The European Union will prohibit Belarusian nationals and residents from owning, controlling or managing crypto exchanges and other crypto service providers regulated under the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework starting Aug. 25. 

The measure appears in Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847, adopted Thursday to amend the EU’s sanctions framework targeting Belarus over its involvement in Russia’s war against Ukraine. The document expands an existing restriction that applied only to companies providing crypto wallet, account or custody services. 

The decision enters into force on July 24, while the expanded crypto provision will apply from Aug. 25. 

Under the amendment, Belarusian nationals and residents may not own or control an EU-based entity providing “any other crypto-asset services” as defined under MiCA or hold a position on its governing body.

MiCA’s service categories include operating trading platforms, exchanging crypto assets, executing and transmitting client orders, placing crypto assets, providing transfers, offering investment advice or portfolio management. 

EU expands crypto sanctions after MiCA transition ends

The sanctions expansion comes weeks after the end of MiCA’s transition period on July 1. Crypto companies without authorization were ordered to wind down or face enforcement actions.

Related: Ripple secures full MiCA license for crypto services across Europe

The Belarus restriction follows a broader EU push to target crypto platforms and financial networks accused of helping Russia evade sanctions imposed over its war in Ukraine. 

On Thursday, as part of its 21st sanctions package against Russia, the EU extended its transaction ban to 14 crypto-related service platforms outside the bloc and introduced a mechanism allowing it to prohibit dealings with any foreign crypto provider used by Russia to evade sanctions. The final package expands on the June 11 proposal, which targeted 11 crypto platforms.

The proposal followed the United Kingdom’s May 26 sanctions against Huobi Global S.A., the Panamanian company behind HTX, over alleged support for Russia-linked financial networks involving sanctioned entities A7 and Garantex.

HTX denied wrongdoing, telling Cointelegraph that regulatory compliance “remains our absolute top priority” and that it strictly adheres to regulatory frameworks in the jurisdictions where it operates.

Magazine: Why Australia’s $17B crypto opportunity depends on regulation

Poolin has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States as it moves to sell its Texas bitcoin mining assets under a court-supervised process while carrying about $173 million in prepetition obligations.

According to filings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, Singapore-based Poolin and its U.S. subsidiaries, Lonestar Dream Inc. and Lonestar Taproot LLC, filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions on July 22. The debtors said the proceedings are intended to facilitate an orderly sale of their remaining assets rather than revive the business as an operating mining company.

Court records show Poolin estimated it has between 10,001 and 25,000 creditors, assets worth between $1 million and $10 million, and liabilities ranging from $100 million to $500 million.

A declaration filed by Chief Restructuring Officer Michael DuFrayne states that the companies owed approximately $173.1 million before bankruptcy. About $163.7 million of that total relates to unsecured IOUs issued to Poolin Wallet customers after withdrawals were suspended during the cryptocurrency market downturn in 2022.

Mining and hosting operations at the company’s Pyote and Tarbush facilities in West Texas ended on July 10, with only a small workforce remaining to secure the sites and assist with the sale process, according to the declaration.

Texas assets head to auction

Meanwhile, the debtors have already signed separate asset purchase agreements with Thor CALAP LLC, establishing a combined stalking-horse bid of $52 million for the Texas assets.

The agreements include a $15 million offer for the Pyote property together with its related power rights and equipment, while a separate $37 million bid covers the Tarbush site’s power rights and equipment. Court filings note that the Tarbush transaction does not include the property’s surface-use agreement.

Under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the stalking-horse agreements set the minimum price for the auction while allowing higher competing offers before any final sale receives court approval. Each mining site may also be sold independently if separate bids provide better value for creditors.

Before reaching the proposed transactions, the debtors spent roughly three months marketing the assets to more than 335 prospective buyers and investors. According to the court declaration, the outreach targeted cryptocurrency miners, artificial intelligence and high-performance computing operators, hyperscale data center companies, private equity firms and real estate investment trusts.

The marketing effort resulted in 28 signed nondisclosure agreements and seven letters of intent covering both individual facilities and the combined portfolio.

Court filings state that interest from AI infrastructure operators increased the potential value of the sites because of their existing electrical systems and power capacity, even though Poolin’s own mining and hosting business had become unprofitable. Since their formation, Lonestar Dream and Lonestar Taproot accumulated losses of approximately $45.9 million.

Wallet collapse left customers with IOUs

Founded in China in 2017 by Zhibiao “Kevin” Pan, Fa Zhu and Tianzhao Li, Poolin grew into one of the world’s largest bitcoin mining pools and held the top position globally by September 2019.

Alongside mining, the company expanded into financial services through Poolin Wallet, which allowed customers to borrow USDT against cryptocurrency collateral before later introducing interest-bearing deposit products.

The business model came under increasing pressure after China prohibited bitcoin mining in 2021 and digital asset prices declined sharply the following year.

According to the Chapter 11 declaration, Poolin transferred customer collateral to Antalpha Technologies and borrowed roughly $213 million against cryptocurrency valued at approximately $355.8 million at the time.

The filing states that the borrowed funds supported construction of the Texas mining facilities, purchases of mining machines, customer withdrawals, interest payments and day-to-day operating expenses.

As cryptocurrency prices continued falling, Poolin Wallet suspended withdrawals in September 2022 and distributed IOU tokens representing customers’ frozen balances.

Around 11,700 wallet users held balances exceeding $100 when approximately $163.7 million worth of IOUs were issued, according to the declaration.

The court filing further states that Antalpha liquidated Poolin’s collateral in November 2022, when management estimated the company owed about $260 million against digital assets then valued at roughly $265 million.

Since then, Poolin has not resumed normal business operations. Its remaining assets now include approximately $1.2 million held in a New Jersey bank account, an office lease and an intercompany claim. Certain Poolin Wallet users have also filed legal claims against the debtors in both the United States and Singapore.

Mining infrastructure attracts AI interest

While the bankruptcy centers on creditor recoveries, the sale process also shows how mining infrastructure has become valuable for buyers outside the cryptocurrency industry.

According to the Chapter 11 declaration, many parties approached during the marketing process were focused on artificial intelligence and high-performance computing rather than bitcoin mining alone, as existing power connections and electrical infrastructure have become increasingly attractive for AI data center projects.

Poolin’s bankruptcy also comes months after another major mining operator entered insolvency proceedings. Earlier this year, Russian miner BitRiver faced court-supervised bankruptcy over unpaid debts tied to power supply, data center operations and service contracts.

The interest follows a pattern already emerging across publicly listed mining companies. Earlier this week, Ionic Digital secured SEC approval for its planned Nasdaq listing after repositioning much of its business toward AI infrastructure. The company, created from Celsius Network’s bankruptcy restructuring, has converted part of its Texas campus from bitcoin mining to AI computing under a long-term agreement with AI cloud provider Nscale.

A similar strategy has been adopted by IREN, which acquired Spain’s Nostrum Group in June to add approximately 490 megawatts of grid-connected power for AI cloud expansion across Europe. The company has reported rising AI cloud revenue even as bitcoin mining income declined. HIVE Digital and Bitdeer have also announced projects converting mining facilities into high-performance computing infrastructure.

Poolin’s case differs from those companies because it is liquidating assets through Chapter 11 rather than expanding into AI operations itself. Still, the court filings indicate that demand from AI-focused buyers has strengthened interest in the Texas properties during the auction process.

The debtors said unsecured creditors, including Poolin Wallet customers, could receive distributions if the auction produces successful sales. According to the Chapter 11 filings, however, the final recovery will depend on competing bids, administrative expenses, sale costs and court approval of a liquidation plan.

Ripple has launched Ripple Mint and invested in compliance firm Notabene as it works to expand institutional use of Ripple USD. 

The two updates address different parts of the stablecoin process. Ripple Mint gives approved customers a direct way to issue, redeem, bridge and track RLUSD. The Notabene deal places the token inside a business payment network built for regulated firms.

The releases came during a mixed month for RLUSD. A July 24 market snapshot placed monthly transfer volume near $10.95 billion, down about 25% from $14.6 billion. Holder numbers rose 6%, while active addresses increased 70%. Market value fell almost 5% during the same period. The figures show broader wallet participation but lower total value moving through the token.

Ripple Mint automates institutional stablecoin operations

Ripple Mint replaces more manual RLUSD workflows with a web console, application programming interfaces and webhook alerts. Existing institutional customers can mint and redeem RLUSD, check account balances and follow each transaction from fiat receipt to onchain settlement. Ripple also uses shared reference IDs to connect each stage, which can make internal tracking and reconciliation easier.

The platform supports fiat settlement and transfers across supported blockchains. Ripple said customers can connect Mint to their own systems instead of relying only on staff using a dashboard. The company framed the product for exchanges, market makers, fintech firms and other institutions that need repeated stablecoin operations. Ripple Mint is available to existing RLUSD customers, while Ripple has not published pricing or wider access terms.

Notabene adds a compliance route for RLUSD payments

Ripple also made an undisclosed strategic investment in Notabene. The companies plan to add RLUSD to Notabene Flow, a platform for business stablecoin payments. They will also study how Notabene’s payment authorization tools can work with Ripple Payments. Notabene says its network connects more than 2,300 institutions across over 100 jurisdictions and processes more than $2 trillion in annualized transaction volume.

Notabene Flow focuses on identity checks, counterparty information and transaction approval before funds move. That process can help financial firms apply Travel Rule and internal compliance controls to stablecoin payments. Ripple stablecoin executive Jack McDonald said, “Institutional adoption depends on more than efficient settlement rails alone.” Financial terms were not disclosed, and neither company named the first institutions expected to use RLUSD through Notabene Flow.

RLUSD expands across more blockchain networks

Ripple has also widened RLUSD access beyond the XRP Ledger and Ethereum. Through Wormhole’s Native Token Transfers framework, the stablecoin now connects to the XRPL EVM sidechain, Base, Optimism, Ink and Unichain, with access spanning more than 40 supported networks. The setup is designed to move native RLUSD between chains without creating separate wrapped versions.

As crypto.news reported in June, the multichain rollout targets exchanges, payment applications and decentralized finance services. Ripple said XRP and RLUSD can serve different roles across those markets, including settlement, swaps, collateral and liquidity. However, activity on each network will depend on available integrations, market makers and user demand rather than technical access alone.

Usage data remains mixed despite wider access

RLUSD remains one of the larger regulated dollar stablecoins. Ripple’s reserve page reported $1.51 billion in circulating RLUSD and $1.62 billion in reserve funds as of July 16. Standard Custody & Trust Company issues the token under a New York Department of Financial Services limited-purpose trust charter. Ripple says cash, cash equivalents and U.S. Treasuries back RLUSD, with monthly independent attestations.

Related activity on the XRP Ledger has continued to grow. As previously reported, Ripple-backed Evernorth said RLUSD pairs had generated more than $2.5 billion in XRP Ledger trading since launch, including about $900 million through the RLUSD/XRP pair over six months. Ripple and SBI also launched RLUSD in Japan in June after local approval, adding another regulated distribution channel.

Still, the July transfer decline shows that supply and wallet growth do not always produce higher payment use. Stablecoin transfer volume can change with exchange flows, treasury movements, market-maker activity and large institutional transactions. Rolling 30-day figures can also move quickly as older transactions leave the calculation window.

Ripple Mint may reduce the work needed to create and redeem RLUSD, while Notabene may give more institutions a compliant route to send it. The next measure will be whether those tools produce sustained payment and settlement volume. Ripple has not released volume targets, customer forecasts or a schedule for publishing adoption data tied to either launch.

Dogecoin fell 4.5% and ether dropped 2.5% on Friday, leading a broad but shallow retreat across the majors as the market consolidated a strong week, per CoinDesk data. XRP and Solana each slipped about 2.5%, while bitcoin held up better, down 0.6% to around $65,400.

The pullback barely dented the weekly picture. Bitcoin is still up 3% over seven days, ether 1.8%, and most majors remain green on the week, with Hyperliquid the exception at down 3.5%.

There was no single catalyst behind Friday’s move, more a pause after the run-up than a reversal.

LayerZero and Keeta have partnered to make tokenized commercial bank deposits transferable across Ethereum, Solana, Base and the Keeta Network. 

The companies plan to launch the service later in July 2026, giving institutions a way to move bank-backed digital money across several public blockchains.

The system will use Keeta Stablecoins, which the companies describe as tokenized commercial bank money. Commercial bank deposits held through Bivo and its partner-bank network will back the tokens. The initial release will cover the U.S. dollar and eight other fiat currencies.

Keeta Stablecoins target multichain settlement

According to the official LayerZero announcement, the first currencies will include USD, EUR, JPY, CNY, GBP, CAD, MXN, AED and HKD. The companies did not provide a specific launch date or name the institutions that will use the product at launch.

The product targets treasury, payment and settlement work. An institution could hold a token linked to a commercial bank deposit and transfer it between supported networks. Keeta CEO Ty Schenk said, “The future of institutional money isn’t a walled garden.” He said Keeta wants regulated bank money to move across chains rather than remain inside one closed system.

LayerZero supplies the cross-chain token standard

Keeta Stablecoins will use LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token Standard. LayerZero’s technical documentation says the OFT model lets one fungible token exist across several chains while maintaining one global supply. A transfer removes tokens from circulation on the source network and credits the same amount on the destination network.

The partnership says the issuing institution will retain contract authority across the supported networks. LayerZero also offers stablecoin controls such as transfer restrictions, rate limits, pause functions and separate operational roles. These controls allow an issuer to apply internal policies while keeping the token available on more than one blockchain.

Bivo provides the deposit and payment connection

Bivo will provide access to U.S. payment rails and its partner-bank network. Keeta identifies Bivo as a licensed money transmitter with NMLS number 2572288. California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation also lists Bivo as a regulated money transmitter in the state.

The announcement does not state whether every token holder will receive deposit insurance or hold a direct claim against a named bank. It only says that commercial bank deposits held through Bivo will back the tokens. The companies also did not disclose reserve reporting rules, redemption fees, minimum transaction sizes or which entities will issue each currency.

The structure differs from many stablecoins that hold cash, Treasury bills or other reserve assets outside a customer deposit account. Keeta and LayerZero still use the term “stablecoins” for the product, but they describe the backing as commercial bank money rather than a mixed reserve portfolio.

Tokenized deposit projects gain wider attention

Banks and crypto firms have tested several forms of tokenized deposits in 2026. JPMorgan and other large U.S. banks have worked on a shared network for tokenized deposits, with a possible 2027 launch. That project would operate through a bank-led system rather than distribute deposits across several public chains.

In another model, Custodia Bank and Vantage Bank tested a dual-purpose token that acts as a bank deposit inside their Hazel network and as a stablecoin when it moves outside the network. The Keeta and LayerZero plan instead focuses on issuing several fiat-linked assets across Ethereum, Solana, Base and Keeta from the start.

LayerZero already supports cross-chain distribution for payment and tokenized-asset products. As previously reported, PayPal expanded PYUSD to additional networks through LayerZero infrastructure. Ondo Finance also used LayerZero for cross-chain transfers of tokenized stocks and exchange-traded funds.

Cross-chain systems also carry technical and operational risks. In April, attackers drained about $292 million from Kelp DAO’s rsETH bridge after compromising infrastructure used by a LayerZero verifier. LayerZero said the attack affected Kelp DAO’s single-verifier setup rather than the core protocol. The company later stopped signing messages for applications using one-verifier configurations and urged projects to use several independent verifiers.

Keeta will also add LayerZero as an anchor inside its network. Keeta uses anchors to connect blockchains and traditional payment systems. The company says its network reached 11.2 million transactions per second during a public stress test conducted with Google’s Spanner engineering team, although that result does not represent normal production volume.

The companies have not disclosed launch partners, expected transaction volume or pricing. Their July rollout will test whether institutions want tokenized commercial bank money that can move across public chains while the issuer keeps control over transfers and compliance settings.

BitMEX is facing a new US class action lawsuit that accuses the crypto derivatives exchange of engineering forced liquidations in order to take traders’ Bitcoin collateral. The complaint, filed in federal court in New York on Thursday by BKX Services Inc. and David Namdar, alleges losses of more than 622 BTC across the plaintiffs caused by liquidation events they say were improperly triggered and timed.

The dispute also arrives at a sensitive moment for BitMEX. The exchange has announced it will shut down after a strategic review by its owner, HDR Global Trading, with services scheduled to end in September—an end date that could affect how remaining users approach disputed positions and collateral claims.

Key takeaways

• The plaintiffs claim BitMEX’s liquidation system profited from forced liquidations even when, according to their allegations, collateral should have remained sufficient.
• They accuse an internal trading desk of having access to private customer information and of being able to continue trading during events that allegedly prevented ordinary users from acting.
• The lawsuit seeks the return of allegedly withheld Bitcoin plus compensatory and punitive damages, targeting US customers who bought BTC swap products from July 23, 2018.
• The filing references earlier BitMEX-related class action allegations that were dismissed without prejudice on June 30, 2025.
• The complaint was filed the same day BitMEX publicly announced its plan to close services on Sept. 23.

Allegations tied to forced liquidations and collateral handling

According to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs’ core allegation is that BitMEX’s system automatically liquidated positions in circumstances they say were not justified by the value of their collateral. The filing asserts that BitMEX enabled leverage of up to 100 times users’ collateral and then carried out liquidations while the plaintiffs allege collateral remained worth substantially more than the losses that were ultimately imposed.

In the plaintiffs’ account, the exchange’s insurance fund absorbed remaining Bitcoin after forced liquidations, which they say allowed BitMEX to benefit from liquidation events. The complaint argues that this mechanism effectively converted customer positions into profits for the exchange.

Central to the fraud claim is the allegation that BitMEX’s internal operations could continue while regular customers could not. The plaintiffs state that an internal trading desk had access to private customer information and that it could trade during “server freezes” that allegedly prevented ordinary users from accessing or closing their positions. The complaint frames this as a deliberate setup rather than a malfunction, alleging that the exchange deliberately developed a system that profited from liquidations.

What the plaintiffs want from the court

The lawsuit seeks the return of the Bitcoin that the plaintiffs say was withheld through forced liquidations, alongside both compensatory and punitive damages. The proposed class action would cover US customers who purchased BTC swap products in transactions dating back to July 23, 2018.

In terms of the specific amounts alleged, the complaint states that BKX Services Inc. claims losses of at least 305.81 BTC and Namdar alleges losses exceeding 316.85 BTC, for a combined total of 622.66 BTC.

Before this new filing, the dispute also has a history in the courts. The complaint points to a previous class action brought in 2020 by Brett Messieh and other traders, which asserted similar conduct and brought claims under the Commodity Exchange Act. That earlier case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 30, 2025, leaving room for new claims that mirror the allegations.

Case timing as BitMEX prepares to close

The new lawsuit was filed on the same day BitMEX announced it would shut down after 11 years of operation. BitMEX said it would stop providing services on Sept. 23 following a strategic review by HDR Global Trading, the exchange’s owner.

As part of the wind-down, BitMEX has stopped accepting new registrations and plans to block users from opening new positions starting on Aug. 26. The shutdown news was followed by market turmoil around BitMEX’s BMEX utility token, with Cointelegraph reporting a roughly 90% plunge after the closure announcement.

That timeline could raise practical questions for affected traders. With services scheduled to end in September and new position openings paused before then, users who believe their collateral was unjustly seized may have to focus quickly on legal remedies and any administrative steps available from the exchange—assuming any process exists while the platform winds down.

What happens next for traders and the exchange

For traders, the most immediate implication is that the legal fight may center on whether BitMEX’s liquidation behavior can be explained as ordinary risk management—or whether, as the plaintiffs allege, internal systems and access allowed outcomes that ordinary customers could not avoid. The claim that regular users were unable to close positions during “server freezes,” contrasted with the alleged ability of an internal desk to continue operating, is likely to become a focal point as the case progresses.

For BitMEX, the company’s exposure is heightened by the lawsuit’s attempt to frame the conduct as intentional fraud and by the scale of the alleged losses. BitMEX did not respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment before publication of the report on the filing.

In the wider market, the case adds to the scrutiny that has long surrounded crypto derivatives exchanges—particularly when customer liquidations intersect with operational failures or internal market-making processes. As BitMEX approaches its planned shutdown, affected users may find themselves weighing whether to pursue claims now, wait for court outcomes, or rely on any remaining pathways the exchange may provide before services end.

Readers should watch for the court’s initial handling of the complaint—especially any motions tied to whether the class can be certified—and for how the allegations will be tested against technical records of liquidation and access during the periods in question. With the shutdown already set in motion, the pace of legal developments may matter as much as the merits of the case for the traders seeking their Bitcoin back.