.
By July 3, ESMA’s interim register had expanded to 300 authorized crypto-asset service providers after 57 additional firms were added around the July 1 deadline, including Standard Chartered and FalconX.
Unauthorized firms carry higher risk ratings and sanctions exposure
Looking beyond license numbers, TRM found a clear difference in the risk profiles of the two groups.
About 12% of unauthorized firms received a High or Severe rating, six times the 2% recorded among authorized providers. Severe ratings were found exclusively among firms that failed to obtain authorization.
Direct exposure to illicit or high-risk counterparties was much closer when measured across each group as a whole. Unauthorized providers recorded 0.09% of outgoing volume directly involving such counterparties, compared with 0.07% among licensed firms.
High-risk exchanges and gambling services accounted for the largest exposures. Unauthorized firms sent $19 billion to high-risk exchanges and $15.3 billion to gambling services, while authorized providers recorded $14.2 billion and $13.4 billion, respectively.
Sanctions exposure produced a larger difference. TRM calculated that unauthorized firms sent $5 billion directly to sanctioned counterparties, roughly three times the $1.7 billion recorded among authorized firms.
Risk within the unauthorized group was heavily concentrated. Half of the firms showed no measurable direct illicit exposure, while a limited number sent between 1% and 12% of their volume directly to illicit addresses. TRM calculated that direct illicit exposure among the offboarding firms was about four times higher because of those outliers.
The unauthorized cohort also included HTX, which TRM described as a designated exchange, and Huione Pay, which has been named under U.S. special measures. Entities affected by EU measures restricting dealings connected to Russia were also among firms that held national registrations but did not obtain MiCA authorization.
The composition of the two groups differed as well. Exchanges accounted for 42% of unauthorized providers compared with 29% of authorized firms, while payment companies represented 16% and 9%, respectively.
Financial and investment service providers were more common among authorized CASPs, making up 25% and 21% of the group, compared with 9% and 7% among unauthorized firms. TRM’s High-Risk Exchange category appeared only among providers that did not obtain authorization.
Customer transfers are creating a new supervisory test
With more than 1,000 firms outside the authorization regime, the EU’s Anti-Money Laundering Authority has focused on what happens when their customers and assets move elsewhere.
AMLA said the end of the transition period would cause unauthorized virtual asset service providers to leave the market, customer relationships to be transferred or terminated, and crypto activity to become concentrated among fewer authorized CASPs.
During wind-downs, compressed exit schedules can place pressure on anti-money laundering controls and make it harder to track where customers and funds move, according to the authority. Receiving CASPs can simultaneously face changes in their customer risk profiles and additional demands on transaction monitoring systems.
AMLA has therefore asked supervisors to prioritize oversight of exit plans and customer transfers while coordinating with regulators in other jurisdictions when customers move across borders.
TRM identified 30 unauthorized providers with High or Severe risk ratings, giving receiving firms and supervisors a group that can be screened before customer migrations take place.
The firm also cautioned against treating all customers leaving unauthorized providers as equally risky. Most firms that failed to secure authorization still carried Low risk ratings and recorded negligible direct illicit exposure.
For receiving CASPs, TRM said entity-level screening can distinguish customers arriving from a Low-rated payment provider with little illicit exposure from those leaving a Severe-rated entity where a measurable share of transaction volume has moved directly to illicit addresses.
Regulators have also started examining authorized providers after completing much of the initial licensing work. In July, ESMA launched a review of a sample of MiCA-authorized crypto custodians, examining areas including custody controls, private-key management, incident response and risks tied to third-party providers.
TRM separately examined whether regulators issuing more licenses were also supervising firms with higher illicit exposure. Across 23 jurisdictions where licensed providers carried measurable transaction volume, it found no identified correlation between the number of authorizations issued and the illicit exposure of firms supervised there.
For financial institutions assessing counterparties, TRM said the number of CASP licenses granted by a firm’s home jurisdiction therefore provides little information about the individual provider’s risk. Its analysis instead found the differences at entity level, including individual risk ratings and direct exposure to illicit, sanctioned and other high-risk counterparties.
Payments firm Decta says it is adding Circle’s USDC to the back-end of its international treasury operations, using OpenPayd to convert fiat into the stablecoin for internal settlement across markets. The move highlights a growing pattern in crypto: stablecoins are increasingly used as infrastructure for liquidity and operational transfers, rather than as a branded payment option for customers.
Decta told Cointelegraph that the company will route its own funds through OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure, where they are converted into USDC via OpenPayd’s over-the-counter capabilities. OpenPayd then supports international operational settlements that Decta would otherwise complete through conventional banking processes.
Key takeaways
- Decta will use USDC for internal treasury settlement across markets, positioning the stablecoin as a back-end liquidity tool rather than a customer payment feature.
- The conversion and settlement is handled through OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure and OTC capabilities.
- Decta frames the change as an operational efficiency upgrade versus bank transfer frictions like cut-off times and multi-day value dates.
- Stablecoins continue to deepen their role inside traditional payments and financial infrastructure stacks.
How Decta plans to use USDC
In remarks shared with Cointelegraph, OpenPayd’s chief commercial officer, Lux Thiagarajah, described the integration as “a proprietary treasury use case rather than a customer-facing payments flow.” In other words, the stablecoin is intended for Decta’s own internal movements of value across entities and markets—not for consumer or merchant payments.
Thiagarajah explained that Decta transfers its funds into OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure, where they are converted into USDC. OpenPayd’s role is to facilitate this conversion through its OTC capabilities, then use the resulting digital settlement instrument to support international operational settlements.
For investors and builders watching crypto adoption, the practical implication is straightforward: stablecoins are being absorbed into workflows where speed and execution certainty matter most. Even when customer-facing adoption lags, stablecoin rails can still become embedded in day-to-day operations for regulated financial intermediaries.
Treasury operations and the limits of banking rails
Decta UK CEO Scott Dawson said the company regularly moves funds between banking relationships to fund operations and settle internal obligations across regulated entities and jurisdictions. Traditionally, these transfers rely on standard banking rails, which can impose operational constraints such as cut-off times, weekends, and multi-day value dates.
Dawson argued that using OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure changes the timing dynamics. According to his statement to Cointelegraph, Decta converts fiat into a digital settlement instrument through OpenPayd, then “moves it across markets near-instantly.”
This matters because treasury departments generally value predictability and execution efficiency. While banking transfers can be reliable, their scheduling constraints can complicate cash planning and working-capital management—particularly for firms operating across multiple countries and regulated entities.
Dawson also pointed out that Decta transfers its own funds for settlements rather than altering the structure of its customer payment products. That distinction suggests the company is aiming for improved operational settlement performance without expanding the stablecoin exposure embedded in its customer-facing services.
Decta and OpenPayd: where the integration fits
Founded in 2015 in London, Decta describes itself as a payments platform providing payment processing, acquiring, card issuing, banking, and other financial infrastructure to businesses. The company says it operates across 32 countries and serves hundreds of companies, according to its announcement.
On the infrastructure side, OpenPayd—founded in 2018 in London—positions itself as a bridge between fiat and digital assets. Cointelegraph previously reported that OpenPayd secured authorization under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) in June, enabling it to offer crypto services across the European Economic Area, including fiat-to-stablecoin on- and off-ramps. Its listed clients include Kraken, eToro, OKX, and B2C2, as described in that earlier coverage.
Cointelegraph also noted in past reporting that Decta had explored stablecoin issuance. In August 2024, Decta Limited and France-based Next Generation said they were looking at a potential euro-pegged stablecoin that Decta could issue under MiCA, subject to regulatory approval.
Taken together, the new USDC settlement plan fits a broader trajectory for regulated payment businesses: stablecoins can be treated as settlement instruments in specific operational layers, while issuance ambitions or customer-facing products may follow separate regulatory and market readiness paths.
What to watch next
As Decta rolls USDC into its international treasury workflow, market observers should look for whether the arrangement remains strictly proprietary (back-end settlements) or gradually expands into other operational flows. The key unresolved question is how widely similar regulated payment firms will follow—especially given the ongoing need to balance faster settlement with compliance expectations across jurisdictions.
The CLARITY Act bill cleared the Senate Banking Committee by a comfortable 15-9 bipartisan margin, but now carries a 75% chance of dying before it ever reaches a final vote.
That’s the assessment TD Cowen Washington Research Group analyst Jaret Seiberg delivered in an August 10 policy note, and it reframes the CLARITY Act from a near-certain legislative win into a genuine coin-flip proposition heading into September.
This latest twist in the CLARITY Act drama comes as Kalshi bettors have been placing money on the bill being passed by July 1, 2027, with that market increasing 2% overnight, currently sitting at 35%.
Where the CLARITY Act Bill Actually Stands
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (H.R. 3633) aims to separate federal oversight of digital assets between the SEC and CFTC, designating digital commodities to the CFTC and investment-contract assets to the SEC.
Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) released updated text on July 22 and emphasized the urgency of passing the legislation, calling it “the last real chance…to get this right.”
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) noted the bill provides a clear regulatory framework for digital commodities.
Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) highlighted its role in protecting retail investors and preventing illicit finance. Despite previous momentum, including a 15-9 committee vote, progress has stalled in the Senate.
BREAKING: — Bull Theory (@BullTheoryio) August 11, 2026
SEC is set to begin its first major crypto rulemaking process this week as the Senate has failed to pass the Clarity Act before the August recess.
The SEC will meet on August 14 to propose “Regulation Crypto.”
The proposal could create a legal path for certain… pic.twitter.com/Z0R4fIdYPp
Why TD Cowen Puts the Odds Against Enactment
Seiberg’s estimate of a 75% failure rate, mentioned by Bitcoin.com News, came after Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed for cloture on Aug. 8. While an initial cloture vote is scheduled for 2:15 p.m. ET on Sept. 15, this does not guarantee a completed legislative process. Three potential failure scenarios include:
- The motion clears the 60-vote threshold, but Democrats block further cloture due to unresolved amendments.
- The scheduled vote does not happen because Republicans avoid contentious issues.
- The vote passes, but no amendments or subsequent motions occur, leaving the bill stalled.
With Republicans holding 53 seats, at least seven Democrats or independents must support the motion for it to pass. Disputes over stablecoin yield, anti-money-laundering provisions, and regulatory authority remain unresolved.
The 25% Path Isn’t Dead, Just Narrow
TD Cowen’s enactment case isn’t zero, and the firm’s language matters here: the bill is not dead, but the path forward is harder. The most plausible route to passage has the initial cloture motion clearing 60 votes.
Then Democrats getting a floor vote on their preferred ethics compromise, that amendment failing on a simple majority, and crypto-friendly Democrats then back final passage, having registered their objection on record.
A less likely branch involves the White House cutting its own ethics deal with Democrats to unlock enough votes outright. There’s also a lame-duck scenario, but it only exists if Republicans hold both chambers past the midterms, which pushes any resolution well beyond this fall’s trading calendar.
For traders pricing in a near-term regulatory catalyst, that’s the detail that matters most: even the optimistic case doesn’t deliver crypto regulation clarity on a September timeline.
Market Implications of a Stalled Senate Vote for the CLARITY Act
Assets most tied to the SEC/CFTC market-structure outcome have already priced in the delay. XRP, which stands to benefit directly from a codified digital-commodity classification under CFTC oversight, has seen ETF inflows soften alongside the postponed timeline.
This is a dynamic covered in detail, tied to weaker XRP ETF inflows amid CLARITY Act uncertainty. The pattern repeated after each procedural setback, including the immediate price reaction documented when the Senate vote was previously postponed.
That reaction function is instructive for Sept. 15. A clean cloture pass with visible follow-through, amendment votes, and a real path to final passage would be read as a genuine de-risking event for market-structure-sensitive tokens.
A cloture vote that either doesn’t happen or produces no subsequent action would confirm the bill’s drift toward TD Cowen’s base case, and assets that had priced in regulatory tailwinds would likely give back those gains.
The post CLARITY Act Vote Faces Procedural Fight, Not Final Passage appeared first on Cryptonews.
Bitdeer Technologies shed a fifth of its market value on August 10, closing at a market capitalization of $2.11 billion, down 19% from Friday’s $2.65 billion.
The BTC miner had posted a slightly wider quarterly loss than Wall Street expected that morning in its earnings announcement, and more importantly, it filed a shelf registration to dilute shareholders with up to $1 billion in new stock.
The stock’s plunge was idiosyncratic, not mirroring the price of broader markets nor BTC. Indeed, the Nasdaq closed within 0.4% of its Friday close, and BTC traded within 2%.
Bitdeer investors were reacting to the company’s particular disclosures, not the broader market.
Bitdeer reported second quarter revenue rising 47% versus Q2 2025 to $228.8 million, beating analysts’ consensus estimate of $225.7 million.
Its per-share earnings loss of $0.37 per share missed analysts’ $0.36 model, a forgivable single cent miss.
Behind those numbers, however, the company’s margins swung in the wrong direction. Gross margin turned negative for the quarter against a positive quarterly margin the prior year.
Analysts at Alliance Global weren’t impressed. They cut Bitdeer’s price target to $20 per share, reversing a raise to $23 they had made just days earlier on pre-earnings optimism.
CFO Michael Potter tried to frame Bitdeer’s quarter positively. He joined from Corsair Gaming this year, replacing outgoing finance chief Jianchun Liu.
“The second quarter reflected steady progress across our platform,” he said in the earnings release before his stock cratered by 19% in one day.
Steady progress is one way to describe a quarter where costs outran revenue.
He also cited a new colocation agreement and the AI Cloud business as evidence of an “integrated vertical stack” that failed to immediately impress investors.
Read more: Bitcoin miners increasingly rely on government handouts to compete
Bitdeer stock tanked on the dilution news
Before most capital allocators had finished digesting its earnings, Bitdeer filed a shelf registration statement with the SEC.
A prospectus supplement followed, authorizing a program to sell up to $1 billion worth of stock. A syndicate of banks will oversee that selling, including Barclays, Cantor Fitzgerald, and others.
The same prospectus discloses immediate dilution for anyone who bought at Friday’s close.
As a reward for patiently holding all of 2026, common shareholders in Bitdeer have lost 22% of their investment year to date.
A legacy lawsuit from February 2026 by American Heavy Plate Solutions has also created unease about Bitdeer’s Clarington, Ohio data center project.
The suit alleges that site disrupts another 30-year lease.
On his August 10 call, Potter said the motion to dismiss was denied and that the case has moved into discovery. “We continue to believe that the lawsuit doesn’t have any merit,” he added.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Jensen Huang, chief executive officer of Nvidia Corp., speaks to members of the media following the company’s “Japan AI Ecosystem” reception in Tokyo, Japan, on Thursday, July 16, 2026.
Kiyoshi Ota | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The first three-plus years of the artificial intelligence buildout has been paid for through record amounts of equity and debt issued by the world’s leading tech companies, some of whom are spending so much of their existing capital that they’ve turned cash-flow negative.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang just revealed what he expects to be the next phase of financing, backed not by corporate balance sheets, but by Wall Street’s top power brokers.
In an interview with CNBC on Monday, Huang called his plan a “big concept,” unveiling it on camera alongside leaders from Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Blackstone, KKR, Apollo and Brookfield. Together, those firms say they’re willing to loan $500 billion, and potentially more, for the construction and buildout of new AI factories, as chipmakers and hyperscalers race to meet seemingly endless demand.
Huang and his big-money partners, one by one, described what they view as a fundamental shift in the tech industry: AI infrastructure has become a new asset class.
“These systems are not like our PCs, not like our phones,” Huang told CNBC’s Becky Quick. “These are revenue-generating assets now. They’re productive, they’re long lived, they’re fungible, they’re flexible.”
The discussion was thin on specifics as far as the types of borrowers that will emerge, what interest rates will look like, where the facilities will be constructed and when it will all kick off. Their joint press release said the companies had signed memos of understanding, with no reference to any contracts.
The details matter. Almost 11 months ago, Nvidia announced a partnership to invest up to $100 billion in OpenAI as part of a plan to build out data centers requiring a combined 10 gigawatts of power. That investment never materialized, but Nvidia contributed $30 billion to the record-breaking funding round that OpenAI closed earlier this year.
Monday’s announcement struck a different tone, with the companies collectively pushing the message that money won’t be the problem as the AI buildout hits what McKinsey expects will be $7 trillion in global outlays by the end of the decade.
‘These are real assets’
So far this year, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Oracle have raised well over $150 billion combined by selling debt and equity to build data centers and fund the development of new AI models and support the explosion of AI agents. Intel just announced a $15 billion stock offering, then upsized it to $20 billion.
Financial firms are now gearing up to jump into the market in a different way, as executives like Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon and KKR’s Waldemar Szlezak see AI equipment attaining familiar money-making characteristics.
“You’re starting to see, in a sense, you know, asset-based financing against this infrastructure buildout,” Solomon said on the CNBC panel. “That’s not surprising because these are real assets. They have real value.”
Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon speaks during an interview at the Economic Club of Washington, Oct. 30, 2025.
Kevin Lamarque | Reuters
Instead of seeing supercomputers as devices that customers buy and use — the argument goes — these systems, filled with Nvidia’s graphics processing units that can cost $3 million per rack, look like profitable investments. Huang says the systems can be improved through his company’s CUDA software, and their lifespans extended, leading to better economics.
“You can think about it as a revenue stream, and you can securitize it or effectively divide that risk and sell it to investors who want to participate anywhere in that stack,” said Szlezak, KKR’s head of digital infrastructure.
When Wall Street starts getting noticeably excited about securitizing physical assets, a natural question emerges: What could go wrong?
One of the hallmarks of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 was the packaging of subprime mortgages into bundled securities that were then sold to investors as another way to make money from the housing boom. When mortgage defaults started going up, the whole system began to unwind.
Famed short-seller Michael Burry, who made a fortune betting against subprime mortgages, suggested late last year that companies including Meta, Oracle, Microsoft, Google and Amazon were overstating the useful life of their AI chips and understating depreciation.
The subprime meltdown wasn’t part of the conversation on Monday, but several of the financiers acknowledged a certain amount of risk in the AI trade.
“There will be excesses, there will be pullbacks,” said Jim Zelter, president of Apollo Global Management, adding that the number of participants in the project alleviates concentration concerns.
“There’ll be big companies that win,” Solomon said. “There’ll be big companies that turn out to be not what people expected.”
In discussing BlackRock’s role in Monday’s agreement, CEO Larry Fink made a direct comparison to the mortgage market, though he referenced a period decades before the housing boom and bust.
“This is the very beginning, like what it was when I started in the mortgage-backed securities market in the 1970s,” Fink said. “I look upon this as as a next future for financial engineering.”
All six of the financiers will make their own lending decisions, Huang said in the interview, noting that Nvidia will connect customers with financing partners.
Nvidia said it will have the option of backstopping 25% of every loan, a structure that should result in more favorable interest rates for companies that have previously had to rely on their own credit rating. Borrowers will have to use system architectures specified by Nvidia that would allow another company to take it over and operate it “if something were to happen,” Huang said.
Nvidia still has plenty to iron out with its financing partners, but Monday’s gathering marked a major step in showing the kind of money available to others in the ecosystem. Brookfield CEO Bruce Flatt said Huang created the necessary format for investors.
“Jensen’s leading this to create structures,” Flatt said. “Because there’s hundreds of trillions of dollars of money in the world.”
Nasdaq-listed chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA), the bellwether for everything AI, is pushing Wall Street banks to treat its AI computing power like commercial real estate, toll roads or power plants: as an investable infrastructure asset.
Nvidia said Monday it has signed memorandums of understanding with six Wall Street heavyweights – Apollo Global Management, Blackstone, BlackRock, Brookfield Asset Management, Goldman Sachs and KKR – to set up financing platforms that could eventually tap more than $500 billion in third‑party capital.
The goal, according to the chipmaker, is to treat AI compute as a bankable infrastructure asset rather than a pure tech expense, encouraging customers to build out AI data centres and lock in demand for Nvidia’s hardware.
“This is really the first time that technology chips have become an investable asset class. These are revenue-generating assets now. They’re productive, they’re long-lived, they’re fungible, they’re flexible,” Jensen Huang, NVIDIA’s founder and CEO, said.
“Fundamentally, what’s different about this industry and this way of doing computing is that the computer is now part of the infrastructure, like electricity, like the internet, and so you have to think about it like it’s infrastructure,” he added.
What’s AI compute
AI compute refers to the raw processing power used to train and run artificial intelligence models. Specialized chips, mostly Nvidia’s high-end GPUs, primarily do that work and make up the large data centers that Nvidia calls “AI factories.”
Bitcoin’s price adventure above $65,000 came to a halt yesterday evening as the asset was rejected and driven south by approximately $1,500 to under $64,000.
Several larger-cap altcoins have followed suit, including ETH, which has dropped below $1,900, and XRP, which is just inches away from slipping below $1.00 for the first time since November 2024.
BTC Halted at $65K
The primary cryptocurrency slumped at the beginning of the previous week as well, going from $63,800 to a monthly low of $62,200 within hours before it finally found some support. It erased the losses immediately and even jumped past $64,000 a day later. Its gradual ascent continued for a few days to $65,000 before the CLARITY Act’s latest setback in the US Senate sent it south toward $64,000.
However, that support held, and the weaker US jobs data on Friday resulted in another leg up to $65,400. BTC failed to overcome that level, though, and calmed at around $65,000 for the weekend. It didn’t really make a move for the next 48 hours before it tried a minor breakout on Monday, which was stopped at $65,400 once again.
This time, though, the bears were more persistent and drove the cryptocurrency south to $63,800 as Peter Schiff used the opportunity to urge investors to sell. BTC didn’t dip any further and now sits at around $64,000 once again.
Its market cap has dropped below $1.290 trillion, while its dominance over the alts sits above 57% on CG.
XRP, PI, ADA Drop
Ethereum is down by 2.5% in the past day and now struggles below $1,900. Ripple’s native token is among the poorest performers lately, and it has dipped to a 21-month low at inches above $1.00. It’s now agonizingly close to breaking below that coveted level. ZEC has dumped by almost 5% to under $490, while ADA is below $0.19 after a 4% decline.
In contrast, BNB, TRX, HYPE, DOGE, RAIN, XMR, and LINK have marked some gains within the same timeframe. MNT is up by over 6%, while WLF has gained more than 4%.
Pi Network’s native token has dropped below the $0.09 support after another near-5% daily crash.
The cumulative market cap of all crypto assets has erased around $40 billion since yesterday and is down to $2.250 trillion on CG.
The post XRP Dumps to 21-Month Low as BTC Price Falls to $64K: Market Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Peter Schiff wants investors out of Bitcoin (BTC) and Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy, MSTR) stock as gold pushes past $4,400 an ounce. The longtime gold bull says money is rotating back toward hard assets.
His warning landed Tuesday, one day after Strategy confirmed another Bitcoin sale. Meanwhile, gold and silver both hit multi-week highs while BTC barely moved.
Why Schiff Calls Bitcoin the Anti-Gold Trade
Gold traded at $4,402.43 an ounce early Tuesday, up 0.28% on the day. The metal has gained 6.78% in a month and roughly 29.6% over the past year.
Silver moved to $65.84, a seven-week high. Over 12 months, the metal has climbed almost 74%.
Chinese institutional demand and steady central bank buying have carried much of the bid this year.
Both rallies followed weak US jobs data that cooled expectations for further Federal Reserve rate hikes. Bitcoin, however, gained little from the same repricing. Schiff reads that gap as structural rather than temporary.
“When gold initially broke out, Bitcoin broke down. When gold corrected, that’s when Bitcoin bounced. Now that the gold correction is over, and gold is back in rally mode, Bitcoin has resumed its decline. Bitcoin is anti-gold. The more gold goes up, the more Bitcoin will go down.”
Peter Schiff, X
Tuesday’s tape offers partial support. Bitcoin traded at $65,254, up just 0.5% in 24 hours, with a market cap of nearly $1.31 trillion.
The history complicates his thesis, though. Gold slid below $4,000 as recently as June, and Bitcoin did not rally on that weakness either.
Strategy Sells More BTC to Raise Dollars
Strategy sold 1,690 BTC last week for $108.6 million, an average of $64,262 per coin net of fees. The company then used those proceeds to buy back STRC shares, its preferred stock still trading under par.
It also raised $653.1 million from 6.59 million common shares. Its dollar reserve hit $4.65 billion as of August 9, while holdings slipped to 840,447 BTC.
That sale price sits far under the company’s average cost. Its aggregate basis stands near $75,385 per coin, so last week’s disposals locked in a loss.
Schiff reads the pattern as a collateral problem rather than a cash management choice.
Saylor, for his part, insists he never sold his coins, even as his company keeps selling Bitcoin.
Not everyone reads the divergence Schiff’s way. Gordon Grant, portfolio manager and head of derivatives at Bitwise, frames Bitcoin’s digital gold test around adoption by sanctioned states rather than price action.
Gold’s advance and Strategy’s selling now run in parallel. Whether they stay linked depends on the Fed’s next move and on how much cash Saylor still needs to raise.
The post Peter Schiff Says Sell Bitcoin and Strategy Stock as Gold Tops $4,400 appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Man United ‘ready to do something Barcelona are refusing’ after £20m transfer agreement
Building up the US power grid won’t be wasted, even if the AI bubble bursts
Taiwan’s Opposition Leader Says Talking to China Is the Island’s Best Defense
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Mattifying Sunscreen
-
Fashion4 days agoFrugal Friday’s Workwear Report: Cap-Sleeve Pointelle Crewneck Sweater
-
Sports5 days agoJordan Coyle & Cordiamo take Laya Arena Stakes at RDS
-
News Videos3 days agoCan Astrology Help Find Gold and Silver Trends? A Financial Astrology Guide
-
Business6 days agoUS stocks: Dow closes at record on Mideast optimism; SpaceX, AMD drag Nasdaq
-
Politics5 days agoReform UK And Greens Sink To Lowest Favourability Ratings To Date
-
Business6 days agoNvidia Stock Climbs 2.5% as Chip Sector Rally Builds Ahead of AMD Earnings, Nvidia’s Own Report Looms
-
Tech6 days agoOpenAI, Anthropic AI agents targeted real people and systems in cyber tests
-
Crypto World7 days agoPolymarket targets $20 billion valuation as competition heats up in prediction market sector
-
Business6 days agoSupply chain issues impact Ingredion
-
Tech4 days agoRinn Pharma & Biopharma to join NordicPharmaTrain network
-
Business2 days agoHow to Start a Cleaning Business: A Step-by-Step Guide
-
Crypto World6 days agoDow and S&P 500 Hit Records on AI Earnings: When Will the Bubble Burst?
-
Business2 days agoDatadog: Best Of Breed For Multiple Reasons
-
Business2 days agoBDC Weekly Review: Private BDC Q2 Numbers Are Strong
-
Crypto World6 days agoDollar Index Trapped at 100 as Hawkish Fed Meets Official Selling
-
Business6 days agoMcDonald’s (MCD) Q2 2026 earnings
-
Fashion6 days agoThe Bright Side of Black and White
-
Fashion6 days agoSuit of the Week: Me + Em
-
Business6 days agoApple UK encryption challenge filed against Home Office
You must be logged in to post a comment Login