Crypto.com is world’s 11th largest exchange, according to data source Coingecko.

Stock tokenization push

The launch lands in a fast-growing corner at the intersection of the crypto market and traditional assets. Tokenized stocks have reached about $2.49 billion in value, up roughly 600% over the past year, according to RWA.xyz data, as exchanges and blockchain firms race to bring equities onchain. Citi estimated that tokenized securities could grow into a $5.5 trillion market by 2030, including $2.6 trillion in tokenized equities.

Kraken, Bybit, Bitget and Robinhood are among the trading platforms that have rolled out tokenized equity products for investors outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), the backbone of the U.S. securities markets, has begun testing tokenized securities infrastructure. At the same time, Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange also unveiled tokenization initiatives.

BBut not all of those products work the same way. Synthetic or derivative products track a stock’s performance without making the buyer a shareholder. Issuer-sponsored models, by contrast, can put actual common shares onchain while preserving ownership and shareholder rights.

The debate is drawing increasing attention from regulators and market infrastructure providers as tokenized securities move closer to the financial mainstream.

Read more: Wall Street transfer agents lobby SEC, warning that third-party tokens pose risks to market integrity

Harmony said on Aug. 12 that it was working with cryptocurrency exchanges to stop and freeze funds after a suspected security incident on its Layer 1 network. 

In a post, the team also said it was developing a patch and evaluating rollback options. It did not identify the root cause, confirm how many tokens were created or name exchanges that had frozen assets.

On-chain analyst Juiceberg reported an “unauthorized 4B ONE mint” through empty blocks. In separate analysis, the researcher said about 2.8 billion ONE were quickly routed to exchanges and later estimated that roughly 115 million remained available to sell onchain. Harmony has not independently confirmed those figures, so the amounts remain analyst estimates rather than an official assessment.

Harmony investigates reported 4 billion ONE mint

The reported mint would be unusually large relative to ONE’s existing supply. crypto.news data listed about 15 billion ONE in circulation on Wednesday. Four billion tokens would equal roughly 27% of that previously reported circulating amount, although the comparison does not establish Harmony’s supply after the suspected incident.

Juiceberg also claimed Harmony’s total supply endpoint “hides the inflation.” The project has not confirmed that assertion. Harmony’s statement was narrower, saying its team was coordinating with exchanges, preparing a patch and considering rollback options. It provided no public timetable for either step.

ONE price plunges as trading volume jumps

ONE sold off sharply as reports of the mint circulated. crypto.news showed the token near $0.00083, down about 32% over 24 hours, with trading volume around $36.9 million. Its market capitalization stood near $13.7 million when the data was checked.

The market move coincided with the reported incident, but available data does not establish how much selling came from addresses linked to the suspected attacker. Juiceberg’s claim that 2.8 billion ONE reached centralized exchanges would make exchange cooperation central to recovery efforts if those transfers are confirmed.

Harmony has faced unauthorized token creation before

This is not Harmony’s first incident involving unintended token creation. In December 2023, the project published a technical report saying a staking logic flaw caused 146.28 million ONE to be minted across 74 delegator addresses. Harmony responded with an emergency hard fork.

The report traced the flaw to undelegation logic after a validator commission change. Some matured undelegations were not cleared correctly from network state and were repeatedly paid across epochs, creating tokens outside intended issuance. Harmony activated its fix at block 51,118,080.

Harmony also has a history of larger security losses. As previously reported, attackers drained roughly $100 million from the Horizon Bridge in June 2022. The FBI later attributed the theft to North Korea’s Lazarus Group in an official notice.

The stolen assets later began moving through Tornado Cash as investigators attempted to trace them. Harmony subsequently proposed minting billions of new tokens for victim reimbursement, but withdrew that proposal after community resistance. That planned recovery mechanism was separate from the unauthorized mint now reported by Juiceberg.

The latest incident also comes after the network’s DeFi activity contracted sharply. In related coverage, user deposits had fallen 99% from their 2022 peak by February 2025 following years of ecosystem outflows.

What happens next for Harmony

The immediate questions are whether exchanges can identify and freeze the reported deposits, what flaw enabled any unauthorized mint and whether Harmony ultimately chooses a rollback. A rollback would require clarity around the affected block range and how legitimate transactions made during that period would be treated.

As of publication, Harmony’s public statement had not supplied those technical details or confirmed the 4 billion ONE figure. The next verified update will need to establish the root cause, amount actually created, quantity frozen by exchanges and whether the network will deploy a patch or pursue a rollback.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has stepped in to keep prediction market operator Kalshi running, citing an “emergency” created by New York’s enforcement action and its request for a temporary restraining order. In an order issued Tuesday, the regulator directed Kalshi to continue operating under its normal practices and in line with the Commodity Exchange Act’s Core Principles.

The CFTC warned that an abrupt disruption to event-contract trading could undermine the goal of maintaining a uniform, national derivatives market—something it says is critical for orderly trading and price discovery. The dispute is also framed as part of a wider federal-versus-state battle over whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling rules when event contracts are traded on federally regulated exchanges.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC invoked emergency authority to require Kalshi to keep operating while New York pursues a temporary restraining order.
• New York’s proposed order could restrict Kalshi’s event-contract offerings tied to sports, elections, culture, and other events occurring in or connected to New York residents.
• The CFTC argues the Commodity Exchange Act requires a consistent national derivatives market and cautions against a “patchwork” of state gaming laws.
• The latest CFTC order does not resolve whether federal law preempts state enforcement; it mainly addresses operational continuity.
• The CFTC says it has taken similar actions against multiple states beyond New York to defend its jurisdiction.

Emergency order keeps Kalshi trading as the legal fight escalates

In its statement, the CFTC said New York’s move—both the state’s enforcement action and its request for a temporary restraining order—amounts to a market emergency. The agency referenced the risk that the temporary restraining order could effectively prevent Kalshi from offering event contracts nationwide, given the company’s New York ties.

According to the CFTC, New York is seeking at least $36 billion in compensatory damages while also pursuing a damages accounting. The state’s requested relief is designed to bar Kalshi from offering a broad set of contracts—spanning sports, cultural events, elections, and other event categories—when those contracts are offered in, from, or to people located in New York.

CFTC Chair Michael Selig said Congress did not intend derivatives exchanges to operate under a fractured set of state gaming rules. The commission’s position is that major disruptions to regulated derivatives markets can harm orderly trading and impede the price discovery function the framework is meant to support.

How New York describes the case—and what Kalshi disputes

New York’s lawsuit, filed on July 31, alleges Kalshi runs an illegal, unlicensed gambling operation by offering contracts tied to sports, elections, culture, and other events. The state says it is seeking restitution, disgorgement, damages, and penalties—describing potential penalties that include a figure equal to three times Kalshi’s alleged gains, plus $100,000 for each unauthorized sports-wagering offer or attempt in New York.

Kalshi’s core argument is that states cannot effectively shut down a federally licensed exchange. The conflict centers on legal jurisdiction: New York frames its position as state regulation of gambling and wagering, while the CFTC argues that the Commodity Exchange Act provides it with exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving swaps traded on designated contract markets, including event contracts Kalshi lists as swaps.

That difference matters because it determines which regulator—state authorities or the CFTC—has the power to restrict or condition Kalshi’s product offerings. It also shapes whether event-contract trading will be governed uniformly across state lines or subject to multiple state-by-state enforcement theories.

Preliminary rulings have not ended the jurisdiction dispute

There have already been setbacks for Kalshi in some respects, but also legal findings that keep the dispute alive. In a separate New York case, a federal judge denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction on July 7. At that stage, the court found that New York’s gambling laws were not preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act as applied to Kalshi’s sports-event contracts.

Meanwhile, the CFTC has also attempted to prevent New York from applying its gambling laws to CFTC-registered contract markets. In April, the CFTC sued New York in federal court for that purpose, seeking to stop the state’s enforcement. Judge Jed Rakoff denied—without prejudice—the CFTC’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order. The denial was tied to the court’s view that the agency had not shown, at that early stage, a high likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm.

According to the CFTC, Tuesday’s order is intended to keep trading functioning while the underlying jurisdictional conflict continues. The agency emphasized that its action is not a final judicial determination of whether federal law preempts state gambling enforcement.

Federal-state clash over event contracts spans more than one state

This confrontation is not confined to New York. The CFTC said it has sued eight other states, along with New York, to defend the jurisdiction it says Congress granted it. The underlying legal theory is that event contracts falling under the federal derivatives framework should not be subjected to state gambling restrictions in ways that fragment the market.

For market participants, the practical implication is straightforward: even when a product is traded on a federally regulated exchange, the business model can still face state-level disruption. The CFTC’s emergency order suggests the regulator views that risk as severe enough to justify immediate intervention to avoid shutdown-by-injunction dynamics.

What remains uncertain is whether courts will ultimately treat the relevant Commodity Exchange Act provisions as preempting state gambling enforcement in the context of event contracts described as swaps. Tuesday’s order does not settle that question, and the dispute is likely to continue through further motions and rulings.

Investors, traders, and builders using prediction markets should watch how courts assess the preemption question in the ongoing cases and whether additional states face similar CFTC action. The timing and scope of any eventual injunction—or the lack of one—could determine how consistently event-contract trading can operate across the U.S. while the federal jurisdictional argument plays out.

Binance added Moonbeam (GLMR), ICON (ICX), Moonriver (MOVR), SuperRare (RARE) and Sophon (SOPH) to its Monitoring Tag list on Aug. 11 after its latest project reviews. 

The designation places all five tokens under closer scrutiny and signals possible future delisting if they stop meeting the exchange’s listing standards, according to its announcement.

The exchange said the move does not remove any of the tokens from trading and will not affect other related services. Binance did not provide a specific reason for adding each project. The notice was also updated later on Aug. 11 to revise information concerning the Monitoring Tag quiz.

Binance Monitoring Tags do not mean immediate delisting

The exchange uses the Monitoring Tag for assets it considers more volatile or risky than other listed tokens. Its reviews examine team commitment, development activity, trading volume, liquidity, network security, smart contract stability, public communication, due diligence responses, token supply changes and evidence of misconduct.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) invoked its emergency authority on Tuesday, ordering prediction market Kalshi to continue operating.

The CFTC said that New York’s enforcement action and request for a temporary restraining order themselves constituted a market emergency and directed Kalshi to continue operating in accordance with its normal practices and the Commodity Exchange Act’s Core Principles.

New York’s requested temporary restraining order would bar Kalshi from operating a business offering contracts tied to sports, culture, elections and other events in or from New York or to people in the state. The CFTC said the order could prevent Kalshi from offering all event contracts nationwide because it is based in New York. According to the CFTC, New York is seeking at least $36 billion in compensatory damages pending an accounting.

The CFTC said the Commodity Exchange Act requires the commission to provide a uniform national derivatives market and that major disruptions threaten orderly trading and price discovery. CFTC Chair Michael Selig said Congress did not intend derivatives exchanges to face a “patchwork of state gaming laws.”

The confrontation is part of a broader national fight over whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gambling laws as applied to event contracts traded on federally regulated exchanges.

CFTC challenges state oversight of prediction markets 

In the lawsuit filed on July 31, New York alleges Kalshi runs an illegal, unlicensed gambling business by offering contracts tied to sports, elections, culture and other events. The state is seeking restitution, disgorgement, damages and penalties, including a penalty equal to three times Kalshi’s alleged gains and $100,000 for each unauthorized sports wagering offer or attempt in New York.

Kalshi says states cannot shut down a federally licensed exchange, while the CFTC argues that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving swaps traded on designated contract markets, including event contracts Kalshi lists as swaps.

A federal judge in a separate New York case denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction on July 7, finding at that stage that New York gambling laws were not preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act as applied to Kalshi’s sports-event contracts.

Related: Judge stays CFTC’s case against US soldier over prediction market bets

In a separate federal case, the CFTC sued New York in federal court in April to block the state from applying its gambling laws to CFTC-registered contract markets. Judge Jed Rakoff denied without prejudice the agency’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order, finding that the CFTC had not established a high likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm.

The latest CFTC order directs Kalshi to continue operating but does not end New York’s lawsuit or resolve the underlying jurisdictional dispute. It is not a judicial ruling on whether federal law preempts state gambling enforcement. 

The dispute extends beyond New York. The CFTC said it has sued eight other states, along with New York, to defend its congressionally granted jurisdiction.

Magazine: The 100x obsession: Fundamentals grow in importance as crypto matures