Russians sent crypto to 4,600 fraudster-held crypto wallets in 2025.
Most pyramid scheme operators now use crypto, Moscow says.
Central bank vows to step up fight against crypto fraud.
Two-thirds of Russian financial pyramid scheme operators use crypto, the country’s central bank says, with citizens sending Bitcoin and other tokens to over 4,600 criminal group-owned crypto wallets.
The central bank says it identified 7,087 financial pyramids, pseudo-brokers, and other fraudulent schemes last year. The bank says 80% of these pyramids operated online, with the majority using crypto and money mules.
“Most of the illegal projects […] had no offices and interacted with potential clients via social media and chat apps, or by phone. They most often used cryptocurrency to raise funds,” bank officials wrote.
Crypto adoption is on the rise in Russia, as is crypto-related crime. The finance ministry says Russians spend $648 million on crypto every day, and is fast-tracking regulations that could soon see overseas exchanges blocked.
Blocking orders
Nearly 1,500 firms offered would-be clients bogus crypto investments last year, said the bank. And 84% of scammers used crypto to raise funds last year, up from 77% in 2024.
The bank said it had ordered the blocking of 21,500 web pages and social media posts associated with crypto scammers and other financial fraud operators.
Fraudsters “choose cryptocurrencies because tokens allow them to maintain anonymity and avoid punishment,” the central bank wrote.
The bank has previously vowed to bolster its monitoring of the crypto market and step up its public fight against crypto-powered fraud.
Officials said they would continue efforts to identify increasingly sophisticated financial pyramids and online schemes.
The central bank warned the public that only permit-holding firms have the right to publicly offer investments to Russian retail investors.
Crypto market movers
Bitcoin is up 3.8% over the past 24 hours, and is trading for $66,566.
Ethereum is up by over 6% over the same period, trading at $1,990.
What we’re reading
Tim Alper is a News Correspondent at DL News. Got a tip? Email him at tdalper@dlnews.com.
A public fight is unfolding at Empery Digital (EMPD), a bitcoin BTC$66,377.72 treasury company holding 3,723 BTC whose shares have slumped 45% in the past 12 months.
While it’s a small holding compared to firms like Michael Saylor’s Strategy, the boardroom drama with an activist investor brought this company into the spotlight.
In a Feb. 4 letter, investor Tice P. Brown, founder and managing partner of the Woodmont Partners family office, said he owns 9.8% of the firm, accused management of reckless behavior and poor governance, allowing employees to “day-trade tens, or hundreds of millions of dollars of bitcoin derivatives.” He called for the resignation of co-CEO Ryan Lane and the rest of the board, and demanded the sale of all its bitcoin, returning the cash to shareholders.
Empery’s management rejected Brown’s claims and offered a different account of recent events. The dispute now spans buyout talks, office meetings and the use of bitcoin derivatives at the company.
“Management attempted to reach an agreement with Mr. Brown as it believed such an agreement would be in the best interests of the Company and all its shareholders,” the company said in a post on its website. “It is disappointing Mr. Brown ended these conversations and issued his letter to advance his self-serving campaign.”
At the core is a simple question: Should Empery, which has a market capitalization of $140 million, keep building around its bitcoin holdings or sell them and wind down, especially when the bitcoin price has cratered from its all-time high and most treasury companies are hurting?
Options trading
Brown, who started building his stake in December and is now the third-largest shareholder, according to WallStreetZen data and SEC filings, argues for the latter.
Brown, who declined to comment for this story, said in his letter that liquidating all the bitcoin would close the gap between the company’s share price of around $3.96 and its net asset value of $4.72.
Empery, however, says that selling all bitcoin would destroy long-term potential and undermine its strategy.
That strategy involves using its holdings to support an options trading plan that involves selling out-of-the-money calls and puts, along with spreads, to collect premiums. It’s an approach employed by some other bitcoin treasury firms, including Metaplanet, the fourth-largest corporate holder of bitcoin, to generate income against their bitcoin holdings.
In plain terms, that means the company earns fees from other market participants who want exposure to bitcoin price moves. If bitcoin stays within certain price ranges, Empery keeps the premium. If it moves sharply, the company faces limits defined by the contracts.
It’s personal
The disagreement also turned personal.
Brown, a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, noted in recent filings that he has made “a few hundred million dollars of public and private investments” since 2014 through his family office and previously served as chairman of PharmChem, which was acquired last year at a premium to their open market price.
He described a January meeting at Empery’s Rockefeller Center office, where he said Lane had him removed by security. Empery says the meeting ended after Brown insisted the company liquidate immediately and refused to leave unless security escorted him out.
In a Feb. 23 letter, Brown says the company offered to buy his shares at a premium in exchange for a standstill agreement.
The company, in its post, says it did not initiate an offer to buy Brown’s shares. Instead, it claims Brown’s prime broker approached the firm to explore a potential deal. Empery confirmed discussions took place, but said the talks broke down over price.
A person familiar with the talks told CoinDesk Brown sought $7.50 per share, valuing the company at roughly $270 million vs its current market cap of $136 million.
A bid for the board
The proxy fight escalated further on Feb. 26 when Brown filed a formal notice nominating himself for election to Empery’s board of directors. In the filing, Brown disclosed his stake had grown to 10.3%, representing over 3.3 million shares.
He criticized the company’s “poison pill” and further referenced “management’s efforts to impose standstill agreements,” arguing they serve only to entrench incumbents rather than allow stockholders to effect change.
Touting his background as a Harvard Law graduate and former chairman of PharmChem, Brown stated that if elected, he would work to remove impediments to shareholder oversight and dramatically increase the capital returned to investors.
“The Company’s continued retention of bitcoin holds no ongoing business purpose, as dozens of cheaper ways to achieve bitcoin exposure exist,” Brown wrote in the filing.
Bitcoin treasury in limbo
CoinGecko data shows the company’s bitcoin was purchased at an average price of $122,283 each, costing a total of $455 million. The current value stands at $235.5 million, meaning a sale would result in a realized loss of nearly $220 million.
Still, the company signaled some flexibility. In its latest statement, Empery said it may use existing cash or reduce its bitcoin holdings to fund share repurchases or repay borrowings, something that other treasury companies have done. It stopped short of endorsing a full sale.
It also said recent buybacks had narrowed the gap between its share price and net asset value by roughly 40% in less than a month.
For now, neither side appears ready to back down. The dispute could shape not only Empery’s future, but also may foreshadow what awaits other smaller public companies with large bitcoin treasuries in a volatile market.
U.S. military strikes on Iran have jolted global energy markets, sending oil prices toward seven-month highs and injecting fresh uncertainty into inflation, central bank policy, and U.S. financial markets as traders brace for a volatile week ahead. Oil Prices Predicted to Climb After U.S. Military Action Against Iran President Donald Trump confirmed Feb. 28 that […]
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published its proposed rulemaking to regulate stablecoins under the GENIUS Act, sparking questions about whether it was banning yield payouts from crypto companies.
You’re reading State of Crypto, a CoinDesk newsletter looking at the intersection of cryptocurrency and government. Click here to sign up for future editions.
The narrative
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a federal banking regulator, published a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to the GENIUS Act explaining how it might oversee stablecoins. Most of it appears straightforward, but the portion addressing yield seems ambiguous, and possibly even controversial.
Why it matters
The OCC published its first take at rulemaking under the GENIUS Act, the first step toward turning the 2025 law into actual, applicable rules for crypto companies to abide by. Controversially, it seems to propose setting up new restrictions around how stablecoin issuers and their partners can offer yield payments to end users.
Breaking it down
Just to get this out of the way: Most of this 376-page proposal seems fairly straightforward. Provisions address custody controls, capital requirements and the other prosaic regulatory details that one would expect from a proposal seeking to govern the U.S. stablecoin sector. This newsletter may touch on those details in a future edition.
The most controversial part appears to be the sections addressing stablecoin yield and how issuers and affiliates can handle those. According to multiple people tracking this process, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss an active rulemaking proposal candidly, these sections also seem to be ambiguous. One individual said the OCC seemed to be claiming the authority to ban third parties from offering yield from holding stablecoins, exceeding its authority in the process. But two others said the proposal fit the language of the law defined in GENIUS, and that they had no concerns about yield being banned unilaterally.
What the provisions might do is place restrictions on how stablecoin issuers’ partner companies can pay out interest on stablecoin deposits, the yield we’ve been referring to here.
“[The] proposed [section] provides that permitted payment stablecoin issuers must not pay the holder of any payment stablecoin any form of interest or yield (whether in cash, tokens, or other consideration) solely in connection with holding, use, or retention of such payment stablecoin,” the proposal said. “The OCC understands that issuers could attempt to make prohibited payments of interest or yield to payment stablecoins holders through arrangements with third parties.”
The section went on to list some of these third-party relationships but said “it would not be possible to identify in detail all, or even most, of the potential arrangements.”
However, the proposal said that the OCC would presume these payments are solely for yield purposes if there was a contract to that effect and third parties would be defined as entities paying yield as a service.
Companies would be able to push back and “rebut the presumption” if they have evidence their contractual relationship does not meet those terms, the proposal said.
Companies like Coinbase and Circle might have to tweak the terms of their relationship to abide by the terms of the proposal, as might companies like PayPal and Paxos, the issuer of PayPal’s PYUSD stablecoin, two people said about this section.
Matthew Sigal, head of digital assets research at VanEck, also shared this view, saying on X (formerly Twitter) that companies like Coinbase would have to make their agreements look more like loyalty programs than interest payments.
One confusing part about the proposal, one individual said, is in the definition of an “affiliate.” A company could be an issuer or an affiliate, where affiliates may not be able to issue yield solely for holding deposits, but the proposal appears to create a third category based on ownership stakes. If an issuer has a 25% or greater stake in a third-party, they would not be able to offer payments on yield, which might open the door for third-parties that don’t have such ownership stake concerns.
Similarly, the wording addressing “white-label relationships” may bar yield payments, but it would depend on the terms of the contract between the issuer and the company associated with the stablecoin, the person said. This is the sort of setup PayPal and Paxos have.
To further add to the confusion, stablecoin yield is also one of the issues holding up the advancement of the market structure legislation that the crypto industry continues to hope for. Two people said the OCC proposal might mean that Congress does not need to address yield in the market structure bill at all, but others said there is zero chance Congress will skip over this portion of the bill.
Yield isn’t the only issue holding up the bill — ethics provisions concerning President Donald Trump and his family’s crypto activities, as well as anti-money laundering and know-your-customer rules, still need to be worked out — but if the market structure bill becomes law, it will again reshape how stablecoins can operate in the U.S.
As a result, it is likely that this part of the OCC proposal will not be implemented as-is.
If the market structure bill does become law before the OCC can finalize its rules, the regulator will have to issue an interim proposal to remain compliant with the new law. Otherwise, there will be a whole separate rulemaking process later down the line.
On the market structure bill itself, individuals said that there is some updated draft language circulating among lawmakers but there is no deal between the banking industry and the crypto industry yet.
This week
There are no government hearings or meetings scheduled as of press time addressing crypto-related issues.
If you’ve got thoughts or questions on what I should discuss next week or any other feedback you’d like to share, feel free to email me at [email protected] or find me on Bluesky @nikhileshde.bsky.social.
You can also join the group conversation on Telegram.
Strategy chairman Michael Saylor said in a social media post on Sunday that the largest Bitcoin (BTC) treasury company is raising the dividend on its STRC preferred stock, also known as “Stretch,” to 11.50% for March 2026, from the previous 11.25%.
STRC is perpetual, meaning the company is not obligated to buy back the stock at any specified date, and features a variable yield that changes monthly.
A Friday update on the company’s website confirmed Saylor’s post. “STRC’s dividend rate is adjusted monthly to encourage trading around STRC’s $100 par value and to help strip away price volatility,” according to the website. The dividend is also paid monthly. with the next payout date on March 31, to shareholders of record
In February, Strategy CEO Phong Le said the company is pivoting away from issuing common stock to fund its BTC purchases and toward issuing more preferred shares.
Source: X.com, @saylor (Michael Saylor)
“Last year, a stretch and our perpetual preferreds raised $7 billion. That’s 33% of the entire preferred market,” Le said.
“As we go throughout the course of this year, we expect structure to be a big product for us,” he said, adding, “We will start to transition from equity capital to preferred capital.”
To be sure, the company continues to accumulate Bitcoin amid a market drawdown that has nearly halved the price of Bitcoin since October and driven down the share prices of digital asset treasury companies.
In the year to date, BTC has lost 23.2% of its value, while the share price of Bitwise Bitcoin Standard Corporations ETF (OWNB) is down 16.1%. That exchange-traded fund provides exposure to public companies holding significant amounts of Bitcoin on their balance sheets.
A history of Strategy’s BTC purchases. Source: Strategy
Related: Strategy yield wrapper lands in Europe as 21Shares lists STRC ETP
Strategy records $12.4 billion loss in Q4 2025
Strategy in early February reported a net loss of $12.4 billion for the fourth quarter of 2025, leading to investors pushing the company’s share price down by 13% to about $107 per share.
Despite revenue for the quarter increasing 1.9% year-over-year to about $123 million, the company’s stock has been in freefall.
Strategy’s (MSTR) common stock price briefly hit a high of $543 per share during intraday trading in November 2024, before falling back down below $300 in February 2025.
The company’s stock has fallen by about 75% since the November 2024 peak, closing on Friday at $129.50 a shares.
Strategy’s stock performance over the last year. Source: Yahoo Finance
The price of BTC is trading well below Strategy’s average purchase cost of $76,020 per Bitcoin, according to data from the company.
Strategy’s last bought BTC during the week of Feb. 16, when the company purchased 592 BTC, valued at over $39.8 million, bringing its total holdings to 717,722 BTC, and marking its 100th BTC acquisition.
Magazine: Bitcoin’s ‘biggest bull catalyst’ would be Saylor’s liquidation: Santiment founder
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
The mood around digital assets has shifted again among the world’s largest allocators, according to Ron Biscardi, CEO of iConnections, which runs one of the largest capital introduction conferences globally.
Biscardi, who has spent more than 25 years in the alternative investment industry and runs a platform that represents over $55 trillion in assets, has a front-row seat. His firm tracks thousands of meetings between fund managers and institutional investors each year. That data shows how quickly sentiment can turn.
After a couple of “rough” years following the crypto market crash following the FTX collapse in 2022, interest began to stabilize at last year’s conference, he recalls. “[In 2025] we started to see funds wanting to come back, wanting to spend some money,” he said. Optimism around a more crypto-friendly regulatory stance in Washington helped, even if progress has been slow.
“I feel like what we’re seeing now at the event [this year] is a more normal experience,” Biscardi said. “It’s not extremely crazy, but it’s also not [like] ‘I don’t want to go anywhere near it.’”
A change of tone
More than 75 digital asset funds participated in this year’s event, generating roughly 750 meetings between managers and allocators, a level comparable to 2022 when crypto interest soared before the FTX collapse. Nearly one quarter of limited partners on the iConnections platform now indicate interest in digital asset strategies, reinforcing that crypto has become an established sleeve within alternatives rather than a fringe allocation.
Family offices represent the largest LP cohort expressing interest, consistent with their track record of backing emerging and innovation-driven asset classes.
And this trend has been growing in recent years. While some family offices remain cautious about the asset, many traditional wealth managers are under mounting pressure to deliver digital assets to wealthy clients, particularly in crypto hotspots like Dubai, Switzerland and Singapore.
This interest is very much alive despite the crypto winter, with the price of bitcoin BTC$66,074.89 down nearly 25% since the beginning of the year and its market cap losing more than a trillion in value since October’s all-time high. Stocks of popular crypto companies, like Coinbase (COIN) or Strategy (MSTR), are also trading significantly lower this year, underperforming most other tech stocks.
Biscardi, however, believes digital asset managers are “very, very close to achieving institutional legitimacy.” Bitcoin, he said, has already crossed that line, but altcoins are close. “The last piece is really the regulatory framework that lets them do it safely.”
For chief investment officers, that issue dominates. “The regulatory hurdles are number one,” Biscardi said. “It just always goes back to that.”
Large allocators, he noted, are fiduciaries. “It’s not their money, they’re fiduciaries for other people’s money, and it might be a super interesting category, but they’re just not going to allocate there until they can tell their board that they’re doing it in a responsible, safe way.”
The tone of the debate has also changed. In 2022, some investors still questioned whether crypto was real or a Ponzi scheme. “That I don’t hear any of that anymore,” Biscardi said.
In fact, some traditionally conservative pools of capital, for example, have stepped in. Endowments, which tend to focus on long-term stability and avoid sharp swings in new asset classes, have begun allocating to bitcoin and ether exchange-traded funds. The idea is not to overhaul portfolios but to add measured exposure that could lift returns in years when crypto markets perform well, especially as many investors expect equities to deliver more muted gains than in the past decade.
Still a risk asset
Nevertheless, allocators treat bitcoin “much more as a risk asset” than a store of value. “Bitcoin just hasn’t behaved that way,” he said, pointing to its correlation with equities rather than gold during market stress.
Similarly, direct token buying remains rare among institutions. Instead, he hears more about ETFs and fund structures. Limited partners rely on general partners to choose specific coins. “The LPs who get bought into the space are really looking to the GPs to make those decisions.”
What’s not rare is crypto companies investing in spreading awareness of their products and services. According to Biscardi, sponsorship numbers saw a substantial uptick at this year’s event, with companies like BitGo (BTGO), Galaxy Digital (GLXY), Ripple and Blockstream all holding top-tier sponsor status.
Read more: Bitcoin is stuck in a rut but JPMorgan says new legislation could be the ultimate spark
Madrid, 27 de febrero de 2026 – La ciberseguridad se ha convertido en un elemento central de la seguridad nacional y la estabilidad económica. En un contexto marcado por la aceleración de la inteligencia artificial (IA) y el incremento constante de los ciberataques, España no es ajena a esta realidad. En enero, las empresas españolas registraron una media de 1.988 ataques semanales, lo que supone un incremento del 12% respecto al mismo mes de 2025, según datos de Check Point® Software Technologies Ltd. (NASDAQ: CHKP), pionero y líder global en soluciones de ciberseguridad.
Este crecimiento sostenido confirma que el riesgo digital ya no es puntual, sino estructural. Ataques dirigidos contra servicios esenciales, cadenas de suministro y sistemas de información críticos tienen un impacto directo en la confianza ciudadana, la continuidad operativa y la competitividad del país.
La seguridad ya no se mide solo por la prevención, sino por la capacidad de resistir incidentes, limitar daños y recuperar servicios rápidamente. Tecnologías como la IA amplían la superficie de ataque y exigen un enfoque estratégico basado en resiliencia más que en simples barreras defensivas.
Los marcos de gobernanza como el Cybersecurity Framework delNIST ofrecen una base común para evaluar y gestionar riesgos de manera efectiva. Sus cinco funciones (identificar, proteger, detectar, responder y recuperar) reflejan cómo se desarrollan los incidentes reales y permiten a gobiernos y operadores críticos hablar un lenguaje compartido, esencial para medir y reducir riesgos a nivel nacional.
La adopción de modelos de trabajo híbridos, entornos cloud y ecosistemas interconectados ha hecho que la confianza implícita deje de ser suficiente. El enfoque Zero Trust asume que la intrusión es posible en cualquier momento y verifica de forma continua identidades, dispositivos y comportamientos. La mayoría de los ataques actuales se basan en el robo de credenciales y el abuso de accesos legítimos, especialmente a través del correo electrónico. Zero Trust permite reducir el impacto de las brechas, mejorar la visibilidad y reforzar la protección de entornos híbridos, con el fin de garantizar la continuidad de servicios críticos.
IA: oportunidad estratégica y riesgo emergente
La inteligencia artificial desempeña un doble papel. Mejora la detección de anomalías, automatiza la respuesta a incidentes y ayuda a priorizar alertas. Al mismo tiempo, se ha convertido en una herramienta para atacantes que buscan escalar phishing, suplantaciones avanzadas o manipulación de modelos de IA. La gobernanza de la IA es crucial: marcos como el NIST AI Risk Management Framework permiten integrar seguridad, transparencia y fiabilidad desde el diseño de los sistemas, evitando que se conviertan en un nuevo punto débil para organizaciones públicas y privadas.
La resiliencia en materia de ciberseguridad depende también de la colaboración y del talento disponible. El intercambio de información de amenazas sigue siendo un desafío por barreras legales y de confianza, mientras que la escasez de profesionales especializados limita la capacidad de respuesta. A nivel global, el déficit de talento en ciberseguridad alcanza millones de puestos sin cubrir, afectando directamente la gestión de incidentes, la seguridad en la nube y la adopción segura de la IA.
En la era de la IA, la ciberseguridad ya no se mide por la ausencia de incidentes, sino por la capacidad de mantener los servicios críticos y la confianza pública bajo presión. La combinación de marcos del NIST, arquitecturas Zero Trust y una gobernanza sólida de la IA ofrece a España una hoja de ruta clara para avanzar desde la defensa reactiva hacia una resiliencia sostenida en la ciberseguridad.
Bitcoin Empire is a crypto mining simulation that pays out real BTC rewards.
The gameplay revolves around tapping the screen, upgrading your setup, and hiring managers.
Developer Fumb Games has previously made other mining simulation games.
I’ve mined billions of dollars of entirely fake BTC over the last couple weeks in Bitcoin Empire, an iOS and Android game that lets you earn real Bitcoin rewards for building out a simulated mining business from your virtual bedroom.
Of course, the amount of actual Bitcoin that I’ve earned for hours upon hours of tapping the screen and watching interminable video ads is far less than what my character racked up in the game. It’s a pittance, really. But is it still worth your time?
Bitcoin Empire hails from Fumb Games, the same developer that has already delivered a pair of Bitcoin-paying mining simulators—the fun, retro-style Bitcoin Miner, and the generic but solid enough Idle Mine, a gem-excavating game. It’s free to download and play, but loaded with video ads that pop up every couple minutes, plus others that are optional but offer big boosts.
Screenshots from Bitcoin Empire. Image: Decrypt
Starting from a computer in your otherwise empty room, you’ll tap the screen to start earning in-game Bitcoin, thus giving you funds to reinvest into upgrades that earn you more faux coins. I’m not sure how a larger bed and a poster of Satoshi Nakamoto help you mine more blocks, but it’s best not to overthink things here.
You can also recruit managers that generate passive income, even when you’re offline and not playing the game, all of which continues to fuel more upgrades to boost your earnings. When your pace slows, you can sell the whole operation to investors and start over with a big earnings multiplier—again, similar to Fumb titles like Bitcoin Miner and SpaceY.
Fumb has been one of the most reliable players in the Bitcoin-paying mobile game space. However, Bitcoin Empire not only feels like a repetitive retread that’s overloaded with obnoxious ads, but also one of the stingier examples that I’ve played to date.
Across about 19 hours of largely passive play over the last couple weeks, including a few investor-fueled restarts in search of bigger gains, I’ve banked 255 satoshis that I can withdraw to a ZBD wallet and spend or transfer as I wish. A satoshi is the smallest unit of Bitcoin, equal to 1/100,000,000 of a full Bitcoin.
In other words, I’ve earned about 17 cents’ worth of BTC by playing Bitcoin Empire. That’s less than a penny per hour in Bitcoin rewards.
Granted, most of these games pay out pennies per hour if you’re lucky, but Bitcoin Miner and Idle Mine paid at a far faster rate when we tested them, and were quite a bit more fun too. Finding a game that’s both fun and lets you earn funds is rare, but Bitcoin Empire isn’t one of them.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin outlined an ambitious, years-long plan to make the Ethereum base layer faster, leaner, and eventually quantum-resistant, starting with shorter slot times and near-instant finality. Ethereum’s 2029 Vision: Fast Slots, Fast Finality and STARK-Friendly Hashes In a detailed post on X, Vitalik Buterin walked through what he called a “very important document,” […]
Leading bitcoin BTC$67,045.32 treasury company Strategy has again raised the dividend on its STRC (“Stretch”) preferred series.
Led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, the firm lifted the annualized payout by 25 basis points to 11.5%.
While STRC to this point has performed as hoped by the company — continuing to trade in a tight range close to $100 — Strategy’s common stock, MSTR, has floundered alongside the price of bitcoin.
MSTR closed February with its eighth consecutive monthly decline, falling 14% as bitcoin tumbled nearly 20%.
Stretch is meant for steady income
Strategy describes STRC as a short-duration, high-yield savings account. This latest dividend increase marks the seventh since STRC began trading in July 2025.
A perpetual preferred stock that pays monthly cash distributions, the STRC dividend rate is set each month to help the shares trade close to their $100 par value and to limit price volatility. STRC closed at $100 on Friday but had traded somewhat below that level during part of February’s brutal month for crypto, necessitating the payout boost.
