A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a revised crypto tax bill Wednesday that aims to update the tax code to better address crypto use cases and would, if signed into law, direct the IRS to analyze the effect de minimis exemptions might have.
Congressmen Steven Horsford (D-N.V.), Max Miller (R-Ohio), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) and Mike Carey (R-Ohio) reintroduced the Digital Asset Protection, Accountability, Regulation, Innovation, Taxation and Yields Act, otherwise known as the Parity Act, that Horsford and Miller had previously pushed a few times. The new language comes a week after lawmakers reportedly met to discuss crypto tax reform.
The new version of the bill calls for “regulated payment stablecoins” to incur no gain or loss unless the cost basis is less than 99% of the redemption value of the stablecoin, and it also creates a safe harbor for trading through brokers or in taxpayer accounts, defines how so-called “wash sale” rules might apply to digital assets and addresses how digital assets earned by acting as a validator.
The bill also directs the IRS to review what sort of tax burden crypto holders face when it comes to “small digital asset transactions” and how many transactions worth less than $200 are captured under existing law. This review should include the IRS’ needs if there was a de minimis exemption — meaning a carveout for activity that the law should consider too small to be concerned with — for crypto transactions, as well as whether and how such an exemption might be abused.
The crypto industry has long argued that freeing taxpayers of the burden of having to file and report taxes on small transactions would make it easier to use crypto as a payments tool for small items like a cup of coffee.
The bill is meant to just be a first step toward broader crypto tax reform, Horsford said at CoinDesk’s Consensus Miami conference earlier this month.
“I actually think tax is the foundation. Why? Because it’s tax policy that will determine number one, how these digital assets can be used in our finance system. And at a time when our federal tax code is outdated, it does not take into account the modernization of digital assets,” he said.
“For example, none of the current regulatory policy framework tells a consumer, an institution, or a builder what happens to their taxes when they sell a digital asset, earned staking reward, lend crypto on the U.S. platform or make a charitable contribution in bitcoin,” the lawmaker said “Those are tax questions. And they remain entirely unresolved.”
Copying its moves from the week’s first two trading days, Bitcoin faced tailwinds as US market sentiment stayed bearish on the macroeconomic outlook.
The S&P 500 fell 1.3% before rebounding, with traders waiting for the week’s key potential volatility catalyst: Q1 earnings from tech company Nvidia.
On Monday, trading resource The Kobeissi Letter described the numbers as the “biggest earnings event of the quarter.”
Continuing, it noted the role of tech stocks in driving S&P 500 strength — even as the US-Iran war and associated inflation risk spooked other markets.
“A handful of tech stocks are driving the entire market,” it summarized in a post on X.
In crypto circles, attention focused on the Coinbase Premium Index, which highlighted the ongoing lack of bullish sentiment during US trading sessions.
Related: BTC price ‘bull trap’ at $76.5K? Five things to know in Bitcoin this week
The Index, which measures the difference in price between Coinbase’s BTC/USD and Binance’s BTC/USDT pairs, fell to its lowest levels since February on the day.
Commenting in one of its QuickTake blog posts, onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant said that spot Bitcoin demand “remains soft.”
“The latest Coinbase Premium Gap reading stands near -$66.8, meaning Bitcoin is trading at a lower price on Coinbase Pro’s USD pair compared with Binance’s USDT pair. This is deeper than the late-March reading of around -$62.6, when Bitcoin was trading near $68,000,” contributor Amr Taha wrote.
“The comparison is important because Bitcoin is now trading much higher, around $77,200, yet the Coinbase discount versus Binance is wider than it was when BTC was nearly $9,000 lower.”
Bitcoin Coinbase Premium gap (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant
Others monitored familiar trend lines, including the 21-week exponential moving average (EMA).
As Cointelegraph reported, BTC/USD reclaimed that level on weekly time frames in late April, only to lose it again this week.
“Bitcoin has Weekly Closed below the 21-week EMA (green) which technically positions price to potentially turn it into new resistance on any upcoming rebound,” trader and analyst Rekt Capital told X followers on Tuesday while analyzing the weekly chart.
“Turning the 21-week EMA into new resistance would fully confirm the breakdown from it.”
What happened? India’s long-running debate over crypto regulation moved back into Parliament this week, as the Standing Committee on Finance held discussions with Binance, WazirX and ZebPay on the future of virtual digital assets.
The May 20 sitting, listed by the Lok Sabha Secretariat under the subject “A Study on Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) and Way Forward,” brought together crypto exchanges, the International Financial Services Centres Authority, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Standing Committee on Finance Invites ZebPay, Binance, and WazirX the subject “A Study on Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) and Way Forward”. Image Credit: Lok Sabha Secretariat
The hearing signals that India is still searching for a regulatory model for crypto, four years after introducing a tax framework for digital assets.
It also comes as lawmakers weigh three competing priorities: tax collection, investor protection and the risk of capital moving offshore.
According to The Economic Times, committee chairman Bhartruhari Mahtab said the panel found it “alarming” that thousands of crores of rupees were being invested in VDAs, with money flowing outside India. He said the committee was studying different global approaches, including regulation in the US, UK and EU, bans such as China’s, and containment-led models in countries such as Japan and Brazil.
India currently taxes crypto but has not enacted a dedicated law governing the asset class.
That contradiction was reportedly raised inside the committee with some members questioning how the government can impose a 30% tax when there is still no comprehensive crypto policy.
The result is a policy middle ground.
Crypto is not banned in India. But it is also not regulated like securities, commodities, payments instruments or banking products.
Instead, India has built a framework around taxation, anti-money laundering compliance and enforcement against non-compliant offshore platforms.
That approach has given the state visibility over transactions, while leaving investors without a clear statutory protection regime.
The Finance Committee’s meeting suggests lawmakers may now be trying to decide whether that patchwork is enough.
Taxation remains the centre of India’s crypto policy
India’s current crypto framework began with the 2022-23 Union Budget.
The government imposed a 30% tax on income from the transfer of virtual digital assets, along with cess and surcharge. It also introduced a 1% tax deducted at source on crypto transactions above prescribed thresholds.
The tax regime was designed to create a reporting trail.
But it also became one of the industry’s biggest points of contention.
Crypto exchanges and industry groups have repeatedly argued that the 1% TDS pushed trading activity toward offshore platforms and peer-to-peer channels. That made it harder for Indian authorities to monitor transactions, even as the tax was meant to improve visibility.
The Finance Committee’s latest discussion appears to reflect the same tension.
Mahtab said it was necessary that income generated from VDA investments should be taxed within India, especially when platforms or entities may be based outside the country.
That perspective is worth noting. The issue is no longer only whether crypto should be allowed. It is also about where trading occurs, who captures the data, and whether India can tax the activity without driving it into less visible markets.
AML rules have become the main regulatory anchor
India’s strongest crypto oversight mechanism today is the Financial Intelligence Unit.
The Ministry of Finance said in October 2025 that VDA service providers were brought under the anti-money laundering and counter-terror financing framework in March 2023. It said VDA platforms operating in India, whether offshore or onshore, must register with FIU-IND and comply with obligations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The government also made clear that the obligations are activity-based.
That means a platform does not need a physical presence in India to fall under Indian AML rules if it serves Indian users.
As of October 2025, 50 VDA service providers had registered with FIU-IND, according to the same Ministry of Finance release. The FIU had also issued notices to 25 offshore VDA service providers for non-compliance and sought takedown action for platforms found operating illegally without complying with PMLA provisions.
This has become India’s de facto crypto regulatory perimeter.
It focuses on KYC, record-keeping, suspicious transaction reporting and compliance by intermediaries.
But it does not answer broader questions about market conduct, custody standards, segregation of client assets, conflict of interest, token listings, exchange insolvency or user compensation after hacks.
That gap is one reason the Finance Committee’s study could be significant.
Investor protection is no longer theoretical
The presence of WazirX in the committee discussion is notable because India’s crypto debate is no longer abstract.
In July 2024, WazirX suffered one of the largest crypto exchange breaches linked to Indian users. The incident froze access for many customers and triggered a prolonged restructuring process.
The episode exposed a core weakness in India’s crypto policy architecture.
Users were trading on a large domestic-facing platform, but when the platform faced a custody and solvency crisis, the recovery process depended heavily on cross-border restructuring proceedings rather than a dedicated Indian crypto investor protection regime.
That matters for lawmakers.
A tax-and-AML-only framework can help the state monitor activity. It does not necessarily protect users when an exchange fails, is hacked, mismanages custody, or operates through complex offshore corporate structures.
The Ministry of Finance has itself warned that crypto products and NFTs are unregulated and can be highly risky, with no regulatory recourse for losses from such transactions.
That warning now sits uneasily beside India’s large retail participation.
Chainalysis ranked India first in its 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index, followed by the US, Pakistan, Vietnam and Brazil. The firm said its index measures grassroots crypto adoption using on-chain and off-chain data across 151 countries.
India, in other words, is not regulating a fringe market.
It is dealing with a mass retail and increasingly institutional asset class that has already moved faster than the law.
RBI’s caution still shapes the debate
A major obstacle to a full crypto framework remains the Reserve Bank of India’s long-standing concern about private digital assets.
According to The Economic Times, Mahtab said after the meeting that the RBI is opposed to allowing regulation or permission for virtual digital assets to operate in India.
That position has historically shaped India’s cautious approach.
The central bank has raised concerns around monetary sovereignty, financial stability, consumer protection and the possibility of crypto becoming a channel for illicit flows or speculative excess.
The government, however, has avoided an outright ban.
Instead, it has chosen taxation, AML oversight and selective enforcement against offshore firms.
The Finance Committee’s study may therefore become a forum for reconciling two different views inside the state.
One view treats crypto primarily as a systemic risk to be contained.
The other accepts that usage is already widespread and argues that regulated domestic platforms may be safer than pushing activity offshore.
Industry sees engagement as progress
Avinash Shekhar, co-founder and CEO of Pi42, said the formal engagement with major global and domestic platforms is an important step for the sector.
“India bringing major global and domestic crypto platforms into formal policy discussions is a significant step for the industry’s long-term evolution,” Shekhar said in a statement shared with AlexaBlockchain.
“It signals that the conversation is gradually moving from uncertainty toward structured engagement between policymakers and the ecosystem,” he added.
He said India already represents one of the world’s largest digital asset user bases, making regulatory clarity important for investor protection, market transparency and responsible innovation.
“These discussions can help policymakers better understand how areas such as compliance, custody, taxation, cybersecurity, and cross-border transactions function in practice,” Shekhar said.
He added that a balanced framework could strengthen confidence among users, institutions and businesses, while encouraging more innovation and liquidity to remain within regulated Indian platforms rather than moving offshore.
That is the industry’s central argument.
If India wants tax revenue and risk oversight, it may need to make compliant domestic trading viable.
No public exchange statements found after meeting
There was no official post-meeting statements from Binance, WazirX or ZebPay executives at the time of writing. Binance, WazirX or ZebPay did not immediately respond to a requests for comment about the discussion with the committee.
The Lok Sabha Secretariat’s public X account said the Standing Committee on Finance, chaired by Bhartruhari Mahtab, held discussions with representatives of ZebPay, Binance and WazirX.
The absence of detailed public comments from the exchanges leaves open several questions.
It is not yet clear what specific recommendations the platforms made on taxation, TDS, custody, cybersecurity, offshore flows or investor protection.
It is also not clear whether the committee will seek written submissions from the exchanges before making recommendations.
How crucial is this meeting? And, what does this indicate?
The meeting is highly crucial because it shows India’s crypto policy is entering a more structured phase.
For years, the country’s position has been defined by three ideas: high taxes, AML compliance and regulatory caution.
That approach has reduced the likelihood of a sudden policy embrace.
But it has not resolved the core problem.
Millions of Indians continue to use crypto. Domestic exchanges want clearer rules. Offshore platforms remain attractive to users seeking liquidity and product access. Regulators remain worried about capital flight, tax evasion, fraud and systemic risk.
The Finance Committee now appears to be examining whether India should continue with containment or move toward a clearer licensing and conduct framework.
Such a framework could include stronger custody norms, capital requirements, mandatory proof of reserves, cyber-risk standards, exchange governance rules, token due diligence, user asset segregation and clearer enforcement powers.
It could also revisit the tax design.
A lower TDS rate, better reporting architecture and stricter FIU compliance could potentially keep more trading activity on regulated platforms while preserving transaction visibility for the tax department.
But the political threshold remains high.
Any reform must satisfy the RBI’s concerns, the finance ministry’s revenue objectives, law enforcement’s AML priorities and the industry’s demand for workable rules.
That is a difficult balance.
Yet the latest parliamentary hearing shows the debate has moved beyond whether crypto exists in India.
The question now is whether India wants crypto activity to remain taxable but legally uncertain, or whether it wants to bring the market into a fuller regulatory perimeter.
The above article “Is India Moving From Crypto Uncertainty Toward a Clearer Policy Framework?” was first published on AlexaBlockchain. Read the complete article here: https://alexablockchain.com/is-india-moving-from-crypto-uncertainty-toward-a-clearer-policy-framework/
Read Also: MoneyGram, Pairpoint and eToro Back Midnight’s Privacy Blockchain Before Mainnet
Disclaimer: The information provided on AlexaBlockchain is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Read complete disclaimer here.
Image Credits: Lok Sabha Secretariat, Shutterstock, Canva, Wiki Commons
Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure
Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX and Chief Investment Officer of Maelstrom, called for the CLARITY Act to be vetoed in a recent interview with Scott Melker, host of The Wolf of All Streets — comments that have resurfaced at a moment of peak legislative momentum, just days after the bill cleared the Senate Banking Committee with a bipartisan 15-9 vote.
Speaking with Melker, Hayes delivered his position without qualification. “The CLARITY Act should be vetoed. We don’t need no regulation.” The remark, amplified by Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) on X, puts him in direct and public opposition to virtually every major centralized exchange, lobby group, and corporate executive in the space — all of whom have spent months treating the bill as the most consequential piece of crypto legislation in US history.
Why Hayes Says The Industry Is Wrong
The argument Hayes is making is not that regulation is inconvenient. It is that regulation is structurally incompatible with what Bitcoin and decentralized systems actually are.
His framing is pointed: the companies lobbying hardest for the CLARITY Act — exchanges, custodians, and institutional platforms — are entities that need regulatory frameworks to operate and attract traditional capital.
The bill clears their path. It does not, in Hayes’ view, do anything meaningful for Bitcoin or genuinely decentralized systems, which derive their value precisely from operating outside any regulatory architecture. “Regulation is for people who own centralized companies — obviously they want this, that makes complete sense,” he said, per reporting of his remarks at Consensus Miami 2026 where he expanded on the same thesis.
The macro argument runs beneath the regulatory one. Hayes has consistently maintained that Bitcoin’s price is driven by global liquidity conditions and fiat money supply expansion — not legislative milestones. “So what is CLARITY going to bring? Nothing — unless there’s more money printing,” he said. “Otherwise, there’s no value here, because it’s just another asset on a bank balance sheet,” per Yahoo Finance’s reporting of his Consensus remarks. AI-related job disruption and rising geopolitical tensions, he argued, may ultimately force central banks toward fresh liquidity injections — and that, not the CLARITY Act, is what actually moves Bitcoin.
The Bill That Just Got Harder To Stop
Hayes’ comments land at an uncomfortable moment for anyone who shares his skepticism. The CLARITY Act cleared the Senate Banking Committee with a 15-9 vote — two Democrats, Ruben Gallego and Andy Kim, crossed the aisle to support it — a margin that surprised even supporters who had anticipated a strict party-line outcome, per Scott Melker’s reporting on Yahoo Finance. The bill now moves toward reconciliation with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s version, a floor vote requiring seven Democratic senators, and ultimately a presidential signature.
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, speaking at Consensus Miami, warned that if passage doesn’t happen before the summer recess, the probability drops sharply — potentially pushing any action to 2030 or beyond, per dMarket Forces. Senator Bernie Moreno has described the current window as Congress’s last real opportunity before the 2026 midterm calendar complicates everything.
The Portfolio Behind The Conviction
Hayes’ own positions reflect the worldview driving his CLARITY Act argument. Outside Bitcoin, his two largest holdings are HYPE — Hyperliquid’s token, which he targets at $150 by August 2026 — and ZCash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency he has set a $10,000 long-term price target for, per Stocktwits’ reporting of his Consensus remarks.
HYPE's price trends to the upside as seen on the daily chart. Source: HYPEUSD on Tradingview
Both are assets whose value proposition is rooted in decentralization and censorship resistance rather than regulatory accommodation. Neither benefits meaningfully from the CLARITY Act. The portfolio is an argument made in capital.
This development marks a critical and genuinely uncomfortable moment for the nascent sector. The industry is closer than it has ever been to a durable US regulatory framework — the Senate Banking Committee just proved it — and one of Bitcoin’s most prominent voices is on record saying that getting there may be exactly the wrong outcome.
Cover image from ChatGPT, HYPEUSD chart from Tradingview
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.
Cryptocurrency custody firm Copper has been out shopping itself, seeking a buyer willing to pay about $500 million for the platform, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Wall Street investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald has been appointed to help sell Copper, the people said.
Copper and Cantor didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The jewel in Copper’s crown is the ClearLoop settlement system, which enables network participants to do delivery versus payment (DvP) from within custody without bringing assets onchain, thereby eliminating settlement risk.
Copper closed its enterprise custody business in 2023 to focus on ClearLoop, launched in 2020 and caters to dozens of institutional firms. The firm boasts more than 1,000 active counterparties and over $50 billion in monthly notional trading volume, according to its website.
Copper was said to be weighing an IPO earlier this year, potentially following in the footsteps of crypto custodian Bitgo, with whom Copper forged a partnership on the ClearLoop application. However, with bitcoin trading below $80,000, and artificial intelligence soaking up most of the capital, the crypto IPO market has been on a holding pattern this year.
Meanwhile, the deal-making in the crypto market has been active this year, as crypto-native, traditional and fintech firms are looking to expand their digital asset capabilities through acquisitions.
Earlier this year, Mastercard agreed to buy U.K.-based stablecoin infrastructure firm BVNK for as much as $1.8 billion. Kraken’s parent company, Payward, agreed to acquire the derivatives platform Bitnomial, while Bullish, owner of CoinDesk, announced a $4.2 billion deal to buy Equiniti, aimed at combining transfer agency services with tokenization infrastructure.
And just this week, London-based bank Standard Chartered said it will buy the remaining shares of Zodia Custody, its cryptocurrency custodian subsidiary, that it doesn’t already own. The deal came just weeks after the bank’s venture capital division reportedly took a stake in crypto trading firm GSR at a valuation of more than $1 billion.
Prediction markets platforms such as those run by Kalshi and Crypto.com drew two hours of critical questioning in a U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing, including scrutiny on the platforms’ advertising practices, regulatory disputes and the cheating they may encourage.
“We want athletes competing on merit, but the opportunity to make money can tempt gamblers — and sometimes even athletes themselves — to guarantee a sure bet,” Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who chairs the committee, said during the Wednesday hearing. He said high-profile incidents of player cheating “sow doubt in the minds of fans.”
Cruz flagged some recent cases, saying: “NBA players and coaches are accused of manipulating performance and providing insider information to win bets. Two major league baseball pitchers allegedly rigged their own pitches in exchange for money. [Major League Soccer] banned two players for intentionally getting yellow cards to win bets, and the UFC has canceled matches and terminated contracts because of suspected match fixing.”
“It is not uncommon for fans scrolling Twitter on a Sunday afternoon in the fall to see posts speculating that a controversial call by an official was related to gambling,” Cruz said.
Other lawmakers focused on marketing that fosters problem gambling or that has reached youths that are otherwise meant to be blocked from betting. Senator John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, accused the prediction markets businesses of unleashing the “hounds of hell” in social media and marketing to “prey on our young people.”
Patrick McHenry, who was a prominent member of the House of Representatives until his recent retirement, is now an adviser at the Coalition for Prediction Markets that represents Kalshi, Crypto.com, Robinhood, Coinbase and others. He said trades aren’t allowed for anybody under 18 and that the average age of users is 33.
Problem gamblers
Harry Levant, director of gambling policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute, testified on Wednesday, telling the lawmakers he was a recovering gambling addict and lamenting the “avalanche of unregulated advertising” from prediction market firms.
“It’s a known addictive product, just like heroin,” he said.
Earlier this week, Kalshi co-founder and CEO Tarek Mansour posted on social media site X to highlight his company’s $2 million commitment with the National Council on Problem Gambling to support an initiative on “trader health and safety.””As retail participation in markets increase, we have a responsibility to balance free markets and individual responsibility with customer education and safety guardrails,” he wrote.
And still other lawmakers on Wednesday dove into the rapidly growing industry’s avoidance of state regulators and competition with regulated gaming on U.S. tribal lands, where revenue is a core support of tribal reservations’ financial health.
CFTC
Even as the senators put the event-contract space under the microscope, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that regulates derivatives trading platforms is pursuing a lawsuit filed on Tuesday to stop a new law in Minnesota that was set to hold prediction market activity as illegal there. The regulator adds this to a growing list of lawsuits the federal agency has filed against states that have sought to limit prediction markets or declare them in violation of state gambling laws.
“This Minnesota law turns lawful operators and participants in prediction markets into felons overnight,” said CFTC Chairman Mike Selig in a statement, who added this suit alongside similar agency fights against Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois and New York.
Selig has led an agency legal campaign to defend his agency’s authority to supervise and regulate prediction markets, which are managed on registered platforms under CFTC rules. Meanwhile, his agency — at which he’s the sole member of what’s meant to be a five-member commission — is also pursuing a formal rule to establish tailored standards for the sector.
McHenry defended the CFTC role on Wednesday.
“The CFTC, as a cop on the beat, has the capacity to oversee this market, just as they’ve done with the broader commodities marketplace that’s been around and well versed for decades,” McHenry said.
Senator Hickenlooper responded, “You’re the first person who’s told me you think that they think the CFTC is up to the standards.”
One of the witnesses, Bill Miller, the president and CEO of the American Gaming Association, contended the federal regulators “are absolutely not competent to handle this, and two, they are absolutely hurting tribes and states financially.” He added that, “it was never Congress’s intent to create a federal department of gambling through the CFTC.”
McHenry argued that these event contracts are derivatives that belong to “fundamentally different business models” from bets placed with gambling businesses. He equated them to long-regulated grain futures contracts, and he added that “our member companies have enhanced surveillance greater than any casino and greater than any sportsbook in the country.”
In the end, Chairman Cruz said, “The Supreme Court may have to decide the issue.”
Tether International has acquired SoftBank’s entire stake in Twenty One Capital, the Bitcoin treasury company co-founded by Jack Mallers, consolidating control over one of the most prominent public Bitcoin vehicles to emerge in the past year.
The transaction, announced May 20, removes the last major outside ownership bloc from Twenty One’s founding three-party structure. SoftBank’s representatives on the company’s board stepped down at closing, per the terms of XXI’s shareholder agreement. No financial details of the deal were disclosed.
Twenty One Capital launched in April 2025 through a business combination with Cantor Equity Partners, with the three founding sponsors — Tether, SoftBank, and Bitfinex — contributing Bitcoin in exchange for shares priced at $10 each.
At inception, Tether was expected to contribute roughly 24,000 BTC, SoftBank 10,500 BTC, and Bitfinex around 7,000 BTC. The company was built to debut with more than 42,000 BTC — enough to rank as the third-largest corporate Bitcoin treasury in the world at the time, with an implied enterprise value of $3.6 billion based on an 84-day average Bitcoin reference price.
Before its listing, Tether added a further 4,812 BTC worth approximately $458.7 million to Twenty One’s treasury, bringing its holdings to 36,312 BTC at that stage.
With SoftBank’s exit, Twenty One moves from a coalition-backed vehicle to what is, in practical terms, Tether’s public Bitcoin operating arm.
The shift is structural: a company once held up by three institutional pillars now rests almost entirely on Tether’s balance sheet and strategic direction.
Paolo Ardoino, Tether’s CEO, acknowledged SoftBank’s role in shaping the company’s early formation but framed the buyout as the beginning of a new phase. “They leave behind a company with a stronger foundation, a clearer mandate, and an ambitious path ahead,” he said in a statement.
More than a bitcoin treasury
That path appears to extend well beyond Bitcoin treasury accumulation. In April, Tether proposed merging Twenty One with Strike — Jack Mallers’ Bitcoin payments company — and Elektron Energy, a Bitcoin mining operation.
The combination would place a Bitcoin treasury, a payments and financial services layer, and mining infrastructure under one corporate umbrella, transforming Twenty One from a balance-sheet trade into an integrated Bitcoin holding company.
Twenty One has positioned itself as a direct counterpoint to Michael Saylor’s Strategy, adopting performance metrics like Bitcoin Per Share and Bitcoin Return Rate rather than conventional earnings benchmarks.
A South Korean funeral services company has reported an unrealized loss of about 45 billion won ($33 million) tied to investments in leveraged ether (ETH) exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
The Seoul-based Bumo Sarang, Korean for Parental Love, invested in the T-REX 2X Long BMNR Daily Target ETF (BMNU), a leveraged exchange-traded fund managed by Tuttle Capital Management that seeks to deliver 200% of the daily performance of Bitmine Immersion Technologies (BMNR), the world’s largest publicly traded holder of ether.
Leveraged ETFs are designed for short-term trading and can magnify both gains and losses, making them among the riskiest exchange-traded products available to retail investors.
The company’s losses are unrealized, meaning the holdings have not yet been sold. Still, the disclosure underscores the growing appetite in South Korea for speculative, crypto-linked investment products, particularly leveraged ETFs tied to digital asset firms and related equities.
South Korea has become one of the world’s busiest markets for leveraged and inverse ETF trading, with regulators warning investors about volatility and the risks associated with amplified exposure products.
The losses also reflect recent sharp swings in crypto-related equities as digital asset markets remain highly volatile.
The crypto industry’s campaign-finance juggernaut, the Fairshake political action committee, backed winners in half a dozen Southern primaries on Tuesday, pouring millions of dollars into the races as one of the congressional midterms elections’ leading spenders.
The super PAC deployed more than $20 million in political advertising in three states, mostly to Republican candidates who are considered likely to win their deep-red regions in the November general elections. So far this year, Fairshake — which has in previous election cycles helped get dozens of pro-crypto candidates to Washington — has backed a lengthy list of primary winners, though it did experience some setbacks, most notably in the Illinois race in which it spent more than $10 million trying to defeat Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton on her way to her Democratic primary victory in March.
Fairshake devoted more than $7 million each in Tuesday’s Senate primaries in Alabama and Kentucky. It backed Republican U.S. Representative Andy Barr in Kentucky to replace the longtime Senate powerhouse Mitch McConnell, and Barr won that primary handily with more than 60% of the vote. In Alabama, the $7.4 million spent by Fairshake didn’t quite get to a resolution, yet, because Representative Barry Moore didn’t get past the 50% mark despite leading his closest competitor by more than 13 percentage points, so the crypto-backed candidate will face a runoff.”Fairshake’s 6-0 sweep tonight was a clear victory for pro-crypto leaders across the country,” said Geoff Vetter, a spokesperson for Fairshake, in a statement. “This powerful bipartisan mandate is being heard across America from Georgia to Alabama to Kentucky.”
In Georgia, the PAC focused on four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, including a Democratic primary in the district left vacant after the death of longtime Democratic Representative David Scott. In the district, Fairshake supported Jasmine Clark, a Democratic state lawmaker who dominated a crowded field in this week’s primary after getting $4.2 million in crypto ad spending.
Such spending far outstripped the organic campaign fundraising in that race, with the crypto funds totaling more than was raised by all 10 Democratic candidates and far more than Clark’s own $1.2 million brought in by her campaign directly.
Clark’s campaign had included a supporting statement for crypto technology, which has often been the case with candidates Fairshake devoted its millions.
“We need to reassert ourselves as a leader on emerging technologies — whether that be AI, blockchain or cryptocurrencies — by working with experts to craft a smart, clear regulatory framework to help the industry grow and protect consumers from bad actors,” Clark’s campaign website declared.
Across Georgia, Fairshake also poured lesser amounts of cash into Republican primaries, backing candidates Jim Kingston (who won with 52%), Houston Gaines (who won with 67%) and incumbent Representative Clay Fuller (who had previously prevailed in a special election in April to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene and won this week with 81%).
Super PACs buy their ads without consultation with the campaigns they’re supporting, and Fairshake’s strategy has been to run ads designed to support or oppose candidates on whatever political points the committee sees as most effective — almost never mentioning the issue of cryptocurrency.
Singapore’s central bank has pulled the crypto payment license of Bsquared Technology Pte. Ltd., stripping the firm of its right to provide digital payment token services after uncovering a series of breaches.
In a Wednesday announcement, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said it revoked Bsquared’s Major Payment Institution Licence after an on-site inspection found weaknesses in the company’s risk management practices and conflict-of-interest policies, as well as failures to comply with the regulator’s outsourcing guidelines.
MAS said Bsquared provided false or misleading information on multiple occasions, from its initial license application through the inspection itself.
Bsquared, also known as BSQ, obtained its license 16 months ago after receiving approval to offer digital payment token services under Singapore’s Payment Services Act 2019.
Related: Singapore’s OCBC launches tokenized gold fund on Ethereum and Solana
MAS orders Bsquared to submit a closure certificate
The company is required to submit a closure certificate from its auditors confirming that all customer funds have been returned to their recipients. Bsquared told MAS it held no outstanding customer assets.
“MAS takes a serious view of the breaches committed by BSQ, and is reviewing the responsibilities of key officers of BSQ,” the central bank added.
MAS revokes Bsquared’s license. Source: MAS
MAS has granted 37 digital payment token services licenses so far, and revocations remain uncommon. Last year, MAS rejected an application from AmazingTech, the operator of Tokenize Xchange, and the Commercial Affairs Department subsequently launched a probe into the company.
Related: Crypto dispute over Resupply exploit lands in Singapore harassment court
Singapore pushes deeper into digital asset infrastructure
Singapore has built a reputation as one of Asia’s leading crypto hubs, home to regional offices of Coinbase and Ripple, as well as the global headquarters of Crypto.com.
The city-state is also cementing its position as a leading hub for integrating traditional finance with digital assets.
Last month, Singapore Gulf Bank launched a service allowing institutional clients to mint and redeem stablecoins directly from their bank accounts via the Solana blockchain, enabling 24/7 settlement between fiat and digital assets.
Magazine: Guide to the top and emerging global crypto hubs — Mid-2026
