The U.S. Senate is finally leaping into the first procedural votes on the crypto Digital Assets Market Clarity Act, after the leadership moved early Saturday to start official floor action on the crypto market structure bill, marking the farthest progress yet for the industry’s central policy effort.

But this key advance announced after a marathon overnight voting session comes after the bill has missed its window to get a vote before the Senate’s summer break, leaving it in a long-shot position to get approval in September. Though the Clarity Act’s chances are hanging by a thread, it would likely have been declared dead for 2026 without at least this first important movement.

“We, the undersigned senators … hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 423, [House Resolution] 3633, an act to provide for a system of regulation of the offer and sale of digital commodities by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and so forth and for other purposes,” the clerk said reading the filing.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said crypto adoption will continue through stablecoins, tokenization and expanding digital asset markets despite the Senate delaying the CLARITY Act.

Armstrong points to adoption beyond Congress

Armstrong described the Senate’s failure to advance the CLARITY Act before its August recess as disappointing but argued that the delay had not stopped companies and consumers from adopting digital assets.

In an Aug. 7 post on X, the Coinbase executive pointed to increased stablecoin use, developing markets for tokenized real-world assets and broader access to perpetual futures. He also said regulators were already providing companies with greater clarity in some areas.

“The momentum behind this technology keeps growing with or without a congressional calendar,” Armstrong said.

His remarks separated the industry’s commercial growth from the legislative timetable. Companies can continue building products under existing rules, but Armstrong maintained that Congress still has an important role in creating a consistent federal framework.

Clear legislation could encourage investment and employment while providing stronger protections for U.S. consumers, according to the Coinbase CEO.

CLARITY Act vote moves to September

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the bill would be queued when lawmakers return from recess. As crypto.news reported, the Senate postponed consideration after Democrats declined to support an accelerated pre-recess process.

The legislation needs 60 votes to overcome the Senate’s cloture threshold. Republicans therefore require support from at least seven Democrats, assuming every Republican senator backs the measure.

Democratic lawmakers have sought stronger provisions covering political conflicts of interest, consumer protection, illicit finance and market integrity. Negotiations over restrictions involving President Donald Trump’s crypto interests have become one of the main obstacles.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has also rejected the current CLARITY Act, arguing that it does not adequately address corruption, national security and risks to consumers.

Stablecoin rewards remain a Coinbase concern

The CLARITY Act would divide oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It would also establish federal rules for crypto exchanges, brokers, dealers, advisers and qualified digital asset custodians.

Stablecoin rewards remain particularly important for Coinbase. The latest draft generally prohibits companies from paying interest or yield solely for holding payment stablecoins. It may continue allowing rewards tied to activities such as payments, remittances, liquidity provision, staking and loyalty programs.

Armstrong previously supported that compromise, saying banks and crypto companies had preserved their central priorities. However, several banking groups argued that permitted rewards could still draw deposits away from traditional financial institutions.

The outcome could affect Coinbase’s USDC business. A recent crypto.news analysis estimated that the exchange generates about $1.35 billion annually through its USDC rewards arrangement.

Tokenization supports Armstrong’s adoption argument

Recent institutional activity provides evidence for Armstrong’s broader tokenization claim. BlackRock launched two tokenized money-market products holding cash, short-term U.S. Treasuries and Treasury-backed repurchase agreements.

The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation is also preparing to launch a tokenization service in October. Its industry working group has expanded to more than 100 members and partners, including Nasdaq, Charles Schwab, BlackRock and Circle.

As crypto.news reported, DTCC completed production transactions in July involving tokenized Treasuries, equities, collateral, securities lending and margin processes. The trials used securities already held within established U.S. market infrastructure.

Coinbase shares also rose alongside the broader adoption narrative. COIN closed Friday at $153.60, up approximately 5.7% for the session, although the move cannot be attributed solely to Armstrong’s remarks or the CLARITY Act outlook.

What comes next for the CLARITY Act

Attention now turns to whether Senate negotiators can resolve their differences during the August recess. Thune has committed to prioritizing the legislation when lawmakers return, but a floor vote has not been formally scheduled.

The remaining negotiations will determine whether the bill can secure enough Democratic support without losing Republican votes. Ethics restrictions, illicit finance controls, consumer safeguards and stablecoin rewards are likely to remain central to those talks.

A September vote would still represent only one stage of the process. Any Senate version would need to be reconciled with the measure previously passed by the House before it could reach the president.

Armstrong’s comments suggest Coinbase expects crypto adoption to continue during that process. However, the delay leaves U.S. companies without the unified federal market structure the legislation is intended to create.

Ondo Finance is facing a corporate control battle in Delaware after Kathleen Allman, mother of late founder Nathan Allman, sued to remove Ian De Bode as chief executive and establish authority over the company. 

The complaint was filed July 24 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, roughly two months after Ondo announced Allman’s death and said De Bode would assume the CEO role.

The dispute centers on who lawfully controls Ondo after Allman’s death. Kathleen Allman argues that, as personal representative of her son’s estate, she controls his voting interest and therefore had authority to reconstitute the board. De Bode rejects those claims, calling them “meritless” and saying current leadership retains support from key stakeholders, lead investors and the Ondo Foundation.

Allman’s estate says it controls Ondo’s voting power

According to the complaint, Nathan Allman was serving as Ondo’s CEO and a director when he died. The filing says the company’s second board seat was vacant, leaving no sitting directors after his death. Kathleen Allman was later appointed personal representative of his estate by a Hawaii court, which she says gave her authority to exercise the voting rights attached to his shares.

The estate says Kathleen used that authority to appoint herself as sole director before expanding the board. She later appointed Tahnee Towill, Nathan Allman’s sister, while another proposed director, Gordon Liao, declined the appointment for reasons described as unrelated to the dispute. On July 24, Kathleen Allman and Towill voted to remove De Bode from officer, employee and consultant positions and appointed Kathleen as chair, CEO, secretary and treasurer.

De Bode disputes the attempted removal

De Bode has rejected the estate’s account and continues to identify himself as Ondo’s CEO. He told The Block that Kathleen Allman’s allegations are “meritless” and said the company continues to have backing from important investors, other stakeholders and the Ondo Foundation. Those assertions remain contested and have not been confirmed by a court ruling.

Ondo’s official leadership page also continued to list De Bode as chief executive as of Aug. 7. In a June 1 company statement, De Bode said he was stepping into the CEO role following Allman’s death and that Ondo’s existing leadership team and roadmap would continue. As previously reported, Ondo announced De Bode’s succession shortly after confirming its founder had died in late May.

The dispute arrives during Ondo’s U.S. expansion

The corporate fight comes while Ondo is expanding its tokenized securities business and engaging with U.S. regulators. In related coverage, Ondo has continued building products tied to tokenized stocks, exchange traded funds and U.S. Treasury exposure, placing the company among the more visible firms in the real world asset market.

Ondo also submitted a no action request to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in April seeking regulatory relief for a structure using Ethereum to record tokenized security entitlements while established broker dealer records remain authoritative. The SEC published the submission through its Crypto Task Force portal, confirming that Ondo is actively pursuing a framework for blockchain based securities infrastructure.

What happens next in the Ondo control case

The Delaware Court of Chancery must now determine which side has lawful authority over Ondo’s board and executive leadership. Reporting on the dispute indicates that three filings ask the court to resolve control questions and preserve the company’s status quo while litigation continues. As of Aug. 7, no published ruling had settled the dispute.

The court may need to consider the legal effect of Nathan Allman’s estate ownership, the validity of Kathleen Allman’s written stockholder consent and the authority behind De Bode’s appointment. Until a ruling or settlement changes the position, the public record remains divided: the estate says De Bode was removed, while Ondo’s current public materials continue to identify him as CEO.

The dispute also raises practical questions over who can authorize major corporate actions while litigation remains active. Kathleen Allman’s side has argued that uncertainty could affect contracts, spending, equity issuances and other decisions. De Bode, meanwhile, says current management remains focused on operations and preserving Nathan Allman’s vision for the company.

No verified evidence reviewed for this report showed that the governance fight had disrupted Ondo’s tokenized products, changed the backing of its assets or altered the legal status of the ONDO governance token. The immediate development to watch is therefore the Delaware proceeding, where a ruling, negotiated settlement or later corporate filing could clarify who controls the company and who can lawfully serve as its chief executive during this period.

U.S. Senate leaders have postponed a planned vote on the CLARITY Act until September, pushing a major crypto legislative priority beyond the August recess. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the delay late Aug. 6, saying Democrats would not agree to bring the bill up before lawmakers leave Washington in the chamber.

Thune said the measure would be “queued” for consideration when senators return. His comments reverse earlier expectations from Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott, who wanted a vote before recess. The delay raises pressure on both parties to reach agreement before spending fights and the 2026 midterm campaign crowd the fall calendar.

Democratic opposition blocked the pre-recess vote

Seven Democratic senators rejected the Republican draft on July 22, saying provisions on ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity needed strengthening. The group included Angela Alsobrooks and Ruben Gallego, the two Democrats who had joined Republicans to advance the legislation through the Senate Banking Committee.

That opposition matters because Senate leadership needs 60 votes to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster. Republicans therefore require Democratic support to advance the bill. Politico reported that Democrats also declined to approve a time agreement that would have accelerated remaining Senate business before recess, making it harder to fit the CLARITY Act onto the floor schedule.

The ethics fight remains difficult. Democrats have pushed for tougher restrictions involving elected officials’ crypto interests, including concerns tied to President Donald Trump and his family’s digital asset businesses. Reuters reported that a proposed divestiture approach remained under negotiation with the White House. Any such requirement is still a proposal and has not been enacted.

CLARITY Act already cleared major Senate hurdle

The postponement comes after months of legislative progress. The House passed H.R. 3633 by a 294-134 vote in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee then advanced an amended version 15-9 on May 14, 2026, with all committee Republicans and two Democrats supporting it.

Senator Cynthia Lummis released updated merged text on July 22 combining work from the Banking and Agriculture committees. The legislation would establish a federal market structure for digital assets and divide oversight responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It also includes provisions covering stablecoin rewards, anti-money laundering controls, decentralized finance and tokenized securities.

As previously reported, the bill’s Senate math had already made Democratic votes central to its prospects. law enforcement groups also pressed lawmakers over developer protections and investigative powers before some organizations later backed revised language. Those disputes remain part of the negotiations surrounding the final package.

September creates a tighter political window

Thune’s decision does not kill the bill. He said Republicans intend to bring it back when the Senate returns in September. However, the delay removes the clean legislative window supporters had spent months targeting and places the measure closer to the November midterm elections.

The Senate could still take procedural action before leaving, including filing cloture to prepare a later vote. Politico reported that Thune had not confirmed whether he would take that step. Filing cloture would not pass the CLARITY Act by itself, but it could help position the legislation for floor consideration when senators reconvene.

September also leaves negotiators with unresolved disagreements beyond ethics. Democrats have sought changes related to law enforcement concerns and the commodities portion of the legislation. Banking interests and crypto companies have separately fought over rules governing rewards on stablecoin balances, although the July draft attempted to distinguish passive interest from transaction-based rewards.

What happens next for the CLARITY Act

The next major deadline is the Senate’s return in September. Lawmakers will need to determine whether negotiators can produce language capable of attracting enough Democratic support for cloture while keeping Republican backing intact. Thune’s statement indicates leadership intends to prioritize the bill, but that timetable remains a political commitment rather than a scheduled vote.

Even Senate passage would not finish the process. Because senators have amended the House-passed legislation, the chambers would still need to resolve differences before a final version could reach President Trump. That leaves limited time for floor debate, reconciliation and another congressional vote before the midterm election period intensifies.

For now, the CLARITY Act remains the most advanced comprehensive U.S. crypto market structure proposal in Congress, but its timeline has shifted again. The August push ended without a floor vote, and the September session now becomes the next test of whether bipartisan negotiations can turn committee-level support into enough votes for final Senate action.

Thailand’s five-year crypto tax exemption has returned to the spotlight after Binance founder Changpeng Zhao drew fresh attention to the policy this week, prompting new claims that the country has become a “0% crypto tax haven.” 

The exemption is real, but it is neither new nor unlimited. Thailand’s Cabinet approved the measure on June 17, 2025, and Ministerial Regulation No. 399 was published in the Royal Gazette on September 5, 2025.

The rule exempts qualifying personal income derived from gains on cryptocurrency and digital-token transfers from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2029. Crucially, the transaction must take place on a digital asset exchange, through a broker, or with a dealer licensed under Thai law. That condition makes the policy less a blanket tax holiday than an incentive to move trading activity into Thailand’s supervised market.

Thailand’s 0% crypto tax is an existing five-year rule

Thailand’s Ministry of Finance described the measure as part of a plan to establish the country as a global “Digital Asset Hub.” The Cabinet approved the principle in June 2025, while the final regulation entered the legal framework months later. Because the rule applies to assessable income received from the start of 2025, its tax benefit reaches back to January even though the regulation itself was published in September.

The Revenue Department’s current regulation now includes the exemption added by Regulation No. 399. It covers the benefit above an investor’s cost from transferring cryptocurrency or digital tokens through eligible licensed operators. The wording matters because the rule concerns qualifying gains from transfers; it does not, by its terms, erase tax on every type of crypto-related income.

That means descriptions of Thailand as universally “tax free” for crypto can mislead. Staking rewards, mining income, employment paid in tokens, business receipts and corporate profits are not automatically covered by the transfer-gain exemption. Their treatment depends on other Thai tax rules and the taxpayer’s facts. Residency, source of income and cross-border obligations can also change what a person ultimately owes.

The government’s objective is broader than reducing an individual trader’s bill. In its June 2025 statement, the Finance Ministry said the policy was intended to channel trading through Thai operators supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission and anti-money-laundering authorities. It also said the change could increase economic activity and deliver “not less than 1 billion baht” in additional tax revenue over the medium term. That figure is a government forecast, not a verified outcome.

Licensed exchanges are the gatekeepers to the tax break

The biggest practical condition is where a qualifying disposal occurs. Thailand’s SEC maintains a current register of licensed digital asset exchanges, brokers and dealers. The exemption applies to transfers conducted within those regulated categories, giving domestic licensed firms a clear advantage over offshore venues that do not hold Thai authorization.

That structure fits Thailand’s wider enforcement approach. In 2025, regulators moved to block access to several unlicensed foreign exchanges, as previously reported. In April 2026, the SEC again warned investors ahead of the blocking of Exmix, saying the platform lacked a required Thai digital asset license. The message is consistent: Thailand wants crypto trading, but it wants more of that activity routed through entities it can supervise.

Thailand’s five-year crypto capital-gains exemption was announced in June 2025 with the same licensed-operator condition. The renewed social-media attention in August 2026 therefore does not represent a new Cabinet decision or an extension beyond 2029. It is a rediscovery of a policy that has been in force for more than a year.

The regulatory perimeter is still evolving. In May 2026, the SEC proposed changes to net-capital and custody rules that it said would support more local trading and customer-asset custody while reducing reliance on foreign service providers. That proposal reinforces the economic logic behind the tax break: lower the tax cost for eligible individuals while building more of the trading, custody and compliance stack inside Thailand.

Thailand is opening crypto markets without removing controls

The tax exemption sits alongside other measures intended to expand regulated digital assets. In April, the SEC opened a consultation on a domestic crypto ETF framework, covering fund management, trustees and other operational requirements. Thailand has also moved toward crypto derivatives and tokenized-asset infrastructure, giving regulated institutions more ways to participate without opening every activity to unrestricted use.

At the same time, Thailand has not adopted crypto as ordinary money. Bank of Thailand policy continues to discourage digital assets as a broad means of payment for goods and services, and SEC rules restrict digital asset businesses from facilitating that use outside approved frameworks. This distinction is important because a favorable investment tax policy does not amount to unrestricted crypto commerce.

TouristDigiPay shows how the government is trying to bridge those positions. As crypto.news reported, the program lets eligible foreign visitors convert digital assets into baht before spending through Thailand’s QR payment infrastructure. Merchants receive local currency rather than crypto. The model expands crypto-linked activity while keeping the final payment inside the regulated baht system.

Regulatory tightening is continuing in August. SEC KYC and customer-monitoring guidelines are due to take effect on August 16, 2026, requiring stronger beneficial-owner checks, source-of-funds review and transaction monitoring. In June, the regulator also proposed a digital-asset Travel Rule for transfer data.

Thailand’s approach is therefore best understood as regulated onshoring. The state is using tax relief, licensed exchanges, ETF development, tokenization projects and controlled payment experiments to attract capital while preserving supervision. That is different from a classic tax haven model built mainly around secrecy or minimal oversight. Thailand’s Finance Ministry has also said the Revenue Department is working toward the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, which is designed to increase cross-border tax-data exchange.

Moving to Thailand does not erase U.S. crypto taxes

The contrast with the U.S. is clearest at the individual tax level. The Internal Revenue Service treats digital assets as property. When a taxpayer sells digital assets for dollars or similar currency, the IRS says the sale generally produces a recognizable capital gain or loss. Taxpayers must report taxable digital asset transactions even when they do not receive an information form.

For U.S. citizens and resident aliens, relocating does not automatically change that federal obligation. Updated IRS guidance states that citizens and resident aliens living abroad are generally subject to U.S. tax on worldwide income. A U.S. citizen living in Bangkok could therefore qualify for a Thai exemption on an eligible transaction and still face U.S. reporting or tax obligations, depending on the circumstances.

That makes social-media claims that American traders can simply move to Thailand and pay no tax especially risky. The Thai exemption determines Thai treatment for qualifying gains under Thai rules. It does not override another country’s tax law. Anyone considering relocation would also need to account for residence tests, foreign-account reporting, treaty rules and the nature of each transaction.

Still, the policy creates a competitive contrast. Thailand has chosen a direct, time-limited tax incentive tied to local regulatory participation. The U.S. continues taxing digital asset gains while pursuing crypto policy through securities rules, reporting requirements and market-structure legislation. CLARITY Act has moved through the Senate process but remains subject to political negotiation, showing that the two countries are competing through very different policy tools.

The harder question is whether Thailand can turn a temporary tax advantage into durable industry growth. The exemption expires after December 31, 2029, unless policymakers extend or replace it. Exchanges and traders can respond quickly to tax incentives, but companies making long-term decisions about offices, hiring, custody and infrastructure need confidence about what follows the expiration date.

FAQs

XRP traded near $1.03 on Aug. 7 as selling pressure kept the token among the weaker large-cap cryptocurrencies ahead of fresh U.S. labor data.

According to crypto.news market data, XRP dropped about 2.2% over 24 hours, compared with smaller moves in Bitcoin and Ether, while its market capitalization remained near $64.2 billion.

crypto.news showed XRP down 5.7% over seven days and 6.7% over 30 days. Trading volume was approximately $1.44 billion, with circulating supply near 62.53 billion tokens.

The decline came as the U.S. Senate pushed consideration of the CLARITY Act beyond its August recess. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the bill would be queued when lawmakers return in September. The delay removes an expected near-term regulatory catalyst, although XRP’s price move cannot be attributed to legislation alone.

XRP price tests $1 support as momentum stays weak

XRP traded between roughly $1.01 and $1.06 over the previous 24 hours, leaving the psychological $1 level as immediate support. The daily chart remains broadly bearish after a prolonged decline from above $2.50, while a recovery above $1.10 to $1.15 would be needed to improve the short-term structure.

The Aroon Oscillator at -100 shows recent lows dominating recent highs. BBTrend was also negative near -1.36, reinforcing the bearish bias, although its smaller negative bars suggest downside momentum is less intense than during earlier selloffs. On the weekly chart, Stochastic RSI readings near 42.6 and 44.7 remain neutral rather than oversold.

A widely circulated projection from CryptoBull suggested XRP could reach “$27 by the end of October 2026.” That target remains highly speculative. The weekly ascending-channel projection also points toward $7 before $27, but neither level is confirmed without a sustained breakout above long-term resistance and stronger volume.

Derivatives data shows traders leaning toward shorts

CryptoQuant analyst Amr Taha reported that Binance XRP open interest rose from about $180 million on Aug. 4 to $195 million on Aug. 7, an increase of roughly 8%. Over the same period, perpetual cumulative volume delta fell from approximately negative $292 million to negative $363 million.

That combination is consistent with fresh leveraged sell-side positioning, although open interest alone cannot determine the direction of every new position. Spot demand also weakened. Taha said estimated spot CVD across centralized exchanges fell more than 52%, from around $235 million to $112 million, indicating a sharp loss of aggressive buying momentum.

Separate CryptoQuant data showed whales accounted for 81% of Binance XRP outflows on Aug. 3, versus 72% across centralized exchanges overall. The metric measures the share of outflow activity, not absolute withdrawal volume or whether transferred tokens were ultimately accumulated, sold or moved into custody.

CLARITY Act delay removes an August catalyst

The Senate’s decision to postpone the market-structure vote matters to XRP because the bill could provide statutory rules for determining when digital assets fall under SEC or CFTC oversight. In earlier regulatory analysis, the legislation was identified as especially relevant to XRP after years of litigation over its regulatory treatment.

The bill faces a procedural hurdle before final passage. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, but leadership generally needs 60 votes to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster. As previous Senate vote coverage explained, Democratic support has therefore remained central to the legislation’s path.

Advertisement

The official Senate calendar lists Aug. 10 through Sept. 11 as a state work period, meaning senators are scheduled to return Sept. 14. Ethics provisions, law-enforcement concerns and other market-structure disputes remain unresolved, leaving any September vote dependent on further negotiations.

U.S. jobs and inflation data add another risk

Macro conditions could influence XRP before lawmakers return. The Federal Reserve held its target range at 3.50% to 3.75% on July 29 in a 9-3 vote. Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan dissented because they preferred a 25-basis-point increase.

The timing makes macro data relevant because XRP is trading near support while leverage rebuilds. Still, economic releases can move crypto in either direction, and no report guarantees a specific response.

The next immediate test is the July employment report, scheduled by the BLS for Aug. 7 at 8:30 a.m. ET. July CPI follows on Aug. 12. Strong employment or persistent inflation could reinforce expectations for restrictive policy, while softer readings could reduce rate pressure across risk assets.

Advertisement

For XRP, $1 remains the near-term technical level to watch. A break below it would weaken the current structure, while recovery through $1.10 to $1.15 would provide the first clearer sign of stabilization. Derivatives positioning, spot demand and September’s CLARITY negotiations remain additional variables rather than guaranteed directional catalysts.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Advertisement

Microsoft has warned of ClickFix attacks using BNB Chain smart contracts to infect thousands of devices every day.

According to Microsoft Threat Intelligence, a cluster of compromised websites has been using ClickFix lures together with the EtherHiding technique to deliver malware, with campaigns targeting thousands of enterprise and consumer devices worldwide each day.

The security team said attackers inject Base64-encoded JavaScript into compromised websites. Instead of retrieving payload instructions from a traditional server, the script connects to a BNB Smart Chain RPC gateway and queries a smart contract previously linked to the ClearFake campaign.

Because only the owner of the cryptocurrency wallet that deployed the contract can modify its contents, the instructions remain difficult to remove using conventional takedown or sinkholing methods.

Microsoft said victims are shown a fake CAPTCHA asking them to verify they are human. Instead of completing a normal verification step, users are instructed to open the Windows Run dialog, paste clipboard content, and press Enter, executing an attacker-controlled command on their own systems.

ClickFix campaign has used blockchain to deliver attack instructions

While the fake CAPTCHA acts as the lure, the report said attackers rely on several command obfuscation methods to avoid detection after execution. Microsoft observed the abuse of Windows tools including conhost, cmd, PowerShell, pcalua, mshta, rundll32, msiexec, curl, WMI, WebDAV, and scheduled tasks.

Researchers also identified multiple techniques designed to hide malicious commands. Caret characters split keywords, environment variables conceal interpreters, and Windows processes run in minimized or headless mode to reduce visibility during execution.

Alongside ClickFix, Microsoft said attackers are also deploying TerminalFix lures. Rather than directing victims to the Windows Run dialog, TerminalFix instructs users to paste commands into Windows Terminal or PowerShell, using the same social engineering method to trigger the attack.

The report described ClickFix and TerminalFix as high-volume initial access techniques. Microsoft said it is tracking campaigns targeting thousands of enterprise and consumer devices globally every day, while some malvertising chains also redirect users to scam pages before the malicious instructions are delivered.

Malware can lead to credential theft and ransomware attacks

According to the report, numerous threat actors have adopted the technique to distribute several malware families after gaining initial access. Microsoft identified Lumma Stealer and other information stealers, Xworm and AsyncRAT remote access trojans, MintsLoader, and remote management tools among the payloads delivered through ClickFix campaigns.

Researchers warned that a single successful execution can expose credentials, establish persistence on infected systems, enable lateral movement across networks, and create a path for human-operated ransomware attacks and possible domain compromise.

To reduce the risk, Microsoft recommended enabling Microsoft Defender network, web, and cloud-delivered protection, restricting access to the Windows Run dialog and other command-line tools where they are not required, enabling PowerShell script-block logging, and enforcing application control policies.

The company also advised users not to paste commands from fake CAPTCHAs, browser error pages, advertisements, unsolicited support pages, or emails into Windows Run, Terminal, PowerShell, or Command Prompt because attackers increasingly rely on convincing users to execute malicious commands themselves.

Defender detections target ClickFix activity

Microsoft said Microsoft Defender XDR provides layered protection across different stages of the attack chain. According to the company, Defender SmartScreen and Defender for Office 365 can help block malicious websites, phishing links, infected attachments, and fake CAPTCHA pages before users interact with them.

The security platform also detects suspicious command execution and outbound connections using alerts including “Suspicious command in RunMRU registry,” “Possible ClickFix activity,” and “Possible initial access from an emerging threat.”

Meanwhile, Microsoft Defender Antivirus identifies malicious command execution under detections such as Trojan:Win32/ClickFix.* and Trojan:Win32/TermFix.*. The company said organizations should treat these detections as possible indicators of an initial access incident, isolate affected devices, investigate potential credential theft and persistence mechanisms, and search for related activity across their environments.

Previous Microsoft warning highlighted crypto-focused malware

The latest findings follow another Microsoft Threat Intelligence report published in June that described a Windows-based CryptoBandits clipper campaign active since February 2026.

According to the report, the malware spread through malicious .lnk shortcut files, monitored the clipboard every 500 milliseconds for cryptocurrency wallet addresses, seed phrases, and private keys, and replaced copied wallet addresses with attacker-controlled ones. 

Researchers also found the malware routing communications through the Tor network, creating scheduled tasks for persistence, capturing screenshots, and executing attacker-supplied code, effectively giving operators lightweight backdoor access.

Microsoft said at the time that defenders should investigate combinations of suspicious behavior rather than isolated events, particularly when script engines launched tools such as curl, cmd.exe, or PowerShell alongside Tor-related traffic.

The previous warning came as crypto-related malware campaigns continued to evolve. As previously reported by crypto.news, StilachiRAT targeted browser-based cryptocurrency wallets and monitored clipboard activity, while SparkCat searched screenshots for wallet seed phrases using image scanning. Binance also warned users about clipper malware designed to replace copied cryptocurrency wallet addresses with attacker-controlled alternatives.

Plans to issue stablecoins denominated in local currencies to reduce reliance on dollar-linked tokens may unintentionally make it easier to move value into “digital dollars,” according to a senior International Monetary Fund (IMF) official.

Speaking on Friday, IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz said that once local- and dollar-denominated stablecoins run on the same underlying blockchain infrastructure, users could swap between them through decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or peer-to-peer mechanisms.

Key takeaways

• IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz warned that local-currency stablecoins could still funnel users into dollar stablecoins if both use the same blockchain rails.
• Katz said cross-stablecoin interoperability could shift foreign-exchange activity away from traditional intermediaries like banks and currency dealers.
• He suggested this dynamic could reduce friction in capital movement, affecting how authorities monitor and manage flows.
• Katz noted adoption outcomes may differ by country, with local tokens potentially replacing dollar holdings in highly dollarized economies.
• He urged regulators to enable compliant onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points to manage risks.

How shared blockchain infrastructure could enable “digital dollar” access

Katz’s core point is about infrastructure. In his remarks—delivered in a speech at the University of Cape Town—he argued that if local-currency stablecoins and dollar-backed stablecoins are deployed on the same blockchain framework, the practical barriers to conversion could fall sharply.

That matters because, in decentralized finance environments, conversion does not require a single centralized issuer or intermediary to broker every transfer. Katz specifically referenced common DeFi routes: decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, and peer-to-peer swaps. Under that model, users could move between token types directly, turning what begins as local-currency issuance into an easier path to dollar exposure.

Potential implications for FX monitoring and capital-flow tools

The IMF official linked interoperability to a broader policy concern: where foreign-exchange activity happens. Katz argued that moving FX-related activity away from banks and traditional currency dealers could reduce “friction” that authorities currently rely on to monitor and manage capital flows.

In other words, the issue is not only which stablecoin a user holds, but how quickly and through what channels they can reposition into a different currency exposure. If swaps become routine onchain, regulators may find it harder to observe the flow of currency demand through traditional institutional pathways.

At the same time, Katz framed the shift as potentially reinforcing the broader category of FX-focused stablecoins. He said that local-currency stablecoins “might even accelerate the adoption of FX stablecoins,” a statement that underscores the possibility that currency-linked token ecosystems could become more integrated over time rather than remaining siloed.

Adoption unevenness: South Africa as a case study

Katz pointed to South Africa to illustrate how adoption can diverge across token types. He said dollar-backed stablecoins have gained only limited traction there, while rand-linked tokens have attracted even less demand.

He cautioned that it is still too early to draw definitive lessons from any single country, but he offered an explanation for why users might still prefer dollar tokens. In his view, many participants may choose dollar stablecoins due to factors like liquidity, network effects, and cross-platform or cross-border acceptance.

Those characteristics can translate into more efficient trading and easier settlement—particularly in environments where the local currency faces volatility, lower market depth, or weaker confidence in local issuances. Even if a policy objective is to reduce dependence on the dollar, market structure and user preferences can pull activity back toward the most “usable” asset in practice.

Regulatory framing: country risk differences and compliant onchain rails

Katz said risks vary by country. He suggested that in highly dollarized economies, stablecoins may largely substitute for existing dollar holdings rather than creating incremental demand for dollars. But in countries where dollar access is restricted and the economic policy framework is weaker, stablecoins could instead increase foreign-currency demand.

This distinction is important for policymakers because it affects what “success” looks like. If stablecoins mainly repackage dollars already held domestically, the macro impact might differ from a scenario in which stablecoins provide a smoother mechanism to access additional dollar exposure.

To manage these trade-offs, Katz urged authorities to build regulatory frameworks around practical access points. Specifically, he called for authorities to bring onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points within regulatory boundaries.

The policy takeaway is that banning activity is not the only route. Instead, the IMF official highlighted the need for rule-based access to onchain liquidity and conversion, so regulators can better understand flows and reduce the incentive for unregulated intermediaries.

Going forward, the key question for investors and builders is whether stablecoin issuers and blockchain platforms will prioritize interoperability across local- and dollar-denominated tokens—or isolate them through different infrastructure choices. Katz’s remarks imply that interoperability could materially change who ends up holding “digital dollars” and how quickly currency reshuffling occurs, so market participants should watch how regulators operationalize onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange controls in the jurisdictions most likely to experiment with local-currency stablecoin issuance.