Bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream said it will not pay a ransom to recover funds still held by the Liquid Network hackers.

“Taking assets without authorization and withholding their return is a crime, not responsible disclosure,” Blockstream said Friday. “It is not white-hat activity. It is theft.”

The company said it had engaged with the hackers in good faith to recover user funds but would not accept their demands.

The hackers demanded that Blockstream pay a 10% bounty from its own funds in an onchain message shared by Jan3 CEO and former Blockstream chief strategy officer Samson Mow on Wednesday. They warned that Liquid holders would otherwise face a 15% loss.

Blockstream urged the hackers to return the remaining Bitcoin voluntarily. If not, it said it would work with law enforcement, exchanges, service providers and forensic specialists to trace the assets and identify those responsible. 

On Sept. 6, Liquid, a Bitcoin sidechain, paused operations after self-described white-hat hackers withdrew about 4,000 Bitcoin, then worth about $320 million, from its federation wallet.

The actors subsequently returned 3,400 BTC after Blockstream said that affected bridge nodes had been patched, leaving about 598 BTC outstanding.

Liquid resumed block production on Thursday, producing empty blocks following emergency software updates. Transactions and Bitcoin transfers into and out of the network remained suspended.

Related: ‘White hats’ take 4000 BTC from Liquid, ETFs see best inflows of 2026: Hodler’s Digest

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

A revised version of the U.S. Senate’s CLARITY Act would steer regulators toward deciding when certain entities that influence “non-decentralized finance trading protocols” must follow securities, commodities, and anti-money laundering (AML) rules. The updated text, posted by Senator Cynthia Lummis, is designed to clarify how oversight would apply to protocol controllers without treating the underlying software as a regulated party on its own.

The proposal arrives ahead of a procedural Senate vote scheduled for Sept. 15. Because the bill needs 60 votes to move forward, Republicans are expected to require Democratic support—despite lingering disagreement over ethics provisions, AML protections, and elements tied to stablecoin rewards.

Key takeaways

• The revised CLARITY Act defines “non-decentralized finance trading protocols” based on whether a person or coordinated group can materially change protocol functionality, rules, or user access.
• Regulators would issue activity-based requirements: the SEC and CFTC would cover registration, conduct, disclosure, recordkeeping, and supervision, while the Treasury would address how existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations apply.
• The bill explicitly states that software and distributed ledger systems would not need to register in their own capacity.
• Participation in an incident-response or security council alone would not automatically establish “control” over a protocol.
• The measure faces procedural headwinds, requiring 60 votes to advance and setting up a fast decision window before any broader legislative momentum is lost.

What the revised CLARITY Act would change

According to the revised text posted on Senator Cynthia Lummis’ website (see posted document), the central policy move is a regulator-facing determination: identifying whether those who control certain types of trading protocols—specifically those that are not fully decentralized—should be treated as regulated actors.

The proposal’s definition is not limited to whether a protocol has governance or administrative features. Instead, it focuses on control signals that regulators could evaluate, including whether a person or coordinated group can:

• materially alter the protocol’s functionality, operation, or rules;
• restrict users; or
• operate a system where transactions are not governed solely by transparent, pre-established code.

This framing matters because it shifts the compliance question from abstract decentralization claims to measurable governance and operational power. For investors and users, the likely effect is more predictable enforcement boundaries: entities exerting meaningful influence over how protocol-based trading works would fall within a more conventional regulatory structure, while purely automated code paths would be treated differently.

How enforcement would be split across regulators

Under the bill, the SEC and CFTC would develop rules tied to specific kinds of regulated activity. The text calls for activity-based requirements spanning “registration, conduct, disclosure, recordkeeping and supervision.” In parallel, the Treasury would define how existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations apply to covered “controllers.”

That division is significant for market participants because it suggests the CLARITY Act is attempting to map responsibilities to existing U.S. agencies rather than create an entirely new regulatory body. For firms operating across spot trading, derivatives, or cross-border custody and compliance stacks, agency-by-agency guidance will likely be as consequential as the bill’s core definition.

The proposal also includes clarifications meant to reduce overreach. It states that software and distributed ledger systems would not be required to register “in their own capacity.” It further specifies that participating in an incident-response or security council would not, by itself, establish control over a protocol.

These details could be particularly important for developers, security teams, and operational incident coordinators, who otherwise might be concerned that routine cybersecurity and oversight activities could be construed as governance control.

Industry reaction: support for a framework, but ethics questions remain

Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim said the upcoming vote represents a pivotal moment for digital assets and U.S. leadership. In a statement shared with Cointelegraph, Kim argued the U.S. needs a framework that balances consumer protections with clear standards for business conduct.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, speaking to CNBC, said the CLARITY Act was “ready to get a yes vote.” Armstrong said the “must-have issues” Coinbase previously raised have been resolved, while negotiations over ethics restrictions were still underway and appeared close to a solution. He did not specify which provisions had changed.

Even with that optimism, Cointelegraph previously reported that the ethics section has been one of the main negotiation sticking points. The newly released text appears to preserve that section largely unchanged from an earlier version, leaving open whether the ethics dispute has truly moved from disagreement to compromise.

Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego had earlier warned against rushing ahead before lawmakers resolved issues tied to ethics and stablecoin yield, arguing that a quick vote might not produce the right result. That context helps explain why—despite broad industry interest in a clearer regulatory path—the bill may still be hard to advance without additional support.

Procedural math and what happens if the bill stalls

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the CLARITY Act requires 60 votes to advance. With the procedural Senate vote scheduled for Sept. 15, the updated bill must clear a high threshold—meaning Republicans will still need votes from Democrats despite ongoing disagreement.

Armstrong suggested that if the legislation does not move forward, regulators could pursue alternative paths using existing authority—such as rulemaking and innovation exemptions involving the SEC and CFTC. For market participants, that matters because it frames the choice not only as “bill versus no bill,” but as “clear statutory framework versus incremental regulatory action.”

In practical terms, firms planning compliance roadmaps may be forced to decide whether to treat the CLARITY Act as an achievable near-term signal—or as a politically stalled project that could be overtaken by agency initiatives. Either way, the bill’s definitions and regulator split would likely still influence how companies describe decentralization, governance participation, and operational control, even if the statute itself fails to advance.

Readers should watch closely for whether negotiators can resolve the remaining ethics-related disagreement by the procedural vote—and, if the bill fails to clear that threshold, what specific SEC and CFTC rulemaking efforts or exemption approaches regulators choose next.

A revised version of the CLARITY Act would create a regulatory path in the United States for certain crypto trading protocols that are not “decentralized finance” in the strict sense. The updated draft directs the SEC and CFTC to write rules for how qualifying protocol controllers should handle core obligations such as registration, market conduct, disclosures, recordkeeping, and supervision—while the Treasury outlines how existing Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements apply.

The measure’s immediate momentum depends on a key procedural step in the Senate. The revised text was posted by Senator Cynthia Lummis ahead of a Senate procedure slated for Sept. 15, and advancing the bill requires 60 votes—an arithmetic that effectively forces Republicans to win at least some Democratic support despite lingering disagreements over ethics provisions, anti-money laundering protections, and stablecoin-related rewards.

Key takeaways

• The revised CLARITY Act would define “non-decentralized finance trading protocols” by focusing on whether control can materially change functionality, rules, or transaction governance.
• The SEC and CFTC would develop activity-based rules covering registration, conduct, disclosure, recordkeeping, and supervision, while the Treasury would address BSA applicability.
• Distributed ledger software itself would not need to register solely because it powers a protocol.
• Participation in an incident-response or security council would not, by itself, be treated as “control” over a protocol.
• Senate action is scheduled for Sept. 15, but the bill needs 60 votes to move forward.

What the revised bill targets: “control” rather than code alone

In the new version posted on Senator Lummis’ website, a “non-decentralized finance trading protocol” is tied to the practical power to alter how a protocol operates. The text defines such protocols as those whose functionality, operation, or rules can be materially altered by a person or a coordinated group.

The definition goes beyond simple administrator roles. It also covers protocols whose controllers can restrict user access, or where transactions are not governed solely by transparent, pre-established code. In other words, the bill’s regulatory focus is on whether there is meaningful discretion or governance that can change user experience or transaction outcomes—rather than treating all on-chain activity as automatically decentralized.

How regulators would implement the framework

Under the proposal, the SEC and the CFTC would be tasked with building activity-based rules for affected controllers. The categories of obligations specified in the bill include:

• Registration requirements, where applicable
• Conduct standards for those operating or controlling qualifying protocols
• Disclosure duties
• Recordkeeping requirements
• Supervision expectations

The bill also assigns a different role to the Treasury. It would establish how existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations would apply to controllers identified under the proposed definition, ensuring that anti-money laundering compliance is addressed within the broader regulatory scheme rather than left entirely to existing agency interpretations.

Limits built into the proposal: software won’t automatically register

A notable aspect of the revised draft is what it does not require. The text states that software and distributed ledger systems would not be required to register in their own capacity simply for being part of a protocol. That distinction matters for builders and operators, because it separates the underlying technology from the question of who can exercise control over protocol behavior.

The bill also includes a guardrail aimed at common operational practices. It says participation in an incident-response or security council would not, by itself, establish control over a protocol. That could be relevant for organizations that coordinate response efforts after security events without necessarily being treated as protocol controllers for regulatory purposes.

Why the vote is difficult—and what could still stall

The revised CLARITY Act arrived ahead of a procedural Senate vote scheduled for Sept. 15. According to coverage of the measure, advancing the bill requires 60 votes, meaning Republicans would still need Democratic support despite ongoing disagreements on ethics, anti-money laundering protections, and stablecoin rewards. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that these issues have been central obstacles to consensus (including on stablecoin yield and related ethics restrictions).

Industry reaction has been broadly supportive, even as some stakeholders acknowledge that key disputes are not fully settled. In a statement shared with Cointelegraph, Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim called the vote a “pivotal moment” for digital assets, innovation, and American leadership. Kim emphasized the need for a framework that balances consumer protections with standards for business conduct.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong told CNBC that the CLARITY Act was “ready to get a yes vote.” He said Coinbase’s previously raised “must-have issues” have been resolved, while negotiations over ethics restrictions remained active and appeared close to a solution—though Armstrong did not specify which provisions changed.

Still, Cointelegraph reports that the ethics section in the revised text remained largely unchanged from the prior version, even though the ethics component has been one of the main points of contention in negotiations. Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego previously warned against rushing the Senate vote before lawmakers resolve disputes involving ethics and stablecoin yield, arguing that a fast vote could produce the wrong outcome.

Armstrong also suggested that if the legislation does not advance, regulators could instead pursue rulemaking and innovation exemptions using existing authority—an outcome that would likely keep uncertainty alive for protocol operators in the near term.

The open question for market participants is whether the latest changes are enough to attract the additional votes required to reach 60. If the procedural vote fails, the industry may end up relying on agency-driven rulemaking rather than a clearer statutory framework—an approach that can be slower, more uneven across regulators, and more dependent on shifting enforcement priorities.

As Sept. 15 approaches, readers should watch how lawmakers characterize the “control” definition in the ethics and stablecoin-related debates, and whether negotiators can convert statements of readiness into the specific legislative support needed to clear the procedural threshold.

On 3 September, OpenAI unveiled its new flagship GPT-6 Astra model, which became available to Microsoft Foundry customers. Microsoft positions the model as a system designed to handle complex, multi-step tasks, including planning sequences of actions, working with documents and spreadsheets, and interacting with applications and interfaces, including scenarios where specialised API capabilities are limited. The expansion of the AI model range available through Microsoft Foundry strengthens Azure’s capabilities for enterprise AI adoption. For Microsoft shares, such product announcements provide an additional positive fundamental backdrop, reflecting the company’s continued development of its AI business.

Microsoft Technical Analysis

On Microsoft’s four-hour chart, a pattern resembling a rising wedge has formed near the top of a pronounced uptrend that began in late June. A breakout attempt is now underway: alongside the pattern’s lower boundary, the price has also broken below the lower boundary of the current market profile at $497.50 and is attempting to establish itself below both levels. If the downside scenario develops, market participants could look towards the green support level around $478.50.

The red resistance level is located around $517.50 at the top of the wedge and is very close to the profile’s upper boundary at $515.50. Meanwhile, the Point of Control (POC) is at $505.00 and should be taken into account when assessing the current setup from a bullish perspective. The RSI + MAs indicator shows readings of 46, 51 and 56, with the oscillator and both moving averages remaining in the neutral zone. It is therefore too early to consider the downside breakout of the pattern confirmed.

Key Takeaways

The attempt to establish the price below both the wedge and the lower boundary of the profile has yet to receive confirmation from the oscillator. The neutral RSI + MAs picture leaves the breakout scenario unresolved. The continued expansion of Microsoft’s AI product offering provides an additional positive backdrop for the shares.

Buy and sell stocks of the world’s biggest publicly-listed companies with CFDs on FXOpen’s trading platform. Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading share CFDs with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.