Crypto Breaking

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb has reportedly secured its first-instance court wins in two lawsuits seeking to recover proceeds from users who sold Bitcoin that the exchange mistakenly credited to their accounts. The rulings come as regulators continue to scrutinize the earlier operational lapse and Bithumb works to contain the financial impact.
According to a report by Chosun Biz, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in Bithumb’s favor in two of four unjust enrichment cases filed against users. The lawsuits involved different amounts: one ruling concerned a claim of 194 million won (about $140,000), while the other related to 5 million won (about $3,600). Two additional cases—seeking roughly 14.8 million won (about $10,700) and 500 million won (about $362,000)—remain pending, the report said.
Key takeaways
Bithumb has won first-instance rulings in two of four unjust enrichment lawsuits tied to a February Bitcoin crediting error.
The court decisions cover claims of 194 million won and 5 million won, while two other claims are still awaiting outcomes.
The lawsuits proceeded via service by public notice because standard delivery methods for court documents failed for the defendants.
The legal push targets proceeds from users who sold Bitcoin credited by mistake before affected accounts were frozen.
How the court cases connect to Bithumb’s February mistake
The underlying dispute traces back to an event on Feb. 6, 2026, during which Bithumb intended to distribute rewards denominated in Korean won. As described in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, Bithumb said the error happened during a promotional activity: an employee allegedly selected Bitcoin as the payment unit instead of the intended fiat currency.
Rather than crediting the planned reward amount in won to 249 users, the exchange reportedly credited customer accounts with 620,000 BTC. At the time of the incident, that volume was valued at more than $40 billion, according to the reporting that followed the episode. Bithumb later stated that it recovered the vast majority of the mistakenly credited amount—618,212 BTC—leaving only a small residual shortfall.
However, the problem was not purely theoretical. Some users had reportedly already sold 1,788 BTC worth of the credited balances before Bithumb moved to freeze the affected accounts. It is those early sales that became the focus of Bithumb’s March litigation strategy.
What Bithumb is trying to recover through unjust enrichment suits
As reported by Cointelegraph, Bithumb filed four unjust enrichment lawsuits in March against users who sold the mistakenly credited Bitcoin and did not return the proceeds. The exchange’s approach, as characterized in that earlier reporting, was to seek monetary recovery from the sale proceeds rather than compel users to return Bitcoin itself.
The newly reported first-instance rulings therefore represent more than symbolic legal progress: they support Bithumb’s argument that users who benefited from the mistaken credits should compensate the exchange to the extent of the sold proceeds. Still, with half of the cases remaining pending, the broader extent of Bithumb’s ultimate recovery is not yet fully determined.
For users, the developments also underscore a practical risk in operational error scenarios. Even when a credit is unintended, actions taken immediately after the balance appears—such as trading or exchanging the credited asset—can later become a subject of legal dispute if the credit is subsequently reversed or invalidated.
Service by public notice highlights delivery hurdles in the lawsuits
Chosun Biz also noted that both of the cases that reached rulings advanced through service by public notice. The court reportedly used this method because it could not deliver the necessary documents to the defendants through ordinary channels.
That procedural detail matters because it can affect how quickly cases move and how defendants participate. While service by public notice is not unusual in certain jurisdictions when direct service fails, it can raise questions about whether defendants were fully informed in time to respond through standard procedures. The reported decisions, however, indicate the court proceeded to judgment nonetheless.
Regulatory pressure continues alongside the litigation
While the lawsuits play out in civil court, Bithumb is also facing ongoing regulatory scrutiny related to the February error. South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) reportedly investigated the incident, focusing on how the exchange could credit customers with Bitcoin it did not hold.
Cointelegraph previously reported that the regulator sent Bithumb an inspection opinion in early August, which marked the formal start of sanctions proceedings, though no final penalty had been announced at the time of that reporting. In the same earlier coverage, Cointelegraph said it reached out to the Financial Services Commission (FSC) for an update but did not receive a response by publication.
Separately, Bithumb has faced other legal and compliance challenges this year. South Korean police reportedly raided its offices in June as part of an investigation unrelated to the Bitcoin crediting error, involving allegations of favoritism related to lawmaker Kim Byung-ki. The company is also contesting a separate six-month partial business suspension over alleged Anti-Money Laundering violations; Cointelegraph reported that a Seoul court stayed the suspension in April pending the outcome of Bithumb’s challenge.
Taken together, the court rulings and the regulator’s continuing work indicate that Bithumb’s February incident is being treated as both a financial and governance issue—not merely a one-off operational glitch. For investors and market participants, the key question is whether Bithumb’s internal controls reforms and compliance measures will satisfy regulators after a mispayment of this magnitude.
What to watch next
With two remaining unjust enrichment lawsuits still pending, the next development will likely be whether Bithumb’s legal strategy yields further first-instance judgments and how those cases ultimately resolve. At the same time, market observers will continue to watch for any FSS sanctions outcome, since regulatory findings could shape how exchanges in South Korea tighten operational controls to prevent similar crediting errors.
This article was originally published as Bithumb Prevails in Two Lawsuits Over Mistaken Bitcoin Credits on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s push to reclaim the $80,000 area is running into a familiar problem: overhead liquidity. New on-chain research from Glassnode suggests that the path higher is likely to be tested by long-term holders and fresh sell-side supply clustered between roughly $81,000 and $86,000.
While bulls may want $80,000 to act as support, Glassnode’s latest The Week Onchain analysis argues that the more difficult hurdle may arrive closer to $83,000—where long-term holders who bought through a prior drawdown could face an incentive to sell near breakeven.
Key takeaways
Glassnode identifies a dense long-term holder supply band between $83,000 and $86,000 that has persisted through a full drawdown cycle.
Additional “ask” liquidity has reappeared on exchange order books in the same broader zone, potentially limiting upside momentum.
Glassnode says multiple tracked overhead structures now overlap, placing recovery demand and selling pressure in the $81,000–$86,000 range.
On the chart, several widely watched moving-average levels cluster around the current price area, reinforcing $80,000 as a resistance test.
Glassnode points to long-term holder supply under $86,000
In its latest edition of The Week Onchain, Glassnode flagged multiple pools of BTC that could be released back into the market if Bitcoin rises toward $86,000. The most notable segment is long-term holder (LTH) supply—coins held without selling for at least six months.
Glassnode’s analysis emphasizes that the first heavy supply structure sits in the $83,000–$86,000 region and is “effectively all” long-term holder supply that survived the prior drawdown. The key implication: if price reaches that band, it may test whether LTHs remain willing to hold rather than sell at or near breakeven.
“Above, the first heavy structure is $83K-86K…,” Glassnode wrote, describing how $83,000 would pressure the resolve of the LTH cohort not to sell at breakeven.
Exchange asks and “overhead shelves” reinforce the same resistance band
Beyond on-chain holder behavior, Glassnode also pointed to new sell-side liquidity appearing on exchange order books. According to the report, these re-laddered asks may not be intended to execute immediately; instead, their owners could be aiming to keep orders positioned above spot price should Bitcoin push higher.
Glassnode framed this as part of a broader stack of overlapping supply structures rather than a single isolated wall. It cited several elements across price ranges, including a “self-custody cost-basis shelf” starting around $80.8K, dealer-related “gamma” flipping negative near $82.3K, and a liquidation shelf extending to $86K. It also referenced a “patient-supply wall” filling the $83K–$86K area.
Most importantly for traders, Glassnode summarized that every overhead structure it tracks currently sits between $81,000 and $86,000—describing the band as where demand for recovery meets a concentrated test.
“Every overhead structure we track now sits between $81K and $86K; that band is where the recovery’s demand meets its test.”
Price action: multiple trend indicators converge near $80,000
On top of the on-chain supply picture, Glassnode’s discussion aligns with chart-level constraints around $80,000. The area has seen multiple trend lines converge, strengthening its role as a resistance hurdle.
According to TradingView data referenced in the article, Bitcoin’s 50-week and 100-week exponential moving averages (EMAs) currently sit at $77,353 and $78,485, respectively. The same dataset places Bitcoin’s 365-day volume-weighted average price (VWAP) around $82,600—another figure that sits relatively close to today’s decision zone.
That clustering matters because it can compress the market’s “decision space.” If price trades within or near multiple major averages while overhead liquidity remains intact, upside attempts can repeatedly meet sellers—particularly when they overlap with historical supply bands.
Why this matters for bulls: $80,000 may not be the final hurdle
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph highlighted market skepticism about whether Bitcoin’s rebound would last, and noted calls for patience before declaring a durable trend shift. In particular, trader and analyst Rekt Capital stressed that Bitcoin needs to hold the 50-week EMA for longer before a meaningful change can be considered, with expectations for bearish market timing to continue until the end of 2026.
Read alongside Glassnode’s findings, that framing suggests bulls may need more than a single reclaim of $80,000. If the $81,000–$86,000 band truly concentrates both long-term holder supply and exchange ask liquidity, then any breakout may require sustained buyer demand to absorb supply—especially as price approaches the $83,000–$86,000 segment.
There’s also a timing asymmetry to consider. Once liquidity is already sitting overhead—particularly from long-term holders and re-laddered sell orders—upside can stall quickly if buyers fail to step in before the market reaches the highest-concentration area.
For readers watching the next phase, the key is whether Bitcoin can progress through the $81,000–$86,000 corridor without triggering a meaningful sell response from long-term holders and order-book liquidity. Until that’s clearer, $80,000 may remain less a floor than a gateway—one that leads into a narrower, harder test farther up.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s $83K Breakpoint Tests Real Demand as Liquidity Rises: Glassnode on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb has reportedly secured its first-instance court wins in two of four lawsuits aimed at recovering money from users who sold Bitcoin that was mistakenly credited to their accounts. The decisions, handed down by the Seoul Central District Court, mark another step in the exchange’s attempt to unwind a high-profile accounting error from February 2026.
According to a report by Chosun Biz, the court ruled in favor of Bithumb on Wednesday and Thursday in two separate cases. One decision covered a claim of 5 million won (about $3,600), while the other involved 194 million won (about $140,000). Two additional lawsuits—seeking roughly 14.8 million won (about $10,700) and 500 million won (about $362,000)—remain pending.
Key takeaways
Bithumb won first-instance rulings in two lawsuits over alleged unjust enrichment tied to mistakenly credited Bitcoin balances.
The court decisions relate to claims of 5 million won and 194 million won, while two other cases are still before the courts.
Both cases reportedly proceeded through service by public notice because the exchange could not deliver documents to defendants via standard methods.
The rulings support Bithumb’s broader recovery effort following its Feb. 6 promotional error involving 620,000 BTC.
Separately, South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) has begun sanctions-related steps over the incident, though no final penalty has been announced.
Court wins follow Bithumb’s February crediting mistake
The dispute traces back to Bithumb’s February 6, 2026 promotional event, when the exchange intended to distribute rewards denominated in Korean won to a group of users. Cointelegraph previously reported that Bithumb confirmed the error after abnormal Bitcoin trades emerged following the promotion. The company said an employee mistakenly selected Bitcoin as the payment unit instead of Korean won, and credited customer accounts with 620,000 BTC.
At the time of the incident, the mistakenly credited Bitcoin was valued at more than $40 billion, according to the earlier reporting. Even though the amount was enormous on paper, Bithumb took steps to stop the fallout from spreading. Cointelegraph reported that Bithumb later stated it recovered 618,212 BTC (about 99.7% of the erroneously credited amount). However, some users had already converted part of the credited balances by selling 1,788 BTC before Bithumb froze the impacted accounts.
What the lawsuits are trying to recover
Rather than focusing exclusively on returning Bitcoin, the lawsuits reportedly sought cash proceeds derived from users’ sales of the credited funds. In March, Bithumb filed four unjust enrichment lawsuits against users who sold the mistakenly credited Bitcoin and did not return the proceeds, according to the earlier Cointelegraph coverage.
Chosun Biz’s latest report indicates that two cases have now reached first-instance outcomes favorable to Bithumb. The decisions cover different amounts—5 million won and 194 million won—suggesting the court is addressing specific user-by-user claims rather than issuing a single consolidated ruling for the entire promotional error.
The court also reportedly handled notice service via public notice in both cases. This occurred because standard methods for delivering documents were unsuccessful, meaning the procedural pathway relied on court-permitted service when defendants could not be reached through ordinary delivery attempts.
Bigger pressure on Bithumb from regulators
While the civil litigation moves through the courts, the exchange has also faced scrutiny from South Korea’s financial regulator. Cointelegraph previously reported that the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) investigated Bithumb over the February 6 incident—specifically how the exchange could end up crediting customers with Bitcoin it did not hold.
In that earlier coverage, it was reported that the FSS sent Bithumb an inspection opinion in early August, formally triggering sanctions proceedings. However, as of the time Cointelegraph reached out for an update, there was no announced final penalty. Cointelegraph said it approached the Financial Services Commission (FSC) for additional information but did not receive a response by publication.
The combination of civil court actions and the regulator’s sanctions track is notable for investors and users because it underscores how operational mistakes in crypto market infrastructure can escalate into both contractual/legal disputes and formal oversight measures. Even if Bithumb ultimately recovers most of the misplaced assets, authorities can still assess whether internal controls, monitoring systems, and payment/crediting processes were adequate.
Other legal and compliance challenges add complexity
The Bitcoin crediting error is not the only legal pressure Bithumb has encountered this year. Cointelegraph reported that South Korean police raided Bithumb’s offices in June as part of an unrelated investigation into alleged hiring favoritism involving lawmaker Kim Byung-ki. In addition, Bithumb has been challenging a separate six-month partial business suspension tied to Anti-Money Laundering violations, with a Seoul court temporarily blocking the suspension order in April pending a decision on Bithumb’s challenge.
Against that backdrop, the outcome of the user recovery lawsuits may influence how Bithumb manages risk and customer-facing processes going forward. A pattern of first-instance wins could strengthen the exchange’s position in remaining pending cases, while any reversals on appeal would likely reignite uncertainty around how these errors are treated legally and practically.
Readers should watch next for what happens in the two remaining lawsuits still pending, as well as whether the FSS sanctions process concludes with a specific penalty or additional guidance. The resolution of these cases will also matter for broader market confidence in exchange internal controls, especially in a jurisdiction where regulators have shown willingness to pursue sanctions after operational failures.
This article was originally published as Bithumb Prevails in Two Lawsuits Over Incorrect Bitcoin Credits on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tokenized bank deposits—made possible by instant settlement and automated transfers—could destabilize bank funding and eventually raise borrowing costs for US households and businesses, according to an analysis by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
In a report by Rosie Levy and Srini Ramaswamy, the authors argue that technologies enabling deposits to move more quickly between banks would make funding portfolios more sensitive to interest-rate changes. They frame their work as scenario-based modeling rather than a forecast of immediate outcomes, but the conclusions add a new risk lens as the banking sector accelerates shared infrastructure for tokenized settlement.
Key takeaways
The Dallas Fed economists warn that instant settlement could let depositors chase higher yields faster, increasing deposit “rate sensitivity.”
In their scenarios, a 10% increase in deposit sensitivity to interest rates could reduce banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and assets by about $700 billion in 10-year equivalents.
A separate scenario—deposits staying at banks for 10% less time—could lower that capacity by about $580 billion (also in 10-year equivalents).
The analysis emphasizes that the figures are not direct, dollar-for-dollar reductions in lending, but reflect changes in banks’ balance-sheet room over time.
Banks are already building networks intended to move tokenized deposits around the clock while keeping funds within regulated banking channels.
Why tokenized deposits may change bank funding dynamics
Levy and Ramaswamy’s central point is that deposit behavior could shift if tokenized deposits make it easier—potentially near-instantly—for customers to move their money between institutions. They note that programmable “deposit tokens” and automation tools, including agentic artificial intelligence, could reduce the friction typically associated with switching banks.
That, in turn, could affect the stability of deposit funding—a key input for how banks manage long-term lending. Traditional banking relies on the assumption that many depositors do not change banks immediately when yields move. If tokenized settlement shortens the window in which deposits remain with a particular bank, banks may face funding profiles that respond more rapidly to interest-rate changes.
What the Dallas Fed model suggests—interest-rate sensitivity and liquidity trade-offs
To illustrate potential impacts, the economists quantify two hypothetical scenarios. First, they estimate the effect if deposits become 10% more sensitive to interest rates. In their modeling, that increased sensitivity could reduce banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and other assets by roughly $700 billion, expressed in 10-year equivalents.
Second, they model a situation where deposits remain at banks for 10% less time. Under that scenario, the reduction in banks’ capacity to hold long-term assets is estimated at about $580 billion in 10-year equivalents.
Levy and Ramaswamy stress that these are scenarios designed to capture balance-sheet sensitivity; they do not claim a direct dollar-for-dollar drop in lending. Still, their work connects funding volatility to potential credit tightening pressures: if banks cannot rely on stable deposits, they may need to adjust asset and funding structures to manage risk.
How banks could respond: more liquidity, more wholesale funding
Rather than predicting an inability to lend, the report outlines likely adjustments banks might make when facing more volatile deposits. The authors suggest banks could increase holdings of highly liquid assets—such as reserves and US Treasurys—to ensure they can meet withdrawal or transfer demands.
They also point to the possibility of relying more heavily on term debt to sustain lending portfolios. However, the report indicates that funding loans through wholesale debt could increase credit costs for consumers and businesses, which is where the consumer impact implied by “higher credit costs” enters the analysis.
In other words, even if tokenized deposits do not immediately shrink lending totals, they may alter the cost and structure of funding in ways that propagate to borrowers over time.
Infrastructure is already moving: networks for tokenized deposits and real-world linking
The analysis lands as the banking industry builds mechanisms intended to support tokenized deposits and automated settlement. On Tuesday, 39 US state banking associations formed the BankChain Alliance to develop a nationwide network for tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and automated settlement. Separately, The Clearing House is developing another network backed by major banks including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, BNY, and Wells Fargo.
Beyond broad network planning, banks have also started connecting systems across institutions. On Aug. 20, Standard Chartered and HSBC reported completing a live cross-border transaction using Swift’s blockchain ledger, which linked their respective tokenized-deposit systems and recorded obligations prior to settlement through existing payment infrastructure.
This matters for the Dallas Fed’s thesis because the practical goal of these networks is to enable rapid, potentially continuous movement of deposits within the regulated banking perimeter. The more that implementation reduces settlement delays and operational friction, the more relevant the scenario of increased deposit mobility becomes.
Lessons from instant payments—comparisons and limits
To ground the discussion, Levy and Ramaswamy look to instant-payment systems as a partial analogy. They cite Brazil’s Pix, while noting that it is not identical to tokenized deposits. The report references a 2025 study from Brazil’s central bank that found heavier Pix usage was associated with banks holding more liquid assets and reducing credit intermediation.
That comparison doesn’t prove tokenized deposits will replicate Pix’s effects. But it supports the broader mechanism the Dallas Fed economists emphasize: when money moves faster and more easily, banks may rebalance toward liquidity and away from activities that require stable funding, at least relative to the counterfactual.
What to watch next
As tokenized-deposit networks advance from pilots to wider rollouts, the key unknown is how quickly depositors actually alter behavior when transfers become easier and settlement is effectively “always on.” Investors, borrowers, and regulators should watch whether banks respond primarily by shifting to more liquid asset buffers or by leaning more on term funding—both of which could influence credit conditions and the broader cost of capital.
This article was originally published as Tokenized deposits may lift US credit costs, Dallas Fed warns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) continued to pull in fresh capital on Wednesday, recording $232.1 million in net inflows. While that figure was down from the prior day, it still extended the funds’ streak of consecutive positive sessions to eight trading days, according to SoSoValue data.
The latest inflow total represented about a 26% decline versus Tuesday’s $314.4 million and was the smallest daily inflow since Aug. 18. Even with the slowdown, cumulative flows remain strongly positive, with eight-day net inflows totaling roughly $2.8 billion. Year-to-date, net outflows have narrowed to about $2.03 billion, while cumulative net inflows have risen to $54.6 billion and total net assets reached $98.6 billion, according to SoSoValue.
Key takeaways
US spot Bitcoin ETFs logged $232.1 million in net inflows on Wednesday, extending an eight-day streak.
Inflows slowed versus Tuesday’s $314.4 million, but cumulative performance remains firmly positive.
Bitcoin’s price action has been relatively flat after briefly moving above $80,000, while ETF demand continues.
US spot Ether ETFs also posted a continued run of inflows, while XRP ETFs saw their largest daily inflow since Jan. 5.
Bitcoin ETF inflow streak continues despite softer daily totals
Wednesday’s $232.1 million inflow follows a day when US spot Bitcoin ETFs received $314.4 million, and it marks a visible cooling from the stronger buying pace seen earlier in the streak. SoSoValue data also indicates Wednesday’s total was the smallest since Aug. 18, underscoring that while investor appetite has not disappeared, the intensity of daily purchases is fluctuating.
That matters for market participants because ETF flow patterns often serve as a real-time barometer of institutional and retail allocation behavior. With the eight-session run now in place and cumulative net inflows reaching $54.6 billion, the broader direction remains constructive—even as day-to-day numbers vary.
Price pauses above $80,000 as sentiment edges higher
ETF inflows came as Bitcoin’s momentum appeared to stall. After briefly climbing above $80,000 on Tuesday, Bitcoin traded around $78,759 at the time of publication, down 0.3% over the preceding 24 hours, based on CoinGecko data.
Despite the less exciting price tape, broader sentiment improved. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index rose to 71 from 65 a day earlier, staying in “Greed” territory, according to Alternative.me. For traders, this divergence—steady ETF inflows alongside a pause in near-term price strength—can be a sign that demand may be driven by longer-horizon positioning rather than purely momentum-chasing.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted the market’s brief push above $80,000 during Tuesday’s session, providing context for the subsequent consolidation.
Ether and XRP ETFs add to a mixed but supportive picture
Beyond Bitcoin, other major US spot crypto ETF products also saw inflows. US spot Ether ETFs recorded an eighth consecutive day of net inflows on Wednesday, bringing in $192.4 million, according to SoSoValue. The continuation across multiple fund categories suggests that the demand driving ETFs may not be limited to a single asset.
Meanwhile, US-listed spot XRP ETFs attracted $28.1 million on Wednesday. SoSoValue data characterizes this as the largest daily inflow since Jan. 5. XRP’s cumulative net inflows now stand at $1.62 billion, providing another datapoint that flow strength is persisting across the broader ETF landscape rather than being concentrated entirely in Bitcoin.
Taken together, the Wednesday results show a market where institutional-style allocation—reflected in ETF inflows—remains active even as Bitcoin’s price action cools after a near-$80,000 move.
What investors should watch next
With Bitcoin ETFs continuing to post positive days, the key question is whether the next sessions bring a re-acceleration in daily inflows or signal a gradual normalization after the early streak. Readers should also monitor whether sentiment indicators like the Fear & Greed Index remain in “Greed” territory as price volatility returns, and whether Ether and XRP flows keep extending their respective runs.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETF Inflows Drop to $232M as BTC Stays Below $80K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

StarkWare researcher Avihu Levy says he has successfully carried out an experimental, quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction directly on the Bitcoin mainnet—an onchain test intended to validate a proposal originally outlined earlier this year. StarkWare described the transfer as the first transaction of its kind, using Levy’s “Quantum Safe Bitcoin” (QSB) scheme.
According to StarkWare, the transaction was confirmed Wednesday in Bitcoin block 964,199. Mempool data shows the spend used a 10,000-satoshi output protected by Levy’s QSB authorization, while MARA Pool mined the block after receiving the transaction via its Slipstream service. The test is notable not because it changed Bitcoin’s consensus rules, but because it demonstrates a quantum-resistant spending construction that can be executed within existing Bitcoin infrastructure.
Key takeaways
StarkWare reports an onchain QSB transaction was confirmed in Bitcoin block 964,199, marking a move from theory to a mainnet demonstration.
QSB is designed to be quantum-resistant without requiring a Bitcoin protocol upgrade, relying instead on transaction-level cryptographic construction.
The computation required to create QSB transactions remains expensive, with StarkWare estimating the final test cost in the low hundreds of dollars (around $150–$200).
QSB transactions are treated as nonstandard by Bitcoin Core relay policies, meaning typical nodes may not propagate them automatically.
Bitcoin developers are already considering protocol-level changes, including proposals such as BIP-360, that aim to reduce quantum exposure for specific spend paths.
From proposal to a confirmed mainnet spend
Levy’s QSB work combines two cryptographic ideas: hash-based one-time signatures and computational searches that bind an authorization to a specific transaction. StarkWare’s research framing is that this construction should prevent forgery even if a future quantum computer undermines the elliptic-curve cryptography used by Bitcoin today.
The onchain test matters because it shows that this specific quantum-resistant mechanism can be expressed under Bitcoin’s current consensus rules—at least in a way that results in a valid, confirmable spend. StarkWare said the demonstration was carried out without a protocol change, moving the project from “paper and code” into a working mainnet transaction.
Levy’s paper and associated code repository describe QSB in more detail, including how the one-time signature and transaction-bound authorization work together to create the security target against quantum-enabled forgery.
Cost and practicality: compute-heavy by design
Quantum-resistant cryptography usually involves a tradeoff: stronger security against future threats often comes with higher computational and operational costs. StarkWare’s spokesperson Nathan Jeffay told Cointelegraph that completing the tested transaction cost “low hundreds of dollars,” estimating roughly $150 to $200. StarkWare also said the overall process involved hours of computation.
This echoes earlier expectations around QSB’s resource intensity. In April, Levy introduced QSB and estimated then that generating a transaction could require between $75 and $150 in GPU computation. In the current test, StarkWare’s final estimate suggests the method is feasible for experimentation, but far from something that can scale as a default spending option for everyday users.
Levy’s approach has also been framed as a “last-resort measure” rather than a full replacement for protocol-level improvements. That distinction is important for readers trying to understand what QSB is solving: not immediate mass adoption, but a credible bridge for security concerns while Bitcoin’s broader roadmap for post-quantum resilience is still being discussed.
Why nodes may not relay QSB transactions by default
Beyond cost, QSB faces a practical integration barrier: Bitcoin Core’s default relay policy. Levy’s repository classifies QSB transactions as nonstandard, and StarkWare said this means ordinary nodes would not automatically propagate them before confirmation.
In other words, a QSB transaction may not travel through the usual network “gossip” path. For the confirmed test, the transaction was submitted through MARA’s Slipstream service so it could reach miners despite its nonstandard status.
This is a reminder that even when a cryptographic scheme is valid under consensus, network policy still shapes real-world usability. Until relay behavior changes—or until spending routes are standardized—quantum-resistant transactions may remain mainly the domain of researchers and specialized operators.
Protocol upgrades are still on the table
QSB’s transaction-level strategy also raises a broader question: what happens as Bitcoin evolves toward quantum readiness at the protocol layer?
In earlier reporting, Google researchers estimated that if a sufficiently capable quantum computer emerged, it could potentially derive a Bitcoin private key nine to 12 minutes after its corresponding public key becomes visible—creating a window where an attacker might replace a pending transaction. The implication is that certain spending constructions may be more vulnerable than others once quantum capabilities arrive.
Levy introduced QSB with the notion that it does not require a network-wide upgrade, but still provides a safety net. StarkWare’s Eli Ben-Sasson indicated in comments to Cointelegraph that he expects a soft fork to eventually happen, describing QSB as a transitional protection while protocol-level safeguards are developed.
Bitcoin developers are separately weighing proposals that target specific spend paths. One example mentioned by StarkWare is BIP-360, a proposed soft fork that would introduce a Pay-to-Merkle-Root output type while removing Taproot’s quantum-vulnerable key-path spend. This kind of proposal differs from QSB by aiming to reduce exposure directly through changes to how certain outputs are constructed and spent, rather than relying on transaction-level workarounds.
Notably, QSB in this test is presented as a validation that one quantum-resistant approach can be executed without a protocol change. The next step for the community will be whether standardized relay and broader compatibility can be achieved, and how that compares with the security and complexity tradeoffs of protocol-level soft forks.
What to watch next
For now, the key uncertainty is scalability and integration: whether future QSB tests can lower compute cost, and whether changes to Bitcoin relay standards—or eventual soft fork designs like BIP-360—will reduce the friction that currently makes these transactions nonstandard. Readers should also look for more mainnet demonstrations that clarify how reliably the method can be used across different mining and submission workflows.
This article was originally published as StarkWare Runs Quantum-Resistant Bitcoin Spend on Mainnet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

StarkWare researcher Avihu Levy says he has successfully completed what the company describes as the first quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction on the mainnet—an onchain test of Levy’s Quantum Safe Bitcoin (QSB) approach.
According to StarkWare, the transaction was confirmed Wednesday in Bitcoin block 964,199, and onchain data indicates it spent a 10,000-satoshi output protected using QSB. Block propagation for the test relied on MARA Pool’s Slipstream service, reflecting that the experiment did not follow Bitcoin Core’s default transaction relay rules.
Key takeaways
First mainnet demonstration: StarkWare reports QSB was confirmed in Bitcoin block 964,199, moving Levy’s April proposal from concept to live spending.
No consensus upgrade required: StarkWare says the test was compatible with Bitcoin’s existing consensus rules, without changing the protocol.
Higher compute costs: StarkWare estimates the transaction required “low hundreds of dollars,” with computation taking hours.
Relay constraints: QSB transactions are treated as nonstandard under Bitcoin Core default policies, so they required direct submission via Slipstream rather than normal peer-to-peer propagation.
Stops short of a network-wide fix: QSB hardens individual spending, while broader protocol proposals (including BIP-360) aim to reduce quantum exposure more systematically.
QSB reaches mainnet: hash-based signatures plus transaction-bound authorization
Levy’s QSB combines two ideas intended to counter scenarios where quantum computers undermine Bitcoin’s elliptic-curve cryptography. In StarkWare’s description of the scheme, QSB uses hash-based one-time signatures and pairs authorization to a specific transaction through computational searches.
The goal is to prevent forgery even if a quantum computer eventually breaks the cryptographic primitives underpinning Bitcoin’s typical key-path spending. Rather than replacing Bitcoin’s cryptography across the network, QSB is designed as a construction for individual transactions—effectively a “last-resort” safety net that can be used when quantum risk becomes more urgent.
StarkWare points to Levy’s published paper and code repository as the technical basis for the method, with the repository detailing how transaction-specific authorization is bound into the spending conditions.
What changed vs. earlier proposals—and what remains theoretical
The QSB test is best understood against earlier academic and research milestones. In March, researchers at Google estimated that a sufficiently capable quantum computer could theoretically derive a Bitcoin private key within minutes after an attacker learns the corresponding public key from a pending transaction, potentially enabling key replacement during the confirmation window.
In April, Levy introduced QSB in response to that kind of threat model, describing the approach as costly and intended for rare use rather than routine replacement of existing defenses.
StarkWare’s Wednesday mainnet confirmation therefore marks an important shift: it demonstrates that a quantum-resistant spending construction can be executed under Bitcoin’s current consensus rules, at least in this controlled experiment. That matters for investors and builders because it suggests a path for incremental, transaction-level hardening while longer-term protocol changes are debated and implemented.
Cost, computation time, and the reality of running it on Bitcoin
While the concept is aimed at quantum resistance, the test also highlights the practical trade-off: compute intensity. StarkWare previously estimated that generating a QSB transaction would require between $75 and $150 in GPU computation, framing it as a fallback option rather than a universal tool.
For the confirmed mainnet run, StarkWare’s spokesperson Nathan Jeffay told Cointelegraph that the total cost landed in the “low hundreds of dollars,” estimating around $150 to $200. StarkWare’s release also said the process took hours of computation.
That pricing and time profile is critical context for market participants: even if QSB can be made to work without a protocol update, its cost structure will likely limit how often it can be used in practice until either hardware efficiency improves or alternative constructions reduce compute requirements.
Why it required a special submission path: nonstandard relay policies
Beyond cost, StarkWare’s testing approach underscores another bottleneck: Bitcoin nodes may not relay QSB transactions in the same way they handle standard transfers.
Levy’s repository classifies QSB transactions as nonstandard under Bitcoin Core’s default relay policies. StarkWare says this means ordinary nodes would not propagate the transaction before confirmation, so the test needed to be submitted directly through MARA’s Slipstream service.
In practical terms, that implies a two-stage readiness problem. Even if the spending is valid under consensus rules, the transaction’s ability to spread through the network—at least by default—can affect timing, reliability, and user experience. Observing whether QSB can become easier to submit, relay, or include under broader conditions will likely be one of the next milestones builders watch.
QSB as a bridge while protocol-level protection advances
StarkWare’s leadership also positions QSB as incomplete by design. The method applies to individual transactions rather than upgrading cryptography throughout the Bitcoin network. StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson said, “A soft fork should happen, and I believe it will,” framing QSB as a safety net while protocol-level protections are developed.
That broader effort is already reflected in public proposals discussed in the Bitcoin ecosystem. One example mentioned by StarkWare is BIP-360, a proposed soft fork that would introduce a Pay-to-Merkle-Root output type while removing Taproot’s quantum-vulnerable key-path spend.
The tension here is straightforward: QSB can demonstrate feasibility today, but protocol changes aim to make quantum-resistant spending practical at scale—potentially without requiring specialized submission routes or heavy computation per transaction.
For traders and long-term holders, this also changes how to think about “quantum readiness.” Instead of a single all-or-nothing moment, the landscape appears to be moving toward layered defenses: transaction-level constructions that prove the mechanics, paired with eventual consensus changes that reduce exposure and simplify use.
Going forward, the key question is whether QSB tests like this can be repeated reliably across different infrastructure and whether future improvements—or soft fork proposals such as BIP-360—make quantum-resistant spending cheaper, easier to relay, and more broadly usable without specialized services.
This article was originally published as StarkWare Runs Quantum-Resistant Bitcoin Transactions on Mainnet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back may have long played down the immediacy of quantum threats, but the company he leads is moving forward with concrete work on how Bitcoin could upgrade if sufficiently powerful quantum computers ever become a practical reality. That progress just received a fresh milestone: a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) for the company’s experimental post-quantum signature scheme, SHRINCS, was published on the project’s GitHub repository.
The development matters because Bitcoin’s current elliptic-curve signature system (used for spending authorization) is widely understood to be vulnerable to the key-recovery capabilities of future quantum machines. While the exact timeline remains debated, cryptographers agree the worst-case scenario would allow attackers to derive private keys from public keys and steal funds—making migration planning an industry priority rather than a reactive scramble.
Key takeaways
Blockstream published a BIP for SHRINCS, positioning it as an actionable candidate for Bitcoin’s post-quantum signature upgrade path.
SHRINCS is designed to be “Bitcoin-native” and smaller than many NIST-aligned post-quantum signature alternatives, helping it fit Bitcoin’s block and witness constraints.
The proposal’s approach is more “stateful,” which can reduce on-chain size but introduces wallet/device recovery and interoperability risks.
Blockstream’s ongoing research explores complementary ideas—like signature-size reduction and potential ZK proof aggregation—while keeping governance and deployment decisions separate.
From quantum skepticism to BIP-level implementation
Adam Back has been associated with a cautious stance toward quantum timelines—arguing in earlier comments that the threat may not materialize for decades. Yet, Blockstream’s work shows how even a “farther away” threat can justify engineering now: building, testing, and documenting cryptographic changes before the political and technical window closes.
Blockstream Research has previously demonstrated SHRINCS as an experimental post-quantum signature scheme operating in production on Liquid, a Bitcoin sidechain. The new BIP—published earlier today in the SHRINCS repository—takes that experimental work and frames it explicitly for Bitcoin improvement discussions.
Jonas Nick, a Blockstream Research researcher, characterized the BIP as “the first concrete proposal” for a post-quantum signature scheme built specifically around Bitcoin’s needs. He also cautioned that SHRINCS is not presented as Bitcoin’s “final” signature design and is not optimal on every dimension—an important distinction for investors and builders trying to evaluate how close a proposal is to consensus-level readiness.
Why signature size is the core Bitcoin constraint
In most post-quantum signature designs, public parameters and signature payloads are substantially larger than Bitcoin’s current elliptic-curve signatures. According to the article’s cited comparison, NIST-endorsed post-quantum hash- and lattice-based signature schemes are between 38 and 123 times larger than Bitcoin’s ECDSA and Schnorr signatures. The practical consequence is straightforward: larger signatures mean more data per transaction, which can reduce throughput.
The same reporting notes that deploying those larger NIST-style signatures directly in Bitcoin could push performance down to a fraction of a transaction per second. Ethereum’s post-quantum team, as referenced in the article, has discussed addressing the blockspace problem by aggregating signatures using a small zero-knowledge proof per block—an approach that, if feasible, can reduce on-chain footprint. Bitcoin, however, would face a different social and technical hurdle: adding ZK proof aggregation would represent a major change to the system’s validation and activation politics.
Blockstream’s alternative is to shrink the signature payload itself. The approach discussed here aims to reduce Bitcoin-relevant signature sizes by about 13.23 times compared with baseline NIST-aligned hash-based post-quantum signatures, while retaining enough compatibility with Bitcoin’s operational constraints to keep the upgrade conversation realistic.
What SHRINCS targets—and what trade-offs it makes
The SHRINCS design was unveiled by Blockstream researchers in December 2025, with an opcode proposal published in May. It is a hash-based post-quantum signature scheme built to work within Bitcoin’s signature-size realities. The scheme is reported as having a minimum size of 548 bytes plus a 48-byte public key, with maximum sizes that can reach 4,619 bytes.
A key selling point is “Bitcoin-native” construction: one cited explainer describes the scheme as real code signing real transactions on Liquid mainnet and as an attempt to address post-quantum migration without breaking Bitcoin’s block economics. That said, it remains early-stage research. The article references a warning embedded in the BIP text that a formal security proof is “TODO,” indicating the cryptography is promising but not yet fully validated at the level Bitcoin-style upgrades normally demand.
Even with SHRINCS’s improvements, the scheme is still described as significantly larger than current Bitcoin signatures—about nine times larger than Schnorr signatures (64 bytes). The report also emphasizes that the impact is not as simple as a “9x blocksize increase,” because Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness changes how signature bytes are accounted for in block weight.
Where SHRINCS makes a more controversial engineering choice is in its state management. Traditional stateless designs can store everything required to verify and update signatures in the public structure, but they often require large signature artifacts. The article describes SHRINCS as intentionally reducing those artifacts by using one-time keys and keeping track of “used keys” on the device—meaning the scheme behaves in a stateful way.
This can affect users in concrete ways. Each time a signature is used, it adds roughly 16 bytes to the signature. More importantly, if a device is lost, the fallback mechanism can require a very large transaction (the article cites about 5,777 bytes) to recover. Additionally, the BIP warning cited in the article notes that different SHRINCS implementations may not interoperate safely if they use incompatible stateless-component settings—raising the risk of lost funds during key import.
That tension—smaller signatures in exchange for operational fragility—is likely to shape governance debates more than raw cryptographic novelty. Bitcoin’s consensus rules are permanent maintenance obligations, and wallet-side assumptions can become user failure modes.
Iterating for deployment: hardware wallets, SHRIMPS, and options for aggregation
Blockstream says it has continued refining SHRINCS through 2026 and recently demonstrated that SHRINCS and other post-quantum signature schemes can run on common hardware wallets. That is not a trivial detail: even well-designed cryptography can stall adoption if it cannot fit the performance and memory constraints of real wallet environments.
The article also references work on a companion backup/derivation concept. Earlier in March, Blockstream introduced “SHRIMPS” to support signing by backup devices initialized from the same seed in a way that aligns with SHRINCS signing behavior. In the BIP update described here, the SHRIMPS naming is dropped and the scheme is incorporated as a built-in stateless path under the same 48-byte public key, optimized with a non-standard parameter set to be about 26% smaller.
Beyond hash-based signatures, Blockstream’s research also experiments with lattice-based signature approaches, which are often smaller but described as less proven and less reliable than hash-based designs in the current literature. The article further notes Blockstream’s consideration of zero-knowledge proof aggregation. According to its estimates, pairing ZK aggregation with SHRINCS could potentially double Bitcoin’s speed in this modeled scenario.
Notably, Blockstream is reported to have separated signature-choice work from the separate, more contentious questions of block size increases and ZK aggregation. That decision reflects a pragmatic recognition: pairing multiple disruptive changes at once can make it harder to build consensus. If Bitcoin is to migrate to post-quantum security, the pathway likely needs modular governance milestones rather than one all-at-once overhaul.
As one explained perspective cited here puts it, the “binding constraint” may not be cryptography alone but governance—how Bitcoin chooses among a growing menu of engineering options (including references to other proposals like BIP-360, BIP-361, and STARKs) before an upgrade clock runs out.
For readers, the next signal to watch is whether the SHRINCS BIP gains traction in the broader Bitcoin development and review ecosystem—particularly around its stateful design risks, key recovery/fallback behavior, and interoperability guarantees between wallet implementations. The proposal’s publication is a meaningful step from experimentation toward deployment planning, but the hard part will be convincing the network that the trade-offs are acceptable and the security path is complete enough for consensus.
This article was originally published as Quantum-Secure Bitcoin via SHRINCS BIP: Benefits With a Trade-Off on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A new survey from the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) finds that most Americans remain wary of including cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans. The research comes as U.S. policymakers work to broaden the range of alternative assets available in 401(k) and other defined-contribution plans—potentially placing crypto more directly in retirement-savings conversations.
According to the NIRS survey, 77% of Americans view cryptocurrency included in workplace retirement plans as risky, with 46% describing it as “very risky.” In parallel, 53% oppose employers offering crypto as an investment option.
Key takeaways
77% of respondents say crypto exposure in workplace retirement plans is risky, including 46% who call it very risky.
53% oppose employers adding crypto to retirement plan investment lineups.
Concerns about retirement security are rising: 80% say the U.S. faces a retirement crisis, up from 67% in 2020.
Debt and affordability pressures persist: 77% say debt blocks them from saving adequately.
Regulatory direction is shifting: multiple federal actions have moved away from prior “extreme care” language and toward a framework that may facilitate alternative-asset inclusion.
Survey signals distrust even as retirement pressures mount
The NIRS report ties its crypto findings to broader anxieties about retirement outcomes. 80% of survey respondents said the U.S. faces a retirement crisis—an increase from 67% in 2020—while 61% said they are concerned about achieving financial security in retirement.
Affordability challenges also appear central to the survey’s picture. The research reports that 68% say it is becoming harder to prepare for retirement, and 77% say debt prevents them from saving enough. In that context, investor protection and risk tolerance are likely to remain key fault lines for any plan sponsors considering crypto-like exposures.
The survey was conducted by Greenwald Research between Oct. 24 and Nov. 14, 2025, surveying 1,203 Americans aged 25 and older. Results were weighted by age, gender, and income.
From “extreme care” to neutrality: a policy pivot
While public opinion in the NIRS survey skews negative toward crypto in employer retirement plans, regulatory posture has been moving in the other direction. The NIRS report points to changes under the Trump administration and federal regulators aimed at expanding access to alternative assets in defined-contribution plans.
One turning point came when the U.S. Department of Labor rescinded guidance from May 2025 that had urged 401(k) plan fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” when considering cryptocurrency investments. In its place, the Department of Labor returned to a neutral approach that neither endorses nor discourages crypto as an investment option.
The policy shift accelerated further after Aug. 7, 2025, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to “democratize access to alternative assets for 401(k) investors.” The order calls for expanding access to alternative assets in defined-contribution retirement plans, including those carried by investment vehicles that hold digital assets, while directing the Labor Department and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to consider regulatory changes.
Labor Department guidance continues to broaden the door
Following the executive order, the Department of Labor also rescinded earlier language. A few days later, it rescinded a 2021 guidance document that had discouraged 401(k) fiduciaries from considering alternative assets, saying investment decisions should instead be assessed through a neutral, principles-based framework.
More recently, the Department of Labor has moved from rescinding older guidance toward outlining how fiduciaries could evaluate alternative assets within plan lineups. In March 2026, it proposed rules describing how 401(k) fiduciaries could include alternative assets—again, with the stated goal of providing structures that reduce litigation risk. The proposal would require fiduciaries to consider factors such as fees, liquidity, valuation, and performance.
Still, the debate is far from settled. The NIRS report notes pushback from lawmakers, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Bobby Scott, who urged the Department of Labor in June to withdraw the proposal. Their objections, as described in earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, cite crypto’s volatility and argue that safeguards for investors are insufficient.
Why the divide matters for retirement investors
The NIRS survey and the ongoing regulatory shift point to a significant mismatch between how Americans perceive crypto risk and how the regulatory framework may evolve around retirement-plan menus.
For plan sponsors and fiduciaries, this gap is likely to shape how proposals land with employers, participants, and policymakers. Even if rules become clearer about what diligence should look like, the core question for retirement consumers is whether crypto exposures align with retirement risk tolerance—especially when the same survey shows many Americans are already struggling with affordability and debt constraints.
For participants, the next phase to watch is whether proposed Labor Department rules finalize in a way that meaningfully changes what employers can offer, and how regulators address the specific concerns raised by lawmakers—particularly around volatility, liquidity, and valuation transparency.
As NIRS data underscores, public skepticism is high; the coming regulatory decisions and any resulting plan changes will therefore be tested not only by legal standards, but by whether they can earn participant trust in the context of retirement security.
This article was originally published as Survey Finds 77% of Americans View Crypto as Risky in Retirement Plans on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a procedural step toward rewriting how investment advisers and investment companies handle client custody rules—potentially including clearer guidance for crypto asset custody. The agency’s proposal was submitted on Aug. 25 to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), where it will undergo review by the White House Office of Management and Budget before returning to the SEC and, if approved, being opened for public comment.
According to the SEC’s regulatory agenda, the rules are intended to reduce uncertainty over how regulated firms may hold crypto for clients while complying with federal securities requirements tied to the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. The SEC has not yet published the full proposal for public view, and OIRA retains the ability to request revisions before the SEC considers whether to advance the draft.
Key takeaways
The SEC submitted “Amendments to the Custody Rules” to OIRA on Aug. 25, a necessary step before any potential public rulemaking.
The proposal would address custody practices for investment advisers and funds, including how those entities may custody crypto assets for clients.
The agency says the intent is to clarify compliance expectations and reduce uncertainty currently affecting institutional crypto custody.
The broader context includes the SEC’s shift toward rulemaking under current leadership, as the CLARITY market-structure bill faces delays in Congress.
OIRA review marks a new phase for custody-rule changes
Under the U.S. regulatory process, submissions to OIRA are typically part of the administration’s review pipeline, which includes assessing potential economic impacts and other policy considerations. The SEC’s regulatory agenda indicates it is considering either amendments to existing custody rules or new provisions under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act.
The SEC’s agenda framing highlights compliance clarity as the core objective: institutions have needed more predictable standards for how they can custody digital assets while meeting securities-law obligations. Still, the proposal has not yet been released, so investors and service providers will have to wait to see the exact custody mechanisms and compliance conditions the SEC is considering.
The timeline also matters. Even after the OIRA review, the SEC must decide whether to issue the draft publicly for comment. In the meantime, the drafting remains in a pre-public phase, leaving the precise details—such as how the SEC plans to define permissible custodial arrangements for crypto—unknown.
Why crypto custody rules are now a focal point
Institutional participation in crypto markets has long been tied to custody infrastructure and compliance. Custody is not simply a technical function; it’s also a legal and regulatory question tied to fiduciary duties and the requirement to protect client assets. By exploring custody-rule changes for investment advisers and investment companies, the SEC is effectively aiming to address a practical bottleneck: when custody standards are ambiguous, regulated firms may be more cautious about offering crypto exposure to clients—or they may rely on arrangements that are harder to defend under existing guidance.
The SEC’s stated intent—to clear up uncertainty—suggests that regulators view the current framework as insufficiently clear for modern portfolio practices that increasingly include crypto. However, the proposal is still preliminary, and the fact that it is under review means the agency could adjust its approach after OIRA feedback.
Rulemaking momentum under SEC leadership
Multiple developments point to a broader strategic shift at the SEC. Since Paul Atkins became chair in 2025, the agency has increasingly emphasized formal rulemaking over what it previously treated as “regulation through enforcement.” Atkins pledged to change course by using established rulemaking channels to set industry expectations rather than relying primarily on enforcement actions to define the regulatory boundary.
That strategic shift is also reflected in past enforcement posture. Earlier coverage noted that the SEC dismissed several cases against major crypto companies in 2025, including its lawsuit against Coinbase, as it moved to reshape its approach to digital assets.
While the custody-rule proposal is not itself an enforcement action, it aligns with the same direction: creating clearer standards that regulated firms can plan around. If the SEC ultimately issues the draft for public comment and it advances to final rulemaking, the result could materially affect institutional compliance planning for advisers and investment funds that want to include crypto in client portfolios.
Congressional bill delays keep regulatory uncertainty in focus
The SEC’s custody initiative is unfolding while at least one other major policy effort remains stalled. As Bloomberg reported, the proposed rule is part of the agency’s broader push to advance the Trump administration’s digital asset agenda as the CLARITY market structure bill remains blocked in the Senate.
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted that the CLARITY bill was expected to face a cloture vote after lawmakers return from the August recess in September. With that legislative path uncertain, regulatory clarity on custody and compliance could take on added importance for market participants—even if it comes through the SEC’s rulemaking process rather than Congress.
In other words, while the legislative debate over market structure continues, the SEC is also working on narrower but highly practical rules that govern how investment firms hold assets. For institutions, that distinction can matter: the ability to custody crypto within a clear regulatory framework may be a nearer-term determinant of product development and client offering viability.
What to watch next
Readers should focus on whether the OIRA review prompts changes to the draft and, crucially, whether the SEC eventually releases the custody proposal for public comment. The most important unknown is what specific custody standards the SEC will propose for crypto holdings, since that will determine how institutions adjust compliance processes and custodial arrangements.
This article was originally published as SEC Drafts Crypto Custody Rule Overhaul, Submits to White House on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Chainalysis estimates that potentially taxable crypto activity on major public blockchains reached at least $457 billion worldwide in 2025. But the firm argues that current international tax reporting rules will likely capture only a minority of that activity—leaving most onchain activity outside the data flows tax authorities can use.
In Chainalysis’ figures, the United States accounted for an estimated $112.6 billion, while North America led all regions with $134.6 billion. The European Union followed with $125.1 billion. The analysis focuses on realized gains, income from activities such as mining, staking and lending, and crypto-denominated payments across six major blockchains—while excluding activity conducted within centralized exchanges.
Key takeaways
Chainalysis pegs potentially taxable onchain activity in 2025 at $457 billion globally, but most of it falls outside OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).
CARF-covered transactions account for an estimated 14% of the taxable onchain activity Chainalysis identified, with 86% occurring beyond the reporting perimeter.
The $457 billion estimate includes realized gains and onchain income streams (e.g., staking, lending) and payments, but intentionally leaves out centralized exchange trading activity.
CARF requires covered providers to collect customer transaction and tax residency information and share it with tax authorities for cross-border exchange.
Decentralized finance activity may remain largely uncovered because CARF is built around identifiable intermediaries and reporting obligations tied to centralized service providers.
A global onchain tax problem dwarfs what CARF can cover
Chainalysis’ report frames a central mismatch: taxable crypto behavior is heavily onchain and fragmented, while reporting obligations under CARF are structured around intermediaries that can be required to collect and report data.
According to Chainalysis, transactions that fall under CARF account for just 14% of the potentially taxable onchain activity it identified. The remaining 86% includes activity on decentralized exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers, onchain income streams, and crypto-denominated payments—types of activity that may not be routed through centralized, in-scope reporting entities.
This distinction matters for investors and market participants because tax outcomes depend on record availability. Even where taxable events occur on public blockchains, the ability for tax authorities to receive consistent third-party transaction information is limited when reporting requirements don’t extend to the underlying counterparties or decentralized infrastructure.
How CARF is meant to work—and when it starts
CARF was developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and announced as a framework for reporting crypto-related customer transaction data to tax authorities. Under CARF, covered crypto service providers collect customer and tax residency information and report transaction data to their domestic authorities, which can then share information across borders.
In practical terms, Chainalysis points to a coverage design that focuses on intermediaries. CARF collection is set to begin on Jan. 1, 2026, in 48 jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and European Union. For covered platforms, the framework also requires collecting additional customer and tax residency information from that date.
Investors should note that the start date is tied to reporting obligations placed on “covered” providers. The existence of a reporting framework does not automatically mean all onchain activity becomes reportable—coverage depends on whether transactions are processed through entities that fall within CARF’s defined perimeter.
Why DeFi may stay largely outside the reporting perimeter
A key reason for CARF’s limited coverage, Chainalysis suggests, is that CARF is oriented toward crypto intermediaries that facilitate transactions as a business. Colby Mangels, a former OECD adviser who worked on CARF, told Cointelegraph in January that the framework was designed around intermediaries that can be regulated and required to report.
That structure creates friction for decentralized finance. Much DeFi activity may involve no centralized operator in the traditional sense, and potentially no custodial relationship that triggers reporting obligations in the way CARF expects. As a result, decentralized exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers, and various onchain income mechanisms can remain outside direct reporting.
Still, the regulatory landscape is not static. Mangels said tax authorities are watching how anti-money laundering rules evolve, including efforts to determine when DeFi platforms—or their operators—could be treated as regulated crypto service providers. If and when that happens, the boundary between “covered” intermediaries and “uncovered” decentralized activity may shift.
What to watch next as reporting expands
Chainalysis’ estimates highlight an uncomfortable reality: even with CARF rolling out across dozens of jurisdictions, a large portion of taxable onchain activity may remain invisible to tax authorities unless reporting requirements extend to additional kinds of entities or data-generating processes. What matters next is how regulators decide whether and when decentralized platforms—or people operating them—become subject to the same reporting duties as centralized intermediaries.
Readers should watch the implementation details in CARF jurisdictions after the Jan. 1, 2026 rollout begins, as well as any regulatory movement that clarifies how DeFi participants fit into the “crypto service provider” concept. Those determinations will largely determine whether the 14% coverage figure can rise—or whether the reporting gap persists.
This article was originally published as Chainalysis: $457B Taxable Crypto Activity, CARF Policy Gaps Claimed on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Better Mortgage and Coinbase have expanded their Bitcoin-backed mortgage option, moving it into general availability for eligible US homebuyers. The product is designed to let borrowers use Bitcoin as collateral for a down payment while keeping the primary home loan tied to a Fannie Mae-backed mortgage.
Announced Wednesday, the offering combines two linked loans: a Fannie Mae-backed home loan from Better and a separate down payment loan secured by Bitcoin. According to Coinbase’s Help Center, borrowers must pledge BTC worth at least 250% of the down payment loan amount, with the pledged Bitcoin transferred to Better’s custodial account on Coinbase Prime.
Key takeaways
Better and Coinbase’s token-backed mortgage is now generally available to qualifying US borrowers.
Borrowers pledge Bitcoin to secure the down payment loan, without having to sell BTC.
Coinbase states Bitcoin price declines alone do not automatically trigger margin calls or mortgage term changes.
Better may liquidate pledged BTC if a borrower is 60 days delinquent on payments.
Eligible Coinbase One members can receive a Better rebate, subject to a $10,000 cap.
How the Bitcoin-collateral mortgage works
The structure is built around two synchronized components with shared repayment timing. Coinbase said both loans use the same interest rate and amortization term, and repayment occurs through a single monthly payment.
Once the mortgage is fully repaid or refinanced, the pledged BTC is returned, provided the loan terms are satisfied. Coinbase emphasized that the mortgage is not designed to reprice automatically based purely on Bitcoin volatility.
Specifically, Coinbase notes that declines in the BTC price by themselves do not trigger margin calls or change mortgage terms. The key exception is delinquency: if a borrower becomes 60 days past due on payments, Better has the ability to liquidate the pledged Bitcoin, according to Coinbase.
Eligibility and incentives for borrowers
Participation is limited to US residents with a verified Coinbase account, and borrowers remain subject to Better’s standard credit, income, and underwriting requirements. Coinbase also said the product is delivered through Better’s mortgage process, with BTC held in Better’s custody via Coinbase Prime.
Coinbase One members are eligible for a 1% rebate from Better, subject to a $10,000 cap. The rebate can be applied toward closing costs and fees, which may reduce upfront transaction expenses for qualifying borrowers.
Regulatory momentum behind crypto in mortgage underwriting
The rollout arrives during a period of increasing institutional attention to how digital assets could be treated within US mortgage risk models. In June 2025, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop proposals to consider cryptocurrency held on US-regulated centralized exchanges as an asset in single-family mortgage risk assessments—without requiring that the crypto be converted to US dollars.
The FHFA directive also asked the enterprises to consider risk-mitigation measures tied to crypto’s volatility and to submit proposed changes to their boards for approval before the FHFA review process.
That direction is part of a broader shift in how lenders and regulators approach collateral quality and volatility. Rather than forcing borrowers to exit exposure to digital assets at origination, the emerging framework aims to evaluate crypto holdings directly, provided that volatility controls and governance are in place.
Other lenders moving—and what comes next for borrowers
Coinbase and Better are not the only players testing this approach. Mortgage lender and servicer Newrez announced in January that it would recognize certain cryptocurrency holdings in its mortgage application evaluations beginning in February, covering both home purchases and refinancing. The movement suggests that, while the specifics vary by lender, the market is increasingly experimenting with practical pathways for incorporating regulated crypto holdings into underwriting.
Housing affordability remains constrained even as crypto-linked collateral options expand. US housing price levels have stayed elevated by historical standards, even after some pullbacks: data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis indicates the median sales price of a new US home was about $400,000 in 2026, using figures from the US Census Bureau and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
For investors and borrowers alike, the Better-Coinbase expansion is likely to be watched as an early test case for whether “hold-to-borrow” models can scale in mainstream mortgage workflows. Key uncertainties remain around how different volatility scenarios are handled across lenders, how regulators will evaluate risk-mitigation proposals, and whether more mortgage originators will follow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s evolving guidance.
This article was originally published as Better Launches Bitcoin-Backed Mortgages Using Coinbase Technology on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slipped below $78,000 shortly after the Wall Street open as US inflation data landed higher than expected, pushing risk assets lower and weighing on crypto sentiment. The move followed a stronger-than-forecast July Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) print—an inflation measure the Federal Reserve closely tracks—setting up a busy stretch for traders with additional catalysts later in the week.
With markets now parsing what the latest inflation signal could mean for the policy outlook, attention is also turning to Nvidia’s upcoming earnings release, widely viewed as a near-term driver of broader market volatility. Meanwhile, technical analysts are warning that recent strength may still fall short of a durable trend change.
Key takeaways
July US PCE inflation came in above expectations, with the year-on-year rate at 3.7% versus 3.6% expected.
BTC’s decline accelerated after the Wall Street open, aligning with weaker moves in US equities and gold breaking below $4,600 per ounce.
Analysts are watching the August monthly close for confirmation or rejection of ongoing technical resistance themes.
Traders are also looking ahead to Nvidia’s Q2 earnings as a potential volatility catalyst for risk assets.
July PCE surprises higher and pressures risk appetite
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ official release, the July PCE price index increased 0.2% from the previous month, and the same 0.2% gain was reported for the core measure excluding food and energy. On the year, the headline PCE rate rose to 3.7%, edging above the 3.6% forecast.
TradingView data tracked intraday weakness of up to roughly 1% for BTC on the day as US markets opened lower. The same risk-off dynamic also showed up beyond crypto: the article notes US stocks were down at the open and gold dipped through $4,600 per ounce.
For investors, the key point is not only whether inflation is moving, but whether it is moderating quickly enough to influence expectations around monetary policy. The report highlights that markets had been reacting to June’s PCE slowdown—described as the first month-on-month decline in six years—so the July print reduced confidence that progress was continuing at the desired pace.
Commenting on the broader implication, trading resource The Kobeissi Letter said on X that US inflation remains “nearly double” the Federal Reserve’s 2.0% target, reinforcing the idea that the latest data did not offer immediate reassurance for rate-cut hopes.
Fed week ahead: inflation data before major policy messaging
The PCE release landed with the Federal Reserve’s annual Jackson Hole economic symposium approaching. The article notes that Fed chair Kevin Warsh is expected to deliver the keynote speech on Friday, which places a premium on how markets interpret the inflation trajectory into that event.
In practical terms, this means traders are likely to treat today’s data as an input into the policy narrative rather than a one-off market mover. If inflation readings stay stubborn, markets may scale back expectations for easing; if they ease further, pressure on risk assets could fade. Either way, the upcoming Fed communications increase the probability that volatility could rise again even if crypto’s move already reflects the immediate reaction.
Tech earnings on deck as Nvidia could set the tone
Beyond macro data, the article points to corporate earnings as the next plausible short-term driver for market behavior. It highlights Nvidia’s upcoming Q2 earnings release as a potential catalyst for risk-asset volatility.
While the piece does not claim new results, it cites expectations including quarterly revenue of $92.3 billion and notes that analysts at Raymond James forecast CPU revenue at Nvidia could grow from 3% to 5% of total by 2028, broadening its addressable market.
For crypto investors, Nvidia matters less for fundamentals inside the blockchain sector and more for how large-cap tech performance influences overall liquidity and risk appetite. If earnings are perceived as supportive, BTC could find follow-through buyers; if they disappoint, the broader de-risking impulse may continue to spill into digital assets.
BTC technical outlook: focus shifts to the August monthly close
After the pullback, market participants are increasingly turning to higher-timeframe technical levels rather than reacting to day-to-day candles. The article emphasizes an upcoming August monthly candle close as a key point for determining whether BTC can extend a rebound or whether it remains trapped within a broader downtrend structure.
Trader and analyst Rekt Capital warned that BTC/USD could continue forming “lower highs,” referencing a sequence that has been in place since October 2025. In an X post, he said that “a Monthly Close below the blue resistance” would not only confirm another “Macro Lower High,” but also build “confluent resistance” tied to a broader macro downtrend.
Rekt Capital also directed attention to the 50-week exponential moving average (EMA) near $77,251. The article notes that Bitcoin’s last monthly close above this level occurred in October 2025. In his view, maintaining a reclaim and hold around that trend metric would be necessary for the rebound to stop being categorized as merely a temporary “relief rally” within a larger bear market.
Notably, this framing sets up a clear debate for traders: whether recent upside is transitioning into a durable reversal, or whether the market is still only bouncing within a corrective regime. Because monthly closes carry more weight than intraday price action, this creates a well-defined checkpoint for bulls and bears alike.
The near-term downside pressure from macro data may not automatically invalidate technical bullish cases, but it increases the odds that resistance levels will be tested more aggressively before the month ends. In other words, the market is now balancing two competing forces—macro-driven risk sentiment and chart-driven trend confirmation.
Heading into the next sessions, traders should watch how BTC responds once the immediate PCE-driven reaction cools, whether Nvidia’s earnings shift broader risk appetite, and—most importantly—where Bitcoin’s price settles relative to the resistance and the 50-week EMA ahead of the August monthly close.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Slides Under $78K as US PCE Inflation Lifts Risk-Off Trade on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto activity that could be taxable on-chain reached at least $457 billion worldwide in 2025, but the share likely captured by international tax reporting rules appears relatively small, according to a Chainalysis report on the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).
Chainalysis estimates the United States accounted for $112.6 billion of that total, while North America led regions with $134.6 billion, followed by the European Union at $125.1 billion. The report also highlights a structural mismatch: CARF may cover only a limited portion of activity that taxpayers could potentially report.
Key takeaways
$457 billion of potentially taxable on-chain crypto activity was identified globally in 2025, but CARF reportedly covers only 14% of it.
CARF coverage begins in 2026, with reporting phased in across 48 jurisdictions.
Chainalysis’ estimates include realized gains, crypto income (such as mining, staking, and lending), and crypto-denominated payments, but exclude trading on centralized exchanges.
The gaps largely stem from CARF’s focus on centralized intermediaries—meaning much of DeFi may remain outside the reporting perimeter.
How much crypto activity could be taxable—and where it happens
Chainalysis’ analysis frames “potentially taxable” activity as on-chain events that can fall into common tax categories, including realized gains and income derived from blockchain activity. It also includes crypto-denominated payments—transactions where users may need to consider tax consequences even without traditional “trading” behavior.
Importantly, the report’s scope is not all crypto activity. Chainalysis states that its estimates cover activity across six major blockchains, but exclude trading and other activity performed within centralized exchanges. That means the $457 billion figure reflects an on-chain picture rather than a complete accounting of crypto taxation exposure.
Regionally, the data points to uneven concentration of taxable activity. The US estimate of $112.6 billion sits within North America’s higher total of $134.6 billion, and the European Union’s estimate of $125.1 billion underscores that the issue is cross-border rather than confined to a single market.
Why CARF may miss most of the taxable picture
Chainalysis says that transactions covered by CARF account for just 14% of the potentially taxable on-chain activity it identified, leaving an 86% gap. The report describes the uncovered portion as including activity on decentralized exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers, on-chain income streams, and crypto payments.
CARF itself was developed by the OECD and designed to reduce cross-border tax evasion by standardizing reporting obligations. Under the framework, covered crypto service providers gather customer-related information and report relevant transaction data to domestic tax authorities, which can then exchange that information internationally.
For investors, traders, and builders, the takeaway is not that taxes won’t apply outside CARF. Rather, it’s that the administrative mechanism to identify taxable activity—at least as implemented in CARF—likely won’t reach most on-chain behavior by default.
CARF coverage kicks in during 2026—48 jurisdictions included
Chainalysis reports that CARF data collection began on Jan. 1, 2026 across 48 jurisdictions, including major markets such as the United Kingdom and the European Union. As part of its onboarding requirements, covered platforms must collect additional information, including details about customers and their tax residency.
In practical terms, the framework is built around regulated intermediaries: crypto providers that operate within a compliance framework for customer due diligence and reporting. Tax authorities can then use those reports to identify potential liabilities and share relevant information across borders.
Still, Chainalysis’ estimates suggest that even with expanding CARF adoption, much of what users do on public blockchains—especially outside traditional custody and brokerage models—may not be captured.
DeFi’s structural problem: intermediaries are often absent
One reason CARF’s coverage is limited, according to Chainalysis, is that it focuses on crypto intermediaries. A key explanation came earlier from Colby Mangels, a former OECD adviser who worked on CARF. In January, Mangels told Cointelegraph that CARF was designed around the types of intermediaries that facilitate crypto transactions “as a business.”
Decentralized finance often lacks the centralized operator, custodial relationship, or clear business entity through which reporting requirements typically attach. In the absence of a responsible intermediary that regulators can compel to submit transaction reports, much DeFi activity may fall outside CARF’s reporting perimeter.
Mangels also pointed to a possible path forward: regulators may increasingly look to how DeFi platforms interact with anti-money laundering regimes and when DeFi operators could be treated as regulated crypto service providers. If that happens, the reporting boundary could expand over time—though it remains uncertain exactly when and how such rules will be applied in different jurisdictions.
For market participants, this evolving regulatory question matters because the current gap suggests that taxation compliance will remain uneven. Users interacting heavily through decentralized routes may face more reliance on self-reporting, while activity routed through covered centralized providers is more likely to be documented through standardized reporting channels.
Readers should watch how enforcement and rulemaking develop after CARF’s 2026 rollout: the biggest uncertainty is whether regulators will extend reporting obligations further into DeFi ecosystems, and whether AML-linked approaches will effectively bring more on-chain activity under a comparable reporting umbrella.
This article was originally published as Chainalysis: $457B taxable crypto activity estimated; CARF shortfall flagged on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has begun moving toward a major update to custody rules that govern how investment advisers and investment companies hold client assets, a change that could directly affect institutional crypto custody.
According to the SEC’s regulatory filings, the agency submitted “Amendments to the Custody Rules” to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on Aug. 25 as part of the federal review process. The proposal would then return to the SEC for internal consideration before potentially being released for public comment.
Key takeaways
The SEC has sent proposed custody rule updates to OIRA for review under White House regulatory procedures.
The changes target how investment advisers and investment companies hold client assets, including crypto, under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act.
The stated goal is to reduce uncertainty for institutions trying to comply with existing federal securities rules while holding digital assets.
The draft is not yet public, and OIRA and the White House Office of Management and Budget can request modifications before it returns to the SEC.
What the SEC is trying to change
The SEC’s regulatory agenda indicates that the custody proposal could amend existing rules or introduce new requirements under the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. Those frameworks apply to firms managing client money and other assets, including assets that may be held in custody arrangements—an area where market participants have long sought clearer guidance for digital-asset holdings.
In its description of the effort, the SEC said the intended purpose is to clarify how companies can hold crypto for clients while remaining consistent with the agency’s securities-law custody framework. The SEC emphasized that the proposal is designed to address uncertainty, but it has not yet published the rule text for public scrutiny.
Once OIRA completes its review, the draft would come back to the SEC. From there, the commission would decide whether to circulate the proposal for public comment.
How the OIRA process could shape timing and scope
The custody rule effort is currently in a pre-publication stage. As reported by Bloomberg, the SEC sent the proposal to OIRA, which sits within the White House Office of Management and Budget, on Aug. 25. That step matters because it is not merely administrative: the White House can ask for changes before the proposal returns to the SEC.
Only after that review cycle would the SEC determine whether to release the proposal for public comment—an important milestone for institutions because public comments can influence how custody obligations, compliance expectations, and operational constraints are ultimately written into regulation.
At present, the main practical takeaway for affected firms is that the proposal is moving, but the actionable details remain unavailable. Custody providers and asset managers will likely be watching for the published draft text and any adjustments that occur during OIRA’s review.
Why this fits the SEC’s broader digital-asset direction
Bloomberg linked the custody rule initiative to the SEC’s wider effort to support the Trump administration’s digital asset agenda, even as a separate piece of market-structure legislation remains stalled in Congress.
The article noted that the broader goal is occurring while the CLARITY market structure bill is still pending in the Senate. According to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting, the bill is expected to face a cloture vote after lawmakers return from the August recess in September, suggesting continued legislative uncertainty around digital-asset rules at the federal level.
In that environment, rulemaking inside the SEC becomes particularly consequential for institutional participants. Custody is not just a compliance checkbox; it affects how funds and advisers structure client asset handling, choose custody models, and document safeguards—core concerns for asset managers considering or already providing crypto exposure.
From enforcement to rulemaking: institutional impact
Crypto market participants have closely tracked the SEC’s shift in posture under Paul Atkins, who became chair in 2025. Multiple reports in the crypto industry described a move away from what critics called “regulation through enforcement” toward formal rulemaking.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph has said Atkins pledged to end the SEC’s prior approach and to pursue policy development through established rulemaking channels. That shift is reflected in reported enforcement decisions as well: Cointelegraph previously reported that the SEC dismissed several cases against prominent crypto companies in 2025, including its lawsuit against Coinbase, as it sought to reshape how it regulates digital assets.
The SEC’s custody-rule proposal fits into that broader pattern. Even though the SEC has been less aggressive in some enforcement areas, institutions still need regulatory clarity for the mechanics of custody and client asset protection—areas where existing uncertainty can slow adoption or increase compliance risk.
For investors and intermediaries, a clearer custody framework could translate into better-defined standards for eligibility, controls, and operational practices. It may also reduce the reliance on case-by-case enforcement logic when deciding how to hold and safeguard client assets that include crypto.
What to watch next
Readers should watch for the custody proposal to be published after the OIRA/OMB review and for the SEC’s decision on whether to open a public comment period. The key uncertainty remains the draft’s contents—especially how it will address crypto custody within established custody rules under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act.
This article was originally published as SEC Submits Crypto Custody Rule Overhaul to White House for Review on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Americans remain highly skeptical about putting cryptocurrency into workplace retirement plans, according to a new survey by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS). The findings arrive as federal regulators and the Trump administration move in the opposite direction—seeking to broaden what employers may offer inside 401(k) and other defined-contribution accounts.
In the NIRS survey, 77% of respondents said crypto in workplace retirement plans is risky, including 46% who called it “very risky.” At the same time, 53% opposed employers offering crypto as an investment option. The results also point to wider anxieties about retirement readiness: 80% said the US faces a retirement crisis (up from 67% in 2020), and 61% expressed concern about achieving financial security in retirement.
Key takeaways
77% of Americans view crypto in workplace retirement plans as risky, with 46% calling it very risky.
53% oppose employers including crypto in retirement-plan investment menus.
Retirement insecurity is rising: 80% report seeing a retirement crisis, up from 67% in 2020.
Policy direction is shifting toward alternatives in 401(k)s, including assets exposed to digital assets.
Regulatory changes are still contested, with lawmakers warning about volatility and safeguards.
What the NIRS survey suggests about investor psychology
The NIRS report captures a public mood that is not simply about crypto—it is tied to fear about retirement outcomes more broadly. While the survey found substantial resistance to crypto as a retirement holding, it also shows that many respondents believe the underlying system is failing them. According to the report, 61% of respondents are worried they won’t achieve financial security in retirement, and 80% say the US faces a retirement crisis.
Affordability pressures appear to compound that anxiety. The survey found that 68% say it is becoming harder to prepare for retirement, while 77% reported that debt prevents them from saving enough. In that context, skepticism toward crypto may reflect not only risk concerns specific to digital assets, but also a lack of confidence that retirement accounts can reliably deliver stability—especially for people already constrained by debt and household budgets.
The survey was conducted by Greenwald Research between Oct. 24 and Nov. 14, 2025, and included 1,203 Americans aged 25 and older. NIRS states the results were weighted by age, gender and income.
For readers tracking retirement-plan policy, the most important takeaway is the mismatch between public sentiment and the direction of travel in Washington: Americans perceive crypto as an outsized risk inside retirement structures, even as regulators explore mechanisms meant to make alternative assets easier to include.
US regulators step back from “extreme care” language
The broader policy shift began with a change in how regulators frame fiduciary duty for retirement-plan decisions. In May 2025, the US Department of Labor rescinded guidance that had advised 401(k) fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” when considering cryptocurrency investments. The department replaced that with a more neutral stance, one that neither endorses nor discourages adding crypto to retirement plan investment menus.
The legal and compliance implications of that earlier “extreme care” posture mattered because it could have increased hesitation among plan sponsors and fiduciaries. By moving away from that emphasis, the DOL reduced one potential barrier to offering crypto or crypto-linked products—while keeping fiduciary obligations and plan-level considerations in focus.
The DOL’s subsequent actions continued that shift. In August 2025, the department rescinded 2021 guidance that had discouraged 401(k) fiduciaries from considering alternative assets. It said investment decisions should instead be handled using a neutral, principles-based approach.
Then, in March 2026, the Labor Department proposed rules on how 401(k) fiduciaries could include alternative assets in investment lineups. The proposal included safe harbors intended to reduce litigation risk, while also requiring consideration of factors such as fees, liquidity, valuation and performance. These are precisely the categories lawmakers and critics tend to focus on when arguing that retirement savers may not be adequately protected against under-disclosed risk.
Readers should note that “neutral” fiduciary language does not eliminate responsibility; it changes how regulators expect decisions to be evaluated. Still, the policy tone shift is significant for employers and recordkeepers that must balance compliance risk with the desire to expand plan menus.
Executive order expands access to alternative assets
While the DOL’s guidance changes helped set the stage, the policy momentum accelerated with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Aug. 7, 2025. The order was aimed at expanding access to alternative assets in defined-contribution retirement plans, including investment vehicles that hold digital assets. It directed the Labor Department and the US Securities and Exchange Commission to consider regulatory changes that could facilitate that access.
The political thrust of the order is straightforward: rather than limiting retirement-plan exposure to traditional asset classes, policymakers are pushing toward broader menu construction. For investors, this matters because employers control the first gate—what options exist inside a retirement plan often determines what savers can actually allocate to.
At the same time, the order and the later proposed DOL framework land in a social environment where most respondents are already wary of crypto’s fit in retirement accounts. That tension between expanded access and perceived risk is likely to shape how quickly proposals become real-world options, as well as what additional safeguards may be demanded by lawmakers and advocacy groups.
The Labor Department’s March 2026 rules proposal is now at the center of that debate, offering safe harbors for fiduciaries while imposing conditions meant to ensure alternatives are evaluated in structured ways.
Political pushback signals ongoing regulatory uncertainty
The proposed rules have drawn pushback. In June 2026, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Bobby Scott urged the Labor Department to withdraw the proposal. Their objection, as described in related coverage, centered on concerns about crypto’s volatility and what they characterized as insufficient investor safeguards.
This is where the mismatch between public sentiment and policymaking could become most consequential. If lawmakers conclude that safe harbors and evaluation requirements do not adequately address real risks to retirement savers, the rules could face delays, revisions, or additional constraints—especially for crypto-exposed products.
In practical terms, plan sponsors may treat the regulatory landscape as unsettled until the final rules clarify what constitutes compliance. Even when the DOL articulates principles-based fiduciary evaluation, the prospect of political scrutiny can influence corporate behavior—particularly where retirement-plan decisions are tied to potential enforcement or litigation risk.
According to the survey results, many Americans already expect retirement crypto to behave like a high-volatility outlier. If policymakers respond by tightening or narrowing eligibility for crypto-related investments, the final shape of retirement-plan access may end up less expansive than proponents originally aimed for.
Going forward, the key things to watch are how the Labor Department’s alternative-asset proposal evolves through the rulemaking process and whether lawmakers insist on additional limits or disclosure requirements specific to crypto-linked products. Until the regulatory framework is finalized, the gap between public skepticism and policy ambition is likely to remain a central feature of the retirement crypto debate.
This article was originally published as Survey: 77% of Americans view crypto as risky for retirement plans on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

High-performance blockchain designs have long wrestled with a structural trade-off: when execution is tied directly to consensus, the network’s throughput becomes limited by how fast validators can process transactions. As research and engineering teams push improvements in finality and block propagation, execution itself is increasingly viewed as the next bottleneck to redesign.
MultiversX, a Cointelegraph Decentralization Guardians (CTDG) ecosystem participant, is now testing an approach that aims to remove that bottleneck. Its Supernova upgrade decouples consensus from transaction execution, enabling validators to vote without waiting for execution to complete—shifting computation into an asynchronous pipeline. Supernova is live on testnet, and deployment planning targets a mainnet activation date later this year.
Key takeaways
Supernova reorders the block workflow so proposers submit transaction blocks without executing first, while validators can vote immediately based on protocol validity.
Execution output is confirmed in subsequent block headers, with execution lagging consensus by roughly one block (about 600 milliseconds).
A “virtual mempool state” helps preserve validity by tracking pending nonces, expected balance consumption, and transactions already proposed but not yet executed.
EIE (Execution-Result Inclusion Estimator) limits how many execution results a block can reference, based on what minimum-spec nodes can safely handle.
Automatic backpressure reduces block capacity when execution falls too far behind, giving the system time to catch up.
Why execution-on-consensus became a scaling problem
In conventional synchronous blockchains, validators don’t just agree that a block is well-formed—they also must execute the transactions to verify state transitions before voting. That keeps the system deterministic and consensus-critical, but it also creates a shared bottleneck: the most computationally heavy transactions effectively slow the entire network.
Many networks have spent years optimizing around agreement speed and block dissemination. MultiversX’s framing is that these gains are not enough if execution remains on the critical path. The core question Supernova addresses is architectural: does execution have to stay inside the consensus loop, or can it be processed asynchronously while preserving safety and correctness?
Supernova’s asynchronous pipeline: voting first, executing after
Supernova, now live on testnet, introduces a changed block production sequence.
Previously, block production followed a more sequential pattern: a proposer selected transactions, executed them locally, and proposed a block containing those results. Validators then had to re-execute the same transactions to verify state transitions before voting, meaning execution sat directly inside the consensus-critical path.
With Supernova, that ordering changes. According to MultiversX’s description of Supernova’s decoupling, the proposer selects transactions and proposes the block without executing them first. Validators then verify that the proposal follows protocol rules and can vote right away. Execution continues asynchronously in the background, producing an output that is normally referenced and notarized in the next block header—so execution trails consensus by about one block, or roughly 600 milliseconds.
The practical consequence is that network responsiveness becomes less dependent on how quickly validators can execute every transaction before they can participate in consensus. Instead, consensus advances on protocol validity, while execution catches up in parallel.
Preserving validity when execution lags consensus
Decoupling execution from consensus creates an obvious safety and validity challenge: if execution is delayed, how does the network determine whether transactions included in a proposed block are likely to remain valid by the time their execution results are produced?
Supernova addresses this with a virtual mempool state. As described by MultiversX, the virtual mempool looks beyond the latest executed chain state and tracks forward-looking execution inputs such as pending nonces, expected balance consumption, and transactions already proposed but whose execution results have not yet passed consensus. That gives proposers a more accurate view of account activity so they can select transactions expected to execute successfully when their turn arrives.
To keep the system robust under varying validator performance, MultiversX also introduces two safeguards designed for operational stability:
Execution-Result Inclusion Estimator (EIE): EIE limits how many execution results can be referenced in a block. The cap is tied to what minimum-spec nodes can process safely, reducing the risk that weaker nodes are overwhelmed by referencing too many pending results.
Automatic backpressure: If execution falls too far behind, block capacity is reduced to allow the network to catch up—rather than letting lag accumulate indefinitely.
What Supernova changes for developers and users
For builders, the key message is that “in-shard finality” can arrive as soon as the proof is available. MultiversX states this typically happens within the same round at around 100–250 milliseconds, alongside more predictable execution conditions. This matters most for applications that rely on fast feedback loops—examples mentioned include high-frequency DeFi primitives and onchain order book systems, which can degrade when latency becomes a user-experience problem.
Supernova has also been producing 600-millisecond blocks on live testnet and devnet since Aug. 20. The network’s broader objective is to make onchain interactions feel more immediate, shifting the experience closer to responsive application infrastructure rather than delayed settlement.
On timeline, MultiversX indicates mainnet activation is expected for Sept. 10, 2026. While testnet performance does not always translate directly to mainnet behavior under full load, the architecture itself is designed to handle execution lag without forcing every validator to execute first during consensus.
Supernova within the CTDG and Cointelegraph ecosystem
The upgrade also lands within a broader infrastructure collaboration involving Cointelegraph Decentralization Guardians. Earlier coverage noted that Cointelegraph joined MultiversX as a validator through the CTDG program in March 2026, deepening the organization’s operational role beyond content and community work.
Cointelegraph’s CTDG Dev Hub is also described as a MultiversX official partner, connecting the protocol to a wider developer community. The input also references practical involvement such as the MultiversX Foundation delegating to a CTDG validator and the Dev Hub team building a dedicated validator dashboard on MultiversX.
From an industry perspective, this matters because protocol upgrades of this kind often require ecosystem alignment: performance improvements are only meaningful if infrastructure, tooling, and participating validators can adopt new execution and consensus mechanics reliably. Supernova’s focus on backpressure and minimum-spec safeguards suggests the design is attempting to make that transition smoother.
As Supernova moves from testnet toward the projected mainnet date, the most important things for users to watch are whether execution lag remains within expected bounds under real load, and how consistently EIE and backpressure prevent validators from falling behind without overly constraining throughput. The success criteria won’t only be faster finality—it will be whether execution remains dependable when consensus and execution operate on different clocks.
This article was originally published as Upgrade Separates Consensus and Execution to Address Scaling Limits on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed a new regulatory framework for token issuers that, if adopted, would make public token fundraising in the United States more practical—at least for projects able to meet specific conditions. The proposal, unveiled Aug. 18, would introduce exemptions designed for certain “investment contract” offerings involving crypto assets.
At the center of the plan is a larger fundraising exemption that would let qualifying issuers raise up to $75 million in any 12-month period, alongside a smaller one-time exemption for startups. While the changes aim to reduce uncertainty, legal experts say the proposal is unlikely to recreate the unchecked ICO environment of 2017.
Key takeaways
The SEC’s proposal would create a $75 million exemption that renews on a rolling 12-month basis for qualifying public token offerings tied to investment contract analysis.
Issuers could potentially run “serial” fundraising rounds, but later raises would still require new filings and SEC staff review, not a simple repeat of the first approval.
Non-accredited investors would face limits—under the proposal, they could buy no more than 10% of the greater of their income or net worth for the relevant exemption framework.
The SEC’s approach may clarify primary sales, but risks could shift into the secondary market if a token is effectively treated as a securities instrument due to ongoing managerial expectations.
Experts caution that even a formal exemption route could be used in ways that undercut investor protection, leaving retail participants exposed to familiar problems.
A rolling $75 million path for qualifying token sales
According to Cointelegraph’s reporting on the SEC rollout, the SEC proposal would establish two exemptions for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The smaller exemption is a one-time option for startups raising up to $5 million over four years. The larger exemption would allow qualifying issuers to raise up to $75 million during each 12-month period.
The structure is modeled in part on Regulation A, including disclosure and ongoing reporting obligations for issuers that rely on the safe harbor. That matters because a large portion of the market’s compliance burden has historically come from the need to determine whether a token sale is viewed as a securities offering under existing law.
Can issuers raise $75 million repeatedly?
One of the practical questions is whether the rolling nature of the $75 million cap enables projects to return to the market multiple times. Legal professionals cited in the article suggest that it’s possible in concept, though not frictionless.
Drew Hinkes, a partner at Winston & Strawn, told Magazine that the 12-month limitation could support “serial raises” of $75 million every 12 months, “provided they are actually distinct offerings.” In other words, the cap appears designed to be reset on a time-based schedule rather than tied to a single lifecycle event.
However, Lilya Tessler, partner and leader of Sidley’s Global FinTech and Blockchain group, said “nothing prevents an issuer from relying on the exemption more than once,” but each raise is “isn’t automatic.” She explained that any additional fundraising would require a new offering statement and an SEC staff review. Issuers would also have to continue providing annual and semiannual reports, as well as disclose how much was raised under the exemption in the prior 12 months so the SEC can verify the cap’s usage.
For investors, this creates a different fundraising dynamic than the typical single-shot token launch. For example, if a project targets a total of $225 million, the exemption could—at least in theory—allow fundraising in stages while the network develops between rounds. That could make early allocations more meaningful to investors who anticipate later token issuance at a potentially higher valuation as the ecosystem matures.
Will the cap revive ICO-era FOMO?
The idea of a hard funding ceiling raises another concern: whether limited allocation size could intensify demand for early rounds. Reiners, a Duke University lecturing fellow and financial regulation expert, suggested that scarcity could make initial allocations more attractive if investors expect higher valuations in later offerings.
But Reiners also emphasized that the exemption is unlikely to bring back ICO mania. As he put it, the $75 million exemption could make public token offerings more feasible, but it is unlikely to produce a return to the “ICO boom.”
That view is consistent with Tessler’s comparison to traditional securities behavior, where issuers often restrict round sizes. She also highlighted a key investor-protection difference: non-accredited investors would not be able to “go all in” on a single token sale. Under the proposal framework, Tessler said participation would be limited to buying “10% of the greater of their income or net worth,” regardless of which round they choose.
Clarity for token issuers—without a clean return to 2017
The market’s posture toward token fundraising has changed materially since the last major ICO cycle. Reiners pointed to the reputational and economic aftermath of the 2017–2019 period, noting that up to 90% of projects funded via ICOs during those years ended up failing. He argued that fundraising is shaped not just by legal pathways, but also by investor appetite, token economics, liquidity, custody, and lingering damage from the prior cycle.
The SEC’s proposal is also framed, in part, as a manageable shift rather than a floodgate. The SEC estimates that around 130 offerings would use the two new exemptions each year, while around 475 issuers could use the broader investment contract safe harbor. In other words, the agency’s own expectations point to a steady rollout instead of a sudden wave.
For companies, the appeal is that the SEC is proposing an explicit regulatory route rather than leaving issuers to self-assess whether their offerings fit neatly into existing securities-law categories. Crypto lawyer Jake Chervinsky—referenced in the article—characterized the SEC approach as timely.
Secondary-market uncertainty remains a live risk
Even with a clearer primary-sale pathway, the SEC proposal introduces potential complexity when tokens begin trading. The filing indicates that an investment contract tied to a crypto asset could continue transferring to later purchasers in secondary market transactions until the token separates from the issuer’s representations or promises.
The practical effect is that marketing and expectation-setting around “managerial efforts” could matter even after the initial distribution. If the issuer or related parties communicate in a way that leads buyers in secondary markets to reasonably expect profits derived from essential managerial work, the token could be treated as part of an investment contract framework.
Hinkes warned about this dynamic. He said that if a transaction of a non-security covered crypto asset causes the transfer of the investment contract from seller to buyer, there is a risk the later cryptoasset sale could be viewed as a securities transaction. This could be consequential for exchanges and other trading venues that must navigate whether listed tokens implicate securities compliance requirements.
Investor protection concerns could persist under a “form over substance” scenario
Reiners also cautioned that the new structure could be gamed. In his view, a public offering exemption might be used as a vehicle for regulatory arbitrage if issuers satisfy the technical conditions of an exempt sale while continuing to market an asset whose value depends heavily on issuer-led managerial efforts.
That would leave retail investors facing many of the same issues seen during earlier cycles—such as opaque disclosures, concentrated insider holdings, and promotional tactics that can outpace transparency. The proposal may improve the legality of certain token issuances, but it doesn’t automatically solve the broader question of how investor expectations are formed and maintained.
As the SEC moves forward, market participants should watch how the final rule is shaped through the comment and approval process—especially the details tied to secondary market treatment, investor limits, and what constitutes sufficient separation from issuer representations. The proposal could be an important step toward more predictable compliance, but it also shifts some of the key uncertainty to what happens after trading begins.
This article was originally published as SEC’s Proposed Crypto Rules Likely Won’t Restart ICO Growth on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Wall Street research firm Bernstein is forecasting a rebound in Bitcoin, arguing that the recent selloff could mark the transition away from the current bear phase and toward a new advance driven by institutional and corporate participation.
In a research report published Wednesday and seen by Cointelegraph, Bernstein expects Bitcoin to retake its 2025 high and push into fresh cycle highs over the next several years, with targets ranging from $125,000 by late 2026 to as high as $500,000 by the end of the decade under a bull case.
Key takeaways
Bernstein expects Bitcoin to recover toward $125,000 by late 2026, positioning that level as a milestone tied to the firm’s cycle framework.
The base case targets $150,000 by mid-2027 and a cycle peak of about $300,000 in 2029; the bull case ranges up to $500,000 in 2029.
Bernstein maintains a longer-term Bitcoin target of roughly $1 million by 2033 in both scenarios.
The firm links the forecast to Bitcoin’s historical four-year cycle phases and to the relationship between price and miners’ marginal production costs.
Bernstein’s view is also intended to support its outlook on Strategy (the largest corporate Bitcoin holder), suggesting stronger conditions could enable further BTC accumulation.
Why Bernstein thinks the downturn is nearing an end
Bernstein’s argument is rooted in Bitcoin’s historical cycle behavior. The firm said Bitcoin gained 28% over the preceding 10 days after falling roughly 50% from its October 2025 peak, a rebound it says could indicate the end of the present bear cycle.
The report also points to changes in the market’s participant mix. Bernstein said institutional investors and corporate Bitcoin buyers have been playing a larger role, which it argues has provided greater downside support than in earlier cycles. As a result, it cited a smaller drawdown than the roughly 75% to 90% declines seen in previous turnarounds.
For investors, that matters because the cycle thesis implies the timing and character of drawdowns may not repeat identically. Bernstein is not only forecasting higher prices—it is also asserting that the depth of weakness may be structurally different when large, persistent buyers are part of the backdrop.
Cycle-based targets: from $125,000 to as high as $500,000
Bernstein’s pricing model is built on Bitcoin’s historical four-year cadence, which the firm ties to the halving event that reduces the amount of new BTC awarded to miners approximately every four years.
In its framework, each cycle is split into four phases: breakout, hype, drawdown, and accumulation. Bernstein then estimates likely price levels across those phases by comparing Bitcoin’s market pricing to the estimated marginal cost of producing new coins—specifically, the cost for the least efficient miners to mine Bitcoin.
Under the base case, Bernstein expects:
Bitcoin to reach $125,000 by late 2026
$150,000 by mid-2027
about $300,000 at a cycle peak in 2029
Under the bull case, the firm raises the targets to:
$200,000 by mid-2027
$500,000 at a cycle peak in 2029
Bernstein also maintained a long-term target of about $1 million by 2033 under both scenarios.
How marginal production costs are folded into the forecast
Central to Bernstein’s approach is an assumption about the “price-to-marginal cost multiple,” meaning how many times Bitcoin’s price trades relative to miners’ estimated marginal production costs.
The firm said it expects that multiple to behave similarly to previous four-year cycles. In its base-case path, Bernstein projected the multiple falling from 1.4 times at a 2025 peak around $125,000 to roughly 1.25 times at a projected 2029 peak around $300,000, and to about 1.2 times by the $1 million mark in 2033.
This is a key nuance for readers: the forecast doesn’t rely only on generic “cycle hype” or momentum. It attempts to formalize the relationship between network economics and market pricing, which—if the assumptions hold—can help explain why the firm expects higher peaks even as valuation multiples compress over time.
Still, that compression is an assumption. Traders and long-term holders watching this thesis may want to track whether market conditions allow marginal-cost dynamics to remain a meaningful reference point, especially if demand growth, regulatory changes, or changes in miner behavior alter cost structures.
Strategy’s potential to buy more Bitcoin if prices firm up
Bernstein’s report also ties its Bitcoin recovery expectations to Strategy, describing a scenario in which continued strength could improve conditions for additional BTC purchases.
The firm noted that Strategy holds 840,447 BTC, representing about 4% of Bitcoin’s maximum supply of 21 million coins. Bernstein maintained an “Outperform” rating on the company but adjusted its MSTR price target down to $350 from $450, citing accelerated equity dilution and its updated view of the Bitcoin cycle.
Bernstein said that if Bitcoin stays strong—and if Strategy’s Stream (STRC) preferred stock recovers to around $100 (STRC was reported at $97.15 on Tuesday)—the firm believes Strategy could “go kinetic again” with additional Bitcoin buying. Bernstein pointed to a selloff of about 7,000 BTC in 2026 as part of its broader framework.
At the same time, Bernstein’s view is not only about upside. The report referenced analysis from Regime Intelligence arguing that Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury may be less threatened by a market crash than by a prolonged loss of capital-market access. That risk, Regime Intelligence said, could impair Strategy’s ability to fund roughly $1.76 billion in annual obligations without selling BTC.
Put differently, Bernstein is effectively forecasting that the next leg up could improve Strategy’s operational flexibility—but that access to funding channels could still determine how aggressively corporate buyers add to their holdings.
What to watch next
Bernstein’s model puts major milestones—$125,000 in late 2026 and substantially higher cycle targets later—at the center of its thesis. Investors should watch whether Bitcoin’s rebound broadens into sustained strength rather than a short-lived rally, and whether corporate buyers like Strategy can continue adding BTC without being constrained by financing conditions and dilution pressures.
This article was originally published as Bernstein: Bitcoin Set to Retake $125K by Late 2026, Near Cycle Peak on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin has reclaimed the $80,000 area, but on-chain signals suggest the rally is running into a familiar problem: even when buyers show up, sell-side pressure from investors sitting on profits can reappear quickly.
According to on-chain analytics from CryptoQuant, older “long-term holder” coins have become more active around recent local highs, while a widely watched gauge of U.S. demand—the Coinbase premium—remains slightly negative. Together, the data points to a market that can push upward, but struggles to sustain momentum without stronger fresh buying from the U.S.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant data shows the spent output profit ratio (SOPR) for long-term holders rose to 1.48 on Aug. 22, indicating profit-taking-related activity is increasing among older coins.
The SOPR ratio (short-term holders vs. long-term holders) peaked at 1.4 near $79,500—its highest reading since July 25—before slipping to 0.93, implying relative selling dynamics may be shifting back toward short-term holders.
All major holder cohorts are reportedly in profit on aggregate, creating conditions where additional upside requires demand strong enough to absorb profitable supply.
The Coinbase premium index is still negative at -0.015, underscoring that U.S. spot demand has not fully regained strength despite Bitcoin’s local push higher.
Older Bitcoin holders increase on-chain profit-taking signals
CryptoQuant’s monitoring highlights that “older” Bitcoin coins moved on-chain more actively during the latest rise. The firm links this behavior to a period when BTC/USD gained more than 25% over the past week, according to the related market context cited alongside the analysis.
The specific on-chain indicator at the center of the update is the spent output profit ratio (SOPR). SOPR compares the value of recently spent UTXOs against the value at the time those outputs were created. In CryptoQuant’s read, SOPR ticking up to 1.48 on Aug. 22 points to increased movement involving in-profit coins—an environment that often accompanies selling or at least reallocation of positions.
CryptoQuant also points to a second metric: the SOPR ratio, which divides the SOPR of short-term holders (STH) by that of long-term holders (LTH). Here, STH refers to wallets that hold BTC for up to six months, while LTH refers to wallets holding longer than six months.
As price consolidated around $79,500, the SOPR ratio reached 1.4, the highest reading since July 25. In CryptoQuant’s framing, that peak suggested long-term holders were realizing profits at a higher relative rate than short-term holders at that moment.
However, the picture quickly cooled. CryptoQuant later reported the SOPR ratio had fallen to 0.93, saying the shift implies short-term holders’ realized performance is now relatively stronger than long-term holders’ realized performance.
Why the SOPR trend matters for traders near $80,000
Profit-taking signals often show up with a lag: price can rise while the market is still digesting prior positioning, but once more investors become “in profit” enough to consider exits, upward momentum can stall. CryptoQuant notes that the SOPR ratio has been forming a broad downtrend since early 2025. By the end of June, it reportedly hit 0.62—its lowest levels in three years as BTC/USD traded near $58,000.
That earlier low matters because it sets the stage for what investors should watch now. While Bitcoin has only reversed modestly higher since that period, the market has not been able to remain above $80,000, implying the rebound has met persistent resistance from supply and realized profit behavior.
In a key takeaway from CryptoQuant, the firm emphasizes that the market question is less about whether Bitcoin can “briefly touch” $80,000 and more about whether new demand is sufficient to absorb selling from profitable holders. That distinction is important for both short-term traders and longer-term investors: price can reach a level, but the sustainability of the move depends on whether incremental buyers continue stepping in as profit-taking grows.
U.S. demand still weak as Coinbase premium stays negative
While on-chain SOPR metrics describe behavior among existing holders, the Coinbase premium index helps describe demand conditions—particularly from U.S. participants. CryptoQuant tracks the difference between BTC/USDT pricing on Coinbase versus Binance; when the premium is negative, the indicator suggests the U.S. market is not paying a “premium” relative to global liquidity.
In this latest update, CryptoQuant reports the Coinbase premium has failed to return to positive territory and remains negative. The firm says it moved above zero only briefly on hourly time frames as Bitcoin broke above $78,500, but it has not sustained a positive reading.
As of Wednesday, CryptoQuant lists the Coinbase premium at -0.015, compared with -0.094 at the start of August. Even with that improvement, the index remains below zero—an asymmetry that matters because it suggests that despite improving activity and price strength, the broader U.S. buyer base is not yet strong enough to lift demand sentiment into “buying over sellers” territory.
CryptoQuant frames the next signal plainly: whether the premium can cross above zero and remain positive. The firm argues that if Bitcoin continues recovering while the Coinbase premium turns positive, the market could shift from easing selling pressure toward a phase characterized by stronger renewed U.S. spot demand.
What to monitor next: holder profits versus fresh inflows
For now, CryptoQuant’s data points to a market where holder cohorts are, in aggregate, already in profit—meaning there is potential for realized selling to reappear during pullbacks or consolidation. At the same time, the Coinbase premium suggests U.S. spot demand is still not fully supporting sustained breakout conditions.
Going forward, investors should watch whether the SOPR ratio stabilizes rather than continues sliding, and whether the Coinbase premium can hold above zero. Those two developments—profit-taking dynamics among holders and persistent demand signals from U.S. trading venues—may determine whether $80,000 becomes a new floor or remains a ceiling.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Struggles Below $80K as Analysts Highlight Supply Absorption Test on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.