Home Blog Page 171

Bitcoin isn’t crashing because of Saylor, it’s losing the momentum trade

0

Bitcoin’s recent struggles to rise in tandem with U.S. stocks has sparked a wave of explanations, from concerns about Michael Saylor’s Strategy (MSTR) selling bitcoin to questions about whether institutional demand is beginning to fade.

Charles Schwab director of digital currencies research and strategy Jim Ferraioli sees a simpler explanation: Bitcoin is losing the momentum trade.

“Bitcoin has been in a bear market since October,” Ferraioli said in an interview. “Not to say it’s as simple as that, but it’s kind of simple as that.”

The comments stand in contrast to a market narrative that has remained largely focused on positive developments. Over the past year, crypto has secured spot ETF approvals, attracted billions of dollars in institutional capital and moved closer to regulatory clarity in Washington. Yet despite those developments, bitcoin has struggled to sustain the type of explosive rally many investors expected.

Instead, capital has been flowing elsewhere.

“We found a bottom in early February, and since then another large Wall Street firm had a successful ETF launch, and so you saw this kind of return to the institutional adoption narrative,” Ferraioli said.

That rebound helped bitcoin recover from its February lows. But unlike previous crypto cycles, the recovery stalled before developing into a broad speculative frenzy.

That’s because crypto investors are not fundamentally driven, but chase momentum, he said. In his view, bitcoin’s problem isn’t a lack of bullish news. It’s competition.

Historically, crypto has benefited when it becomes the market’s most compelling speculative opportunity. When prices rise, traders pile in. When another asset class begins attracting attention, capital often follows.

“Crypto investors historically just go wherever the momentum is,” Ferraioli said. “And momentum is out of crypto at the moment.”

The destinations for that capital have changed over the past year.

Some investors have gravitated toward precious metals. Gold has attracted significant inflows as investors seek alternatives to both equities and crypto. Others have become increasingly focused on artificial intelligence, which has emerged as the dominant growth narrative across financial markets.

The AI boom has created a new class of speculative opportunities that didn’t exist in previous crypto cycles. Public companies tied to AI infrastructure, data centers and advanced computing have generated strong returns, while anticipated IPOs from firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic have become focal points for investors looking for the next growth story.

According to Ferraioli, crypto investors are participating in that shift as well.

“I think people that are excited about momentum are getting excited about IPOs,” he said. “Then some of these you can actually access the private shares on these decentralized exchanges on Hyperliquid.”

That trend is significant because it highlights how crypto-native trading infrastructure is increasingly allowing investors to speculate on assets beyond cryptocurrencies themselves.

Platforms such as Hyperliquid (HYPE) have introduced perpetual contracts tied to private companies, commodities and other non-crypto assets, giving traders new places to deploy capital.

For bitcoin, that means it is no longer competing solely against other cryptocurrencies.

It is competing against every major speculative narrative in the market.

Ferraioli also downplayed concerns surrounding Strategy’s recent sale of 32 bitcoin, a transaction that sparked debate among investors because of Saylor’s long-standing reputation as one of bitcoin’s most committed advocates.

“The narrative has been that they’ll never sell,” Ferraioli said. Yet he believes the market impact of the transaction itself has been overstated. “But I don’t think [the sale] is what’s really driving it,” he said.

Instead, he views the sale as a convenient narrative attached to a broader trend that was already underway.

Part of that trend may be tied to investor cost bases and many ETF investors are still recovering from sharp swings over the past year and see the current price point as an opportunity to exit positions rather than increase them.

“I think you get to those levels and you get people that are saying, ‘Hey, I made my money back, maybe I’ll revisit it later,'” Ferraioli said.

That dynamic has contributed to a market that feels very different from the euphoric phases of previous cycles.

Ferraioli argues that institutional adoption, while real, remains smaller than many market participants assume. Bitcoin ETFs have expanded access to crypto, but much of the asset class remains dominated by retail investors and momentum-driven traders.

“Again, this is primarily a retail asset,” he said.

The distinction matters because retail investors often react differently than traditional institutional allocators. Rather than building positions based on discounted cash flow models or long-term valuation frameworks, they tend to chase trends.

That behavior helps explain why bitcoin has struggled to capitalize on positive regulatory developments.

The crypto industry is awaiting potential passage of the Clarity Act, a bill that many industry participants believe could provide a clearer framework for digital assets in the U.S. Over the longer term, Ferraioli believes such developments could support adoption.

In the short term, however, regulation alone may not be enough to reverse the current trend.

“There is still more demand for downside protection,” he noted elsewhere in Schwab’s market outlook, though that pressure has begun to ease in recent weeks.

Seasonality may also be contributing to the slowdown. Summer has historically been one of bitcoin’s weaker periods, as trading activity declines and investors shift attention elsewhere.

“People know that for bitcoin seasonally summer is the weakest time,” Ferraioli said.

That leaves the market in an awkward position.

Institutional adoption is improving. Regulatory clarity is advancing. Major financial firms continue building crypto products. Yet none of those developments guarantee higher prices if investor attention is focused elsewhere.

“There’s a lack of a reason to be buying here when there’s other things you can choose,” Ferraioli said.

For now, he argues, the biggest challenge facing bitcoin isn’t Saylor, regulation or even macroeconomics.

It’s that investors have found something else to chase.

New DeFi entrant widens field of crypto political campaign funds as elections loom

0

Another crypto-focused political action committee, the Defend Developers PAC, has joined the field of campaign-funding operations that have in recent years put the industry on the political map.

The new entrant won’t rival the sector’s leading super PAC, Fairshake, nor is it expected to jump to the scale of the mid-level committees that include the Fellowship PAC linked to Tether and the Digital Freedom Fund tied to Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss at Gemini. But it’s approaching the political field differently than others, by backing incumbent lawmakers who’ve already proven to be allies to its cause: the legal protection of crypto developers and creators of decentralized finance (DeFi) projects.

“We plan to raise and contribute more than six figures across dozens of key races in the midterms, because crypto technologists deserve champions in Congress who will go to bat for them,” said Gavin Zavatone, the PAC’s founder, in a Wednesday statement announcing the effort. Zavatone is also the policy lead at the DeFi Education Fund, a trade association that lobbies for DeFi-friendly policymaking.

Defend Developers — federally registered last month — is what’s known as a hybrid PAC, meaning it can make direct contributions to candidates that follow the Federal Election Commission limits as well as channeling unlimited corporate contributions into independent ads. The bulk of the crypto sector’s high-profile political intervention has been through super PACs that have no monetary limits, though another new PAC, the Blockchain Leadership Fund established by Anchorage Digital and Chainlink, is also a hybrid.

“As a hybrid PAC, we’re building the political infrastructure to ensure the United States remains the best place in the world to build blockchain technology freely — and we’re doing it the right way, powered by individual contributions raised directly from the founders, builders, and CEOs who have the most at stake,” Zavatone said. The board of directors behind him include members from Uniswap Labs, DEF and the Solana Policy Institute, though no dollar amounts have yet been disclosed about its initial funding.

Without the tens of millions deployed by Fairshake and its affiliates, a new crypto PAC isn’t likely to make major waves. Fairshake is coming away with its latest primary election wins this week, having backed nine Democratic U.S. House of Representatives candidates in California, one in New Jersey and Republican U.S. Senate Mike Rounds in South Dakota. All of them won their primaries on Tuesday, maintaining a high win record for crypto-supporting politicians that Fairshake bought independent ads for, though the PAC didn’t expend more than $476,000 (for U.S. Representative George Whitsides) on this week’s races.

Fairshake had expended $6.5 million in its successful effort to make sure veteran House lawmaker and crypto critic Al Green lost out to Christian Menefee in their Texas primary last week. However, the super PAC — one of the largest in U.S. politics — has also seen a few misfires, such as in Illinois.

The general election in November brings extremely high stakes, with the potential to shift the party majority to Democrats in at least one chamber of Congress.

Read More: The crypto industry’s massive political war chest is starting to lean Republican ahead of midterms

The Canary In The Coal Mine

0

State regulators have been quietly banning Bitcoin ATMs. An entire subsection of the Bitcoin ecosystem is being deemed illegal and shut down. And since there’s not much of a cross-section between people who are chronically online and cash bitcoin buyers, it’s not getting a lot of attention. But the Bitcoin ATM ecosystem represents $3.63 billion, with a B, dollars going into bitcoin every year, and that’s just in the United States. 

Beyond the financials, Bitcoin ATMs are vital to maintaining self-sovereignty in the system. A Bitcoin ATM enables something no other service in the financial industry can: it lets you walk up with cash, no bank account, no credit check, no exchange account, and walk away with bitcoin in a wallet only you control. 

Perhaps it’s the self-sovereignty the regulators don’t like. Alas, they’re blaming the boogeyman, Fraud. 

Total bans, making Bitcoin ATMs illegal, have already been enacted in Indiana, Tennessee and Minnesota. De facto bans are also in place, creating limits that make it impossible to operate with any net profit in California, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Virginia. 

All of the bans and regulations are, of course, done under the guise of “protecting the consumer,” but legislation is not stopping fraud. The chain of fraud is easy to track, and Bitcoin ATM operators are doing just that, joining forces to form a coalition and fight back. 

No other industry is more heavily scrutinized than a fully licensed MSB (money services business) carrying MTLs (money transmission licenses) operating cash businesses subject to FinCEN’s AML KYC regulations. 

The fraud argument is selectively applied to Bitcoin ATMs because it’s politically easy. It’s also caught in the crosshairs of the AARP’s two-billion-dollar operating budget. But the facts don’t support the narrative. Across the broader financial industry, the standard rate of fraud is somewhere between 3 – 5%. It’s only 1.2% at Bitcoin ATMs. In other words, 98.8% of Bitcoin ATM transactions are legitimate. 

Why aren’t the states banning Western Union or Visa gift cards? Or robocalls, for that matter? 

The median Bitcoin ATM transaction is $300; 80% of all transactions are under $1,000. The average ATM customer is someone putting $50, $100, or $500 at a time into an appreciating asset, the same way someone DCAs on an exchange. The repeat purchase average is every 24 days, and the average lifetime spend per customer is $12k. Per the Federal Reserve’s own research, Bitcoin ATM’s primary users are the 24.6 million unbanked and underbanked Americans who are “disproportionately Black, Hispanic, immigrant, rural, low-income.” They’re moving $20–$100 at a gas station because they don’t have a bank account. States aren’t banning speculative tools; they’re banning legitimate financial access for people who already have the fewest options.

The “fraud” is just a Trojan horse. The banning won’t stop with ATMs. “A canary in a coal mine” is a metaphor for an early warning sign of impending danger or failure. While the President tries to claim the USA as the “Bitcoin capital of the World” his own justice department has put industry developers in prison. Another trend we cannot allow. 

In order for Bitcoin to succeed, we need all sections of the Bitcoin ecosystem to thrive. Similarly, in order for the industry to thrive here in the United States, we need the States to maintain their rights. 

If the banning is allowed to stand, it will not stop with just ATMs. This is a test case for “ban first, ask questions never.” Both the current and previous administrations have proposed a litany of bills that would similarly ban other parts of the ecosystem, encroaching on the rights of nearly everyone interacting with the bitcoin network in one way or another. 

A short list of some of the bills that came close: 

S.5267 — Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2022: explicitly named wallet providers, miners, validators and others as MSBs (triggering KYC/AML law). 

S.2669 — Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2023: reintroduced the same general approach of treating digital asset providers/facilitators as BSA financial institutions. S.2355 — CANSEE Act: targeted DeFi facilitators/backers and sought to apply AML/sanctions obligations to DeFi-style activity. 

S.3867 — Digital Asset Sanctions Compliance Enhancement Act: targeted transaction facilitators and platforms for sanctions-related prohibitions. 

And H.R.3684 — Infrastructure Act: which was enacted and sparked a debate around the definition of “exchanges and brokers” which initially included miners, node operators and software developers despite the fact that the required reporting would have been technically impossible. The Treasury and IRS eventually narrowed their scope before the bill was implemented. But how many in the industry knew how close this was to becoming law? 

We cannot let them define self-custody wallets as “money laundering tools,” P2P exchanges as “unlicensed money transmission,” Lightning nodes as “unregulated payment processing,” or Bitcoin ATMs as “fraudulent activity.” 

The entire promise of Bitcoin is that no one can stop you from holding and transacting with your own money. The Bitcoin ATM is where that promise meets physical reality. A person with cash and a cell phone can participate in a global, censorship-resistant financial network without asking anyone’s permission. 

Let’s keep it that way. 

If the state can eliminate the only way to go from cash to self-custody, then the self-custody right is theoretical. It exists only for people who already have bank accounts and exchange

relationships, which is to say, people who already have permission. The bitcoin ATM is the canary. If it dies and nobody notices, the coal mine is next.

This is a guest post by Michelle Weekley. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Kraken parent plans to offer tokenized IPO access as investors await SpaceX, Anthropic debut

0

Kraken’s parent company is bringing one of Wall Street’s most coveted opportunities to crypto investors: buying into IPOs at the same price as institutional investors.

Payward, the parent company of the crypto exchange, said Wednesday it will “soon” allow customers of Kraken and other members of its xStocks Alliance to participate in U.S.-listed initial public offerings through tokenized shares. The offering would give eligible investors a chance to receive allocations at the IPO price rather than purchasing shares after trading begins on public markets.

The first tokenized IPO offerings are expected to become available through Kraken and other xStocks Alliance members in the coming weeks, the firm said.

The launch comes as investors await a new crop of high-profile public offerings. SpaceX and AI startups Anthropic and OpenAI are among the companies widely viewed as potential IPO candidates in the coming months, fueling demand for access to deals that have traditionally been dominated by institutional investors, private banks and wealthy clients.

Under Payward’s model, investors would submit non-binding indications of interest before an IPO. The company would aggregate demand across participating exchanges and work with underwriting syndicates to secure allocations. Once a company lists, shares would be tokenized, backed one-for-one by the underlying stock held by a regulated custodian and distributed to investors through participating platforms.

The initiative is part of a broader push to use blockchain technology to expand access to capital markets.

Tokenization — the process of creating blockchain-based representations of traditional assets — has become one of the fastest-growing areas of digital assets. The sector has expanded beyond cryptocurrencies into Treasury funds, private credit, money-market products and, increasingly, equities.

Supporters argue tokenization can make assets easier to access, transfer and trade across jurisdictions. For equities, the technology could help remove some of the geographic and brokerage barriers that have historically limited access to IPOs and foreign-listed stocks.

Still, pre-IPO investing carries risks. IPO allocations are often oversubscribed and not guaranteed, offering prices can change during the book-building process and newly listed stocks frequently experience sharp price swings once public trading begins.

The firm will only offer IPOs where it has secured allocations for investors, a Payward spokesperson told CoinDesk.

Payward said its xStocks framework currently supports tokenized equities backed one-for-one by underlying shares held in custody. The company said the framework has processed more than $30 billion in transaction volume and over $6 billion in onchain settlements across more than 125,000 holders.

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) falls 10.7%, leading index lower

0

CoinDesk Indices presents its daily market update, highlighting the performance of leaders and laggards in the CoinDesk 20 Index.

The CoinDesk 20 is currently trading at 1862.4, down 0.6% (-11.0) since 4 p.m. ET on Tuesday.

Fifteen of the 20 assets are trading higher.

Leaders: NEAR (+15.1%) and XLM (+5.7%).

Laggards: BCH (-10.7%) and BNB (-3.4%).

The CoinDesk 20 is a broad-based index traded on multiple platforms in several regions globally.

US Lawmakers Push Back on Labor Dept’s Plans to Include Crypto in 401(k)s

[Correction: In the second paragraph, the letter from lawmakers was dated Monday, June 1.]

Top Democrats on three House and Senate committees called on the US Labor Department to halt its plans to allow digital assets and “alternative assets” to be held in Americans’ retirement plans. 

In a Monday letter, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Bobby Scott asked acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling to rescind the department’s proposal to allow private equity, digital assets, private credit, and other “alternative assets” to be included in 401(k) plans.

Source: Senate Banking Committee

They said the policy would “expose retirement accounts to exceptionally volatile assets, like digital currency,” citing a “lack of regulation and safeguards” putting many cryptocurrencies at risk of fraud.

Sanders, Warren and Scott — the ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, the Senate Banking Committee and House Committee on Education and Workforce, respectively — said that the current administration had weakened enforcement of crypto fraud at financial agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“The application of securities laws to crypto assets is rapidly evolving, and many securities law protections that investors have for public securities may not be available for crypto,” said the letter. “This lack of sufficient guardrails is likely to harm investors.”

Related: Basic adds VanEck crypto ETFs to 401(k) plans amid US retirement shift

The proposed policy, announced by the Labor Department in March, followed an August 2025 executive order from US President Donald Trump directing agencies to “democratize access to alternative assets,” including crypto. According to the Investment Company Institute, Americans held about $10.1 trillion in 401(k) plans as of Dec. 31.

Trump family conflicts of interest cloud 401(k) order and CLARITY Act

Sanders, Warren and Scott questioned whether the Labor Department policy would financially benefit anyone in the current administration, given Trump was “rife with conflicts of interest in this area,” including his family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial.

Lawmakers have made similar arguments in proposing amendments to a digital asset market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, expected to be addressed in the US Senate soon. Democrats in that chamber have said that they would not vote for any legislation that doesn’t contain provisions on ethics.

Magazine: HYPE chases $100 target, ETH could dump below $1800: Market Moves

EU MiCA Deadline Forces Crypto Firms to Secure Licenses or Exit Market

The European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation hits a hard deadline on July 1 when the transitional period ends and in-scope crypto asset service providers operating under national regimes must either hold a MiCA licence or stop serving EU clients.

A spokesperson from the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) told Cointelegraph that from that date, non-authorized entities “will not be allowed to operate within the EU” and should implement wind-down and client migration plans rather than rely on open-ended transitional status while awaiting a decision.

The deadline could force some crypto firms to suspend EU operations while their applications remain under review, potentially affecting millions of users who continue to engage with platforms that are not yet authorized under MiCA.

In France, 19 crypto asset service providers (CASPs) have been authorized so far, and roughly 25 applications remain under review, a spokesperson for the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) told Cointelegraph.

From July 1, providers that are not MiCA-authorized “must cease their activities,” the spokesperson said, pointing to a February AMF warning that unauthorized crypto asset services are a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison and a 30,000 euro (roughly $35,000) fine.

The watchdog says it can also add firms to a blacklist, issue public warnings and seek court orders to block access to the websites of unauthorized providers targeting French users.

AMF warning to unregulated crypto asset platforms. Source: AMF

Germany has set a licensing requirement under its national implementation of MiCA, requiring crypto asset service providers that were operating under prior exemptions to obtain authorization by June 30, a spokesperson from German regulator BaFin told Cointelegraph.

The country generally follows EU and national deadlines, the spokesperson said, and may apply enforcement measures “where possible and appropriate,” adding that some applications remain under review.

In contrast, Austria chose not to extend grandfathering for virtual asset service providers under its pre-MiCA regime, which ended on Dec. 31, 2025, so no exchanges are still operating without a license in the country.

A spokesperson from the Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) told Cointelegraph it has licensed nine CASPs so far and that MiCA application volume is “significant,” although it does not disclose how many applications are pending.

Related: France’s AMF regulator sets June 30 deadline for MiCA licensing

Lawyers warn pending applications offer no protection

Having an application in the queue will not shield CASPs from the deadline, Niall Esler, head of the regulatory and risk advisory practice at law firm Walkers, told Cointelegraph. He said that companies still serving EU clients without authorization after the transition ends will be operating unlawfully and cannot expect to continue business as usual.

MiCA requires member states to give national authorities powers to order an immediate halt to services, compel client offboarding, name firms publicly and impose administrative fines for unauthorized activity.

Statement on the end of transitional periods. Source: ESMA

That could affect a substantial number of European crypto users. According to analysis shared with Cointelegraph by OKX Europe, of 18.5 million crypto app downloads in Europe between May 2025 and May 2026, about 7.6 million (41%) were to exchanges that do not appear on the independent register of MiCA-authorized providers compiled from ESMA and national data.

ESMA declined to provide an estimate of how many EU users remain on non-authorized platforms, saying it cannot share non-public information.

OKX Europe CEO Erald Ghoos said app download figures understate the issue because they miss users who access exchanges via web browsers or installed apps earlier and remain active.

To bridge that gap, OKX says it combined App Store data with web traffic estimates and search trends to approximate active usage. Ghoos said the company believes “approximately 60% of European crypto users are actively engaging with platforms that hold no MiCA authorization,” including some of the world’s largest exchanges by trading volume.

Related: Europe’s MiCA regime puts smaller crypto firms under pressure

Some exchanges still seeking MiCA approval

Several major exchanges are still awaiting MiCA authorization as national regulators review their applications.

Bitget, for example, applied for a MiCA license in Austria in 2025. The company’s chief legal officer told Cointelegraph it expects regulatory approval in the second quarter of 2026 and will not offer services in the European Economic Area until authorization is granted.

Binance, meanwhile, applied for a MiCA licence in Greece in January through the country’s Hellenic Capital Market Commission and is not currently listed among MiCA-authorized providers in the EU. The company did not respond to a request for comment on its application status.

Magazine: Singapore isn’t a ‘crypto hub’ — it’s something better: StraitsX CEO

What about the American consumer?

0

Welcome to our institutional newsletter, Crypto Long & Short. This week:

  • Alex Tapscott on the stalling of the CLARITY Act and how it’s impacting the average American consumer.
  • Aisha Hunt writes that crypto will grow by upgrading Wall Street’s trusted products rather than replacing them.
  • Top headlines institutions should pay attention to by Helene Braun
  • “RWA Perp Volume by Category: Equities Overtake Commodities” in Chart of the Week

-Alexandra Levis


Expert Insights

What about the American consumer?

By Alex Tapscott, CEO, CMCC Global Capital Markets

The little guy is getting lost in the political horse-trading around the CLARITY Act.

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee recently advanced the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, legislation that, if enacted, could finally establish clear rules for digital assets in the United States. The bill has survived months of bipartisan negotiations and horse trading between banking interests and upstart fintech companies.

A bipartisan compromise brokered by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) broke a log-jam that had slowed down the bill’s progress. In the end, the banks got most of what they wanted in this “deal”: the legislation explicitly prevents fintech platforms from treating stablecoins, digital assets backed by dollars, as interest bearing accounts, while still permitting them to pay rewards and bonuses, as banks and credit card issuers do.

That should have ended the debate. Yet banking lobby groups are demanding tighter restrictions to eliminate many forms of consumer rewards altogether. Clearly, they seek to squash this already compromised bill before a full Senate vote, so that it never reaches the Resolute Desk.

Lost amid the political wrangling of crypto and banking interests is the average American consumer.

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Americans paid roughly $5.8 billion in overdraft fees in 2023, even after years of industry efforts to reduce so-called “junk fees.” Overdraft charges disproportionately hit financially vulnerable households, with nearly 80% of fees concentrated among 9% of accounts. And then there are account minimums, wire charges and payment delays, which add friction. Meanwhile, the average savings rate is only 0.38%.

Consumers want financial services to move faster, cost less and earn them more.

Stablecoins are gaining popularity because they herald a world where digital dollars move across the internet as cheaply and seamlessly as a WhatsApp message. They can lower remittance costs, improve access to digital commerce, expedite real-time payments and create new ways for consumers to save, spend and transact online.

And Americans are asking for CLARITY because many already use these tools. According to the Crypto Council for Innovation, one in five American adults now owns cryptocurrency. That’s roughly 68.5 million people. Stablecoins are among the fastest-growing categories of digital assets, particularly among younger consumers, immigrants, freelancers and underserved communities seeking faster and cheaper financial tools. Four in five merchants believe accepting crypto could help attract new customers, while 73% of small business owners expect crypto payments to grow.

That’s what makes this debate so politically mystifying. For years, progressives argued that concentrated financial power harmed consumers and Main Street. They criticized large banks for extracting rents while lobbying against regulations that diluted bank influence. Those critiques were often correct. Today some of those progressives, like Elizabeth Warren, who championed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are now defending banking profits against a technology that could inject real competition into financial services and empower consumers and small businesses.

Congress should pass CLARITY in its current form to benefit American consumers and preserve American competitiveness and leadership in the next era of financial technology. This lead is by no means assured: today, 88% of global crypto trading volume occurs on non-U.S.-based exchanges, while foreign-issued stablecoins account for 75% of stablecoin volume. Over the past decade, the U.S. share of global crypto developers has fallen from 38% to just 19%.

Do American politicians want their country to continue leading, or do they prefer watching such financial transformation from the sidelines?

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration helped usher in the commercial internet through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a bipartisan effort expanding innovation and competition. Now, Congress has an opportunity to unleash the new internet of value by passing CLARITY.

Under GENIUS and CLARITY, stablecoin issuers must meet strong reserve requirements, transparency obligations, anti-money laundering standards, cybersecurity rules and consumer protections. Sensible public policy will unleash investment and innovation, as it did in the internet era.

This story need not end in conflict between banks and blockchains. Incumbents can just as easily embrace blockchain and its various benefits, from real-time global settlement and tokenized assets, to new forms of on-chain lending, payments, savings and commerce.

The question is whether lawmakers will vote to lead this next technological revolution and advance the interests of American consumers or cede the future to entrenched interests.


Principled Perspectives

Why Crypto May Need ETFs More Than ETFs Need Crypto

By Aisha Hunt, founder of Kelley Hunt, PLLC

Crypto spent its first decade trying to replace Wall Street. Its next trillion dollars may come from partnering with it. The first wave of tokenization focused on creating new assets, new venues and new systems outside traditional finance. Some of that innovation mattered. Much of it struggled with the same problem: markets do not scale on technology alone. They scale on trust, liquidity and distribution. That reality favors ETFs.

The ETF wrapper became one of the most successful financial products of the modern era because it solved practical investor problems at scale: low-cost access, transparency, intraday liquidity, operational simplicity and broad distribution across brokerage platforms and advisory channels.

Those advantages took decades to build. Tokenization does not erase them. In fact, it may amplify them. If blockchain rails can be integrated into ETFs, investors may not have to choose between innovation and protection. They could gain exposure to familiar products with the potential benefits of faster settlement, programmable ownership, collateral mobility and broader digital interoperability, all inside a structure already trusted by institutions, advisors and retail investors.

That is a far bigger commercial opportunity than asking trillions of dollars to migrate into unfamiliar vehicles. This is why one underappreciated development matters. On January 21, 2026, F/m Investments LLC and The RBB Fund, Inc. filed what is believed to be the first exemptive application by an ETF issuer seeking to tokenize shares of an exchange-traded fund, TBIL, the U.S. Treasury 3 Month Bill ETF. The proposal would record ownership on a permissioned blockchain ledger while preserving the same fund, same economics, same exchange listing and same regulatory framework. The application remains pending before the SEC, and there can be no assurance relief will be granted. That may sound like a niche legal filing. It is not. It is a test of whether capital markets modernization happens inside the regulatory perimeter or outside it.

That distinction matters to investors because the next major on-chain growth category may not be speculative tokens. It may be trusted yield, usable collateral and regulated exposure. Stablecoins already demonstrated the demand for digitally native dollars. The next logical step is digitally native instruments backed by real portfolios, real governance and real investor protections.

That is where tokenized ETFs could become powerful.

Imagine Treasury exposure that can plug into next-generation collateral networks. Imagine ETF shares that remain within familiar regulatory guardrails while operating on more modern rails. Imagine advisors and institutions accessing blockchain efficiency without having to underwrite experimental structures.

The first tokenization narrative was “replace incumbents.” The stronger narrative may be “upgrade incumbents.” That does not diminish crypto; it commercializes it.

For regulators, tokenized ETFs may offer a pragmatic path forward: enable innovation where investor protections remain intact, rather than pushing demand into parallel channels with greater uncertainty. For exchanges, custodians, brokers and market makers, it could create a new infrastructure layer around products investors already understand.

For issuers, it may become a race. The firms that combine trusted wrappers, credible assets and functional on-chain rails could capture disproportionate flows. And for allocators, the signal may be simple: blockchain technology is becoming less about novelty and more about plumbing.That is usually when real adoption begins.

The broader lesson is that distribution often beats disruption:

Who already has trusted wrappers?

Who already has liquidity?

Who already has access to advisors, retirement assets and institutions?

Who can bridge old rails and new rails fastest?

Those questions point toward ETFs.

The next trillion dollars of tokenized assets may not come from inventing something entirely new; they may come from upgrading what already works. Crypto’s first era was about building outside the system. Its next era may be about powering the system.


Headlines of the week

By Helene Braun

A few of crypto’s biggest debates converged this past week as Michael Saylor’s Strategy (MSTR) sold bitcoin to fund preferred stock dividends, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon escalated his fight against yield-bearing stablecoins during the CLARITY Act debate, and Citi projected tokenized securities could grow into a $5.5 trillion market by 2030, driven by rising demand for onchain Treasuries and tokenized stocks.


Chart of the Week

RWA Perp Volume by Category: Equities Overtake Commodities (excluding oil)

RWA perps run ~$45–60 billion/week, and flow is rotating out of commodities into equities. Equities roughly tripled to ~$18 billion and just overtook the commodities (excluding oil) block, while oil faded after its April macro spike. This implies that crypto-venue derivatives are increasingly used for 24/7 equity exposure, with commodities now the episodic, event-driven slice.


Listen. Read. Watch. Engage.

Looking for more? Receive the latest crypto news from coindesk.com and market updates from coindesk.com/institutions.


Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc., CoinDesk Indices or its owners and affiliates.

This model puts bitcoin’s fair value at $224,000

0

A monthly research report from Bitwise’s European arm published this week pegs bitcoin’s theoretical “fair value” at roughly $224,000 if the asset were widely adopted as portfolio insurance against G20 sovereign debt defaults.

The research team described the figure as a “model-implied illustrative figure, not a price target or forecast,” however.

The figure stems from a theoretical framework first proposed by analyst Greg Foss in 2021, which treats bitcoin as a credit default swap on sovereign bonds.

Because the bitcoin network has no central issuer and operates without a sovereign backstop, the Foss model frames it as a non-correlated hedge against the possibility of major sovereign defaults.

The implied $224,000 fair value depends on the weighted default probability across group of 20 (G20) sovereigns and the market capitalization of the bonds being notionally insured.

It built the case around stress in sovereign bond markets. Japanese 30-year government bond yields have hit record highs while 10-year JGB yields sit at multi-decade peaks.

The International Monetary Fund and OECD have warned that governments and companies are set to borrow $29 trillion from bond markets this year, 17% higher than 2024, with the IMF describing markets as becoming less forgiving and investors as increasingly questioning the limits of sovereign borrowing capacity.

Bitwise singled out Japan’s JGB market as particularly vulnerable, citing its roughly $7.5 trillion size as the world’s second-largest sovereign bond market, Japanese investors’ approximately $1.2 trillion in U.S. Treasury holdings, and Japan’s roughly 230% debt-to-GDP ratio.

It noted that 10-year swap spreads, which measure sovereign risk premia, are at their highest levels since the 2011-2012 European debt crisis across major sovereign bonds.

But the report flagged some near-term headwinds for bitcoin as well.

Higher global bond yields have made Strategy’s (MSTR) STRC perpetual preferred equity dividends less attractive to investors, and STRC has recently traded below par.

Strategy buys have accounted for roughly two-thirds of institutional bitcoin demand via global treasury companies and bitcoin ETPs through 2026 to date, per Bitwise’s count, meaning a stall in Strategy’s STRC-funded accumulation could materially dent the flow.

The upside scenarios Bitwise outlines hinge on monetary policy and sovereign stress.

A Fed pause under newly confirmed chair Kevin Warsh against rising inflation could push real yields lower, which the report cited as a historical tailwind for bitcoin. A sovereign bond capitulation that forces central bank intervention to safeguard financial stability could validate bitcoin’s role as a decentralized hedge against sovereign counterparty risk.

On valuation, the report flagged one of the most extreme divergences between bitcoin and U.S. large-cap tech it has observed. Bitcoin’s market-value-to-realized-value ratio sits in the lower half of its historical distribution, with only 36% of historical readings below the current level.

The NASDAQ 100’s price-to-book ratio, by contrast, is at its highest level on record, with 99% of historical readings below the current level.

Bitcoin was trading near $66,300 on Wednesday after sliding from above $71,000 earlier this week.

FCA Warns Premier League Clubs Over Risky Crypto Sponsorships

Update (June 3, 1 pm, UTC): This article has been updated to include a comment from a spokesperson at BingX.

The United Kingdom’s financial regulator has warned football clubs, including those in the Premier League, to avoid sponsorship deals with unauthorized financial companies amid concerns that fans are being pushed toward risky crypto and trading platforms with no protections.

In a Wednesday press release, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said several unauthorized firms, including crypto businesses and online trading platforms, are using football sponsorships to target “unwitting” supporters.

It warned that such firms may be breaching UK financial services law by operating without authorization and that fans using them “risk losing all their money.”

The intervention puts scrutiny on the clubs themselves. The FCA said that it had written directly to football clubs, telling teams that sponsorship deals with unauthorized financial firms not only endanger fans but could also expose clubs to legal liability, money laundering risks, and serious reputational damage if they fail to carry out adequate checks on partners.

The warning comes as crypto and trading brands have expanded their presence across top-flight football, giving retail-facing platforms prominent exposure through club sponsorships as the FCA steps up enforcement of its financial promotions rules.

Related: UK FCA seeks feedback on guidance for crypto rules ahead of 2027 rollout

The regulator expects every UK club to conduct proper, ongoing due diligence on financial services sponsors and said it will take action where concerns have already been identified.

Rise in crypto football sponsorship deals

The FCA’s warning comes amid a rapid influx of crypto and trading brands into football, including crypto group LAK3 Company, which sponsored Wolverhampton Wanderers in the 2024-25 season, which appears on the FCA’s Warning List of unauthorized firms.

LAK3 Company appears on the FCA’s warning list. Source: FCA

BingX and OKX, which have partnered with Chelsea and Manchester City, are not on the FCA’s Warning List, but the Financial Times reported that they do not appear on the FCA register of authorized firms.

Their deals have given prominent shirt and stadium exposure to retail-facing trading platforms, as the regulator has been clamping down on high-risk promotions.

The FCA did not respond to a request for comment by publication. In its notice, however, the regulator stressed that any firm not authorized in the UK can only promote financial products or services to consumers if its adverts are signed off by an authorized firm under the financial promotions regime.

A spokesperson from BingX told Cointelegraph that the company has “registered or obtained the applicable regulatory approvals to operate in countries where it provides its services.”

Crypto marketing firmly under FCA oversight

The FCA already brought crypto marketing under its financial promotions regime in October 2023, issuing 146 alerts in the first 24 hours alone and launching its first enforcement action against global exchange HTX (formerly Huobi) in February 2026 for allegedly illegal crypto promotions to UK consumers.

Its latest move makes clear that football sponsorships are now firmly in scope for the FCA’s crypto marketing rules. The watchdog said it is working with the government, the Premier League and the incoming Independent Football Regulator to tackle the issue across the sport.

The crackdown also follows a separate warning by the Gambling Commission over gambling adverts on children’s replica kits at four Premier League clubs, Bournemouth, Fulham, Newcastle, and Wolves, highlighting growing regulatory unease about how high-risk products are sold through football.

Cointelegraph reached out to Chelsea and Manchester City, as well as OKX, and LAK3 Company, for comment, but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Magazine: How to fix suspected insider trading on Polymarket and Kalshi