BITZ0

DAI still exists, still holds its peg, and still does one thing its official successor does not. For anyone who chose decentralised money deliberately, that one thing is the whole reason to keep using it.
DAI and USDS, Side by Side
The Sky rebrand landed on 27 August 2024, when MakerDAO renamed, launching USDS alongside the original token.

DAI
USDS
Freeze function in code
No
Yes
Launched
2017
August 2024
Savings rate access
Via conversion
Direct, through sUSDS
Governance token
MKR, converting to SKY
SKY
Dominant on L2s
Yes, via canonical bridges
Native on Ethereum, Base, Solana
Conversion
1:1, no fee, either direction
1:1, no fee, either direction
Row one matters, and it was the most contested part of the rebrand.
The Freeze Function
USDS contains code giving Sky discretion to halt transfers from a holder's wallet. That is a deliberate design choice, intended to let the protocol respond to illicit use, and it drew immediate criticism from users who read it as the opposite of what a decentralised stablecoin is for.
Rune Christensen addressed the objection directly, assuring users that an unfreezable version of DAI would continue to exist after the USDS transition. It has.
So the two tokens are not the old version and the new version in any simple sense. They are two products with different properties, and the property separating them is the one a self-custody user is most likely to care about.
If the reason you hold a decentralised stablecoin is that nobody can reach into your wallet, DAI is the one that still delivers that and USDS is not.
That distinction lands harder in a gambling context than almost anywhere else, because the people funding non-custodial casinos are frequently the same people who chose self-custody on principle.
Everything Else Stayed Put
Worth saying, because the rebrand was widely misread as a shutdown.
All existing Maker contracts remained live. DAI vaults are still open, the peg stability module still operates, and conversion between DAI and USDS runs through the SkyMoneyConverter at a fixed 1:1 rate with no fee in either direction. MKR converts to SKY at 1 to 24,000.
Nothing was deprecated. A holder who ignored the entire rebrand and kept using DAI has lost nothing and given up only the direct sUSDS savings access, which is reachable by converting when wanted.
Where DAI Is Still the Deeper Market
A practical point that decides which token a cashier actually carries.
Native USDS has launched on Ethereum, Base, and Solana.
But DAI bridged to Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Gnosis Chain through legacy canonical bridges remains the dominant Sky stablecoin on those networks, and until USDS reaches parity coverage, applications default to whatever has the deepest local liquidity.
Often that is still DAI. Which is why a casino supporting Polygon or Arbitrum is more likely to list DAI than USDS, and why the older token has more cashier presence than its market position suggests. Cost and availability differ by coin and rail, and DAI's multi-chain footprint is its practical advantage.
Casinos Taking DAI
Ordered on how flexibly each handles stablecoin funding across chains.
Dexsport runs a multi-coin, multi-network cashier and adds nothing above the network fee, so the chain you choose determines the cost and the platform takes no cut of it. Two things make it a natural fit for a DAI holder specifically. It is non-custodial, so settled play returns to a wallet you control, which pairs logically with holding the stablecoin that cannot be frozen. And its weekly cashback pays in stablecoins on net losses, so the rebate arrives without price movement attached. Anjouan licence, lighter than Curacao or Malta.
Stake supports a broad stablecoin list with per-asset withdrawal minimums published clearly, operating custodially at large scale.
BC.Game offers wide multi-chain stablecoin coverage under reformed Curacao licensing, with documentation good enough to confirm which networks carry DAI before you deposit.
Cloudbet has traded since 2013 with its company named on a Curacao licence and handles stablecoin funding at higher limits than most.
Vave carries conventional multi-coin funding with thinner published detail on specific network support.
The recurring caution applies here as with any multi-chain asset: supporting DAI and supporting DAI on your chain are different claims, and a cashier that lists the token without naming networks has answered half the question.
How a platform handles deposits and withdrawals is worth confirming before the first transfer.
Choosing Between Them
For the savings rate and the current Sky roadmap, USDS is the token designed for it, and conversion is free in either direction
For a balance no issuer can freeze, DAI is the one that still delivers it
For a dollar-denominated balance that no issuer can freeze, DAI remains the one that offers it, and its multi-chain support across Layer 2 networks is the wider of the two where casino deposits cost least.
Both hold the peg. The difference is control, and only you can weigh how much that is worth.
Confirm what is legal where you live, keep stakes within a set budget, and play only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply.
Responsible gambling is unaffected by which stablecoin funds an account, and a balance that holds its value is exactly as easy to lose at the tables as one that does not.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to hold or transact in any token. Protocol features, chain coverage and casino support change, so confirm current details before transferring. Betting carries risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please gamble responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

MarsDAO is a small token with a specific problem for anyone planning to deposit it at a casino: another token uses the same ticker.
That is the first thing to sort out, and there are three more worth knowing before the funds leave your wallet.
The Token Itself
MarsDAO launched in February 2022 as a BEP-20 token on BNB Smart Chain, built around a community DAO model with deflationary tokenomics and a maximum supply capped at 100 million.
The ecosystem includes a launchpad and yield automation tools, and the contracts carry audits from CertiK and Paladin. Roughly 105,000 addresses hold the token. The founders are not publicly disclosed.
By market capitalisation it sits well down the rankings, reported between roughly $1.4 million and $4 million depending on when and where you look, with daily trading volume typically in the tens of thousands of dollars across about five exchanges.
Those are not criticisms. They are the numbers, and they determine everything in the next section.
Four Checks Before You Deposit
Each of these is specific to a token of this size.
Verify the Contract Address, Not the Ticker
A second BEP-20 token called Martian DAO also trades under MDAO, at a completely different contract address and with a fraction of the market capitalisation.
Ticker collisions are common with smaller assets and the ticker is not a unique identifier. The contract address is. MarsDAO's is 0x60322971a672B81BccE5947706D22c19dAeCf6Fb, and confirming it in your wallet before adding the token takes about ten seconds.
Sending the wrong MDAO to a casino that supports the other one is a loss with no recovery path, and the two look identical in a wallet that only shows the symbol.
Understand What Thin Liquidity Does
Daily volume in the tens of thousands means the order book is shallow, and shallow books move on small trades.
That matters in two places. Converting a meaningful balance into MDAO can move the price against you on the way in, and converting back out can do the same on the way out. Neither has anything to do with the casino, and both are costs you pay for using a micro-cap as a payment rail.
It also means the price you see quoted may not be the price you get, particularly on a decentralised exchange with limited depth.
Confirm the Network Every Time
MDAO is BEP-20, so deposits travel on BNB Smart Chain. Not Ethereum, not Polygon.
Select BNB Smart Chain in the cashier, generate the address fresh in that session, and confirm the network matches in both your wallet and the deposit screen.
Sending a BEP-20 token to an address generated for a different chain is the commonest way crypto deposits vanish, and small tokens offer no recovery route when it happens.
Decide Whether to Deposit It At All
The question worth asking honestly, because for most players the answer points one way.
A casino balance denominated in a micro-cap carries price risk unrelated to the games you are playing. A token that moves 40% in a week, as MDAO has, can erase or inflate a bankroll independently of any bet placed.
If you hold MDAO and want to play, converting to a major asset or a stablecoin before depositing removes that second layer of exposure. If you specifically want the token exposure, holding it in your own wallet and funding the casino separately achieves the same thing with more control.
Depositing the token directly makes sense mainly when a platform gives it a specific role, such as a bonus or programme tied to holding it.
Where the Token Is Supported
Platforms carrying MDAO or BEP-20 assets broadly, ordered on cashier flexibility.
Dexsport runs a multi-coin, multi-network cashier covering BNB Smart Chain among other rails, and adds nothing above the network fee. Non-custodial, so settled play returns to a wallet you hold instead of accumulating in an operator balance, which for a volatile asset means you decide when to convert instead of leaving it exposed in an account. Anjouan licence, lighter than Curacao or Malta.
BC.Game offers wide coin support including a long BEP-20 list, under reformed Curacao licensing with named beneficial owners on record.
Stake carries a large asset list with per-asset withdrawal minimums published, which matters more with small tokens since a minimum denominated in units can be substantial in value terms.
Vave supports multi-chain funding across a conventional catalogue, with thinner documentation on which specific tokens are live.
Mega Dice provides BNB Chain support through a Telegram-first product, documenting its cashier options less clearly than the platforms above.
Support for small tokens changes frequently, so confirm on the platform itself instead of in any article, including this one. The signs of an operator worth avoiding matter more when the asset is obscure, since a fake site listing an unusual token is targeting a smaller and more trusting audience.
Before You Send Anything
Check the contract address, not the symbol
Send on BNB Smart Chain, and nowhere else
Expect slippage on any meaningful conversion in or out
Decide whether you want a bankroll that moves on its own
How a platform handles funds is a separate question from what the asset does while you hold it.
Confirm what is legal where you live, keep stakes within a set budget, and play only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply.
Responsible gambling connects to volatile deposits in a specific way: a balance that grew because the token moved is not a winning session, and treating market movement as a result is a dependable way to misjudge how you are actually doing.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to buy, hold or transact in any token. Figures cited are as reported by third-party trackers and vary by source and date. Cryptoasset prices are volatile and small-capitalisation tokens carry liquidity risk. Token support varies by operator and changes. Betting carries risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please gamble responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

Industry recognition highlights AML RightSource's expertise in helping organizations navigate evolving crypto and digital asset regulations
HIGHLAND HILLS, Ohio, Sept. 17, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- AML RightSource, a global expert solutions provider of financial crime compliance managed services and advisory solutions, has been recognized by CobraSight with a 2026 Crypto & Digital Assets Growth Partner Award in the Licensing & Compliance category. The award recognizes firms that demonstrate deep expertise, specialization, and experience supporting organizations operating within the digital asset ecosystem.
As digital assets continue to move further into the financial mainstream, organizations face an increasingly complex regulatory environment. New and evolving requirements across jurisdictions are raising expectations around anti-money laundering, financial crime compliance, governance, licensing, and risk management.
AML RightSource helps digital asset businesses, financial institutions, fintechs, and other regulated organizations navigate these challenges through a combination of managed services, advisory support, investigations, transaction monitoring, sanctions compliance, and broader financial crime risk management expertise.
"Digital assets have rapidly evolved from a niche market to an increasingly important part of the global financial ecosystem," said Steve Meirink, Chief Executive Officer of AML RightSource.
"As digital assets continue to gain broader adoption, organizations face increasing pressure to balance innovation with strong compliance and risk management practices. We're proud to support our clients as they navigate that challenge, helping them build programs that meet evolving regulatory expectations while enabling sustainable growth."
"This award reflects the expertise and commitment of our global team. Every day, our professionals work alongside clients to solve complex compliance challenges, strengthen trust, and create the foundation for long-term success."
AML RightSource has more than 7,000 professionals globally, providing financial crime compliance expertise across North America, EMEA, and APAC. The firm's capabilities span anti-money laundering, Know Your Customer (KYC), sanctions compliance, transaction monitoring, fraud prevention, investigations, regulatory remediation, and advisory services for highly regulated industries.
According to CobraSight, more than 350 vendors were evaluated through an independent research process, with winners selected based on specialization, industry expertise, client experience, and support for organizations operating in regulated markets.
About AML RightSource
AML RightSource is a global leader in financial crime compliance and risk management. Delivering tailored solutions through expert professionals to support AML, KYC, EDD, and more. We help clients meet compliance demands, manage risk, and navigate regulatory change with confidence. www.amlrightsource.com.
Disclaimer: This is a sponsored press release and is for informational purposes only. It does not reflect the views of Bitzo, nor is it intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.

Celsius entities, represented by Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium, filed a complaint on September 12 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York against five BitMEX-linked companies, alleging fraud, market manipulation, wrongful liquidation and conversion involving 6,360.1666 BTC. The filing turns disputed liquidations during the March 2020 Bitcoin crash into a claim by the Celsius estate for the return of Bitcoin and additional damages.
Celsius estate files bankruptcy complaint
The complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York, according to an OffshoreAlert court-filing listing. It names five companies linked to BitMEX, though the supplied filing record does not identify them individually.
The allegations concern liquidations during the sharp market downturn of March 12–13, 2020. The estate alleges that the defendants' actions improperly disposed of Bitcoin collateral and seeks remedies through Celsius' bankruptcy proceedings.
Celsius collateral and JST liquidations
Celsius collateral accounted for 1,325.84 BTC allegedly liquidated on March 12, 2020, while investment fund JST accounted for another 5,034.33 BTC allegedly liquidated the following day, according to Cointelegraph.
JST later assigned its related claims to the Celsius estate, bringing both alleged losses into the estate’s action. The action cites 6,360.1666 BTC in total.
Allegations over liquidation controls
According to CoinDesk, the Celsius estate alleges that BitMEX controlled the prices that triggered liquidations, the liquidation engine and the platform’s insurance fund.
The estate also alleges that certain liquidation sell orders were filled at prices more than 24% below the next-best ask on the platform.
Together, the assertions support the complaint’s claims of manipulation and wrongful liquidation. They remain allegations in a civil complaint.
Estate seeks Bitcoin return and damages
The estate is seeking the return of at least 6,360.16 BTC or its equivalent value. It also seeks statutory, punitive and potentially treble damages, profits and legal costs, Cointelegraph reported.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

The House Financial Services Committee advanced H.R. 8957, the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026, by a 28–21 vote on September 16, sending legislation intended to place the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve on a statutory footing toward consideration by the full House. The committee’s official markup agenda listed the bill for consideration that day, while Unchained reported the vote tally.
House Financial Services Committee advances H.R. 8957
The committee action is a procedural step, not final enactment. H.R. 8957 must still be considered by the full House before it could advance further through Congress.
The measure is titled the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026. Its central purpose is to turn a bitcoin-reserve policy established by executive action into a program created under federal law.
H.R. 8957 sets 20-year bitcoin holding rule
Under the bill text, the Treasury secretary would be directed to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate Digital Asset Stockpile. The distinction would place bitcoin in its own reserve structure rather than treating it solely as part of a broader pool of digital assets.
Bitcoin held by the federal government would be subject to a minimum 20-year holding period. The legislation also places restrictions on the sale or other disposal of those holdings, according to the introduced bill text published by the Government Publishing Office.
The holding requirement would make the reserve a long-duration federal program if enacted, limiting the Treasury’s ability to liquidate bitcoin within that period except as permitted under the measure’s terms.
Bill would codify Executive Order 14233
The legislative effort concerns the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve established under Executive Order 14233, signed on March 6, 2025. H.R. 8957 seeks to convert that executive-created arrangement into a statutory federal program, according to the legislative record cited by the House Office of the Law Revision Counsel.
That shift matters because executive orders can be changed by a later administration, while a statutory reserve would require congressional action to alter or repeal. The bill’s 20-year bitcoin holding provision would be among the operating constraints written into that framework.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Payward said Sept. 16 that it plans to deploy onchain perpetual futures for U.S. clients, beginning with permissioned markets built under Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework.
The proposed products would use a distinct U.S. market structure. They would not make Hyperliquid’s existing perpetual markets available in the country; access would depend on regulated exchange, clearing and account arrangements.
The plan remains subject to regulatory approval and does not yet open the products to U.S. customers, according to Payward.
Bitnomial and NinjaTrader market structure
Bitnomial Exchange would create and administer the HIP-3 permissioned markets under CFTC-regulated rules, Payward said. Bitnomial Clearinghouse would clear and settle the contracts, and NinjaTrader Clearing would carry client accounts.
Access would require clients to have futures accounts and approval from both NinjaTrader Clearing and Bitnomial, CoinDesk reported.
The proposal describes an onchain perpetual-futures deployment, not participation by U.S. clients in Hyperliquid’s existing markets. Those roles and requirements would form the proposed exchange, clearing and customer-account structure.
Launch timing and commercial terms
No launch date, fee schedule, expected trading volume or revenue-sharing arrangement with Hyperliquid has been disclosed. CoinDesk reported the omissions.
Payward’s proposed structure would use permissioned Hyperliquid HIP-3 markets administered by Bitnomial Exchange, cleared and settled by Bitnomial Clearinghouse, with client accounts carried by NinjaTrader Clearing.
The offering remains subject to regulatory approval, and individual U.S. clients would need approval from both NinjaTrader Clearing and Bitnomial. Payward said the plans remain subject to that approval, leaving timing and availability unresolved.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

The MATIC migration was completed two years ago, and a surprising number of cashiers have not caught up. Some list POL, some still say MATIC, and a few show both.
Knowing which you are holding and which network you are sending on is most of what goes wrong here.
Five Things the Migration Left Behind
The upgrade is essentially finished. The confusion is not.
MATIC became POL on 4 September 2024, at a 1:1 ratio. By September 2025 the migration was 99% complete, and POL is now the native gas and staking token on Polygon PoS.
Holders on Polygon did nothing. Tokens sitting on the Polygon chain converted automatically. Nobody had to act, which is why many people never noticed the change happened.
Holders on Ethereum had to migrate manually. MATIC held as an ERC-20 on Ethereum required a trip through Polygon Portal to swap it. Anyone who left tokens there and forgot may still be holding the old asset.
Your wallet may still say MATIC. Polygon's own documentation notes that no manual migration is required, but the currency symbol will keep displaying MATIC unless you change it yourself in the network settings. So a wallet reading MATIC and a cashier reading POL can be describing the same balance.
Exchanges are still finishing. Some venues only completed the switch in August 2026, delisting MATIC afterwards and warning that deposits sent post-cutoff would not be credited automatically. If you are moving tokens from an exchange, check which asset it thinks you hold.
The Network Selection Problem
This is where deposits actually fail, and it is worth being precise about.
POL exists on both Polygon and Ethereum. Same token, two networks, and a casino cashier will generate a different deposit address for each.
Select Ethereum in the dropdown and send on Polygon, or the reverse, and the funds land at an address the operator may hold no key for. That is the standard failure mode and it has nothing to do with the migration.
The fix is mechanical: generate the deposit address fresh from the network you intend to send on, in the same session, and confirm the network name matches in both your wallet and the cashier before confirming. Costs and failure modes differ by coin and rail, and this one is entirely avoidable.
Polygon Suits Casino Play
The chain's characteristics line up well with how people actually use a casino balance.
Sub-cent fees matter here when you are adding to a bankroll in small amounts instead of moving a position once. Monthly transactions reached an all-time high of 204 million in February 2026, so the network handles volume without the congestion pricing that catches Ethereum users.
It is also the second most active chain by USDC addresses, with stablecoin supply hitting an all-time high of $3.28 billion in February 2026.
USDC holds 51.1% of that, USDT 27.8% and USDS 19.5%. For a player who wants to fund in POL and hold a balance in something stable, the swap liquidity is there on the same chain.
Where to Use It
Casinos supporting Polygon as a network, ordered by how cleanly the cashier handles it.
Dexsport runs a multi-coin, multi-network cashier and adds nothing above the network fee, so a Polygon deposit costs what the chain charges and no more. Being non-custodial, settled play returns to a wallet you hold instead of sitting in an operator balance. Demo mode covers much of the library if you want to check a game's configured return before staking. Anjouan licence, lighter than Curacao or Malta.
Stake supports a wide asset list with per-asset withdrawal minimums published clearly, which is the figure that decides whether a small Polygon balance can leave. Custodial.
BC.Game offers broad coin and network support under reformed Curacao licensing, with documentation thorough enough to confirm network options before depositing.
Rollbit provides wallet-forward access with operator-held balances during play and a narrower catalogue.
Vave carries multi-chain funding with thinner published documentation than the platforms above.
Support for a coin and support for a network are separate questions, and a cashier listing POL without saying which chain is telling you half of what you need. How a platform handles deposits and withdrawals varies more than the coin list suggests.
Before Your First Polygon Deposit
Three checks, and the first takes ten seconds.
Check your wallet's symbol, since the balance may be correct while the label still reads MATIC
Select the Polygon network explicitly in the cashier instead of assuming
Send a small test transfer on any platform you have not used, which costs a fraction of a cent here
Confirm what is legal where you live, keep stakes within a set budget, and play only if you are of legal age, since KYC or AML checks may apply.
Responsible gambling has a quiet connection to cheap networks: when a deposit costs nothing to make, the friction that used to space out deposits disappears, and the running total is worth watching more closely than the fee.


Disclaimer: The information here is provided for general purposes only and is not legal, tax, investment, or financial advice. Network support, token symbols and cashier options vary by operator and change, so confirm current details before transferring. Crypto transfers are irreversible and funds sent on an unsupported network are often unrecoverable. Betting carries risk, and rules vary by country, so check the law where you live. Please gamble responsibly, within your means, and only if you are of legal age.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 17 issued a temporary, conditional “Innovation Exemption” permitting certain Tokenized Securities Venues to trade tokenized National Market System stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. The move opens a defined regulatory route for eligible blockchain-based trading systems rather than granting a blanket authorization for tokenized equities.
Five-year exemption for tokenized stock venues
The exemption provides a five-year pathway for qualifying blockchain venues and automated liquidity providers to operate without immediate treatment as conventional exchanges or dealers under specified securities laws, according to Axios.
That distinction is central to the SEC’s approach. The relief is directed at a defined group of qualifying venues and liquidity providers, not every platform that may seek to offer blockchain-based representations of U.S. stocks.
Permissioned AMMs and liquidity pools
The SEC’s framework specifically addresses tokenized National Market System stocks traded through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. In its September 17 announcement, the agency described the covered platforms as Tokenized Securities Venues, or TSVs.
The stated trading model covered by the exemption includes permissioned systems, but the announcement does not present the relief as unrestricted approval for onchain equity trading or for conventional exchange operations conducted on a blockchain.
Temporary conditions and public comment
The SEC said the relief is both temporary and conditional and is seeking public comment on potential modifications as well as longer-term regulatory action for onchain trading, according to the agency’s September 17 statement.
For now, the five-year route described in reporting remains part of the SEC’s conditional, time-limited relief, while the request for comment leaves the framework open to revision as participants and the public weigh in on a more durable approach.
SEC’s case for tokenization in market infrastructure
The SEC characterized tokenization as potentially capable of modernizing securities issuance, trading, settlement and ownership records, while reducing costs and improving transparency and liquidity, according to a September 17 communication. Those were stated potential benefits, not assurances of outcomes.
Separately, the SEC requested comment on possible modifications and longer-term rules for onchain trading alongside the temporary relief, leaving the framework open to further development.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

O primeiro aumento de juros do Federal Reserve desde julho de 2023 aconteceu com pouca interrupção imediata nos dois maiores ativos de cripto. O Bitcoin negociou aproximadamente entre US$ 75.000 e US$ 76.500 em torno da decisão de 16 de setembro e estava perto de US$ 75.600 quando foi reportado, enquanto o Ether ficou entre cerca de US$ 2.370 e US$ 2.430. Essa resposta contida sugere que a própria alta de um quarto de ponto foi, em grande medida, esperada.
Para cripto, a questão é menos o aperto marginal da configuração anterior para uma faixa-alvo de 3,75% a 4,00% do que a perspectiva de operar com um custo de capital persistentemente mais alto. Os rendimentos de Treasuries de longo prazo agora oferecem retornos que competem diretamente com posições especulativas. Ainda assim, o Fed também instruiu o Federal Reserve de Nova York a comprar letras do Tesouro conforme apropriado para manter reservas amplas. O resultado é uma tensão entre taxas mais altas e a gestão de reservas, que complica a leitura simples de que “aperto do Fed equivale a menos liquidez em cripto”.

Promotores federais em Manhattan, em 15 de setembro, acusaram os ex-engenheiros da Robinhood Hefu Chai e Huaisong “Jerry” Xiang de fraude de commodities e fraude eletrônica, alegando que eles negociaram cripto futuros perpétuos na Hyperliquid usando informações confidenciais sobre futuras listagens de tokens da Robinhood. O Gabinete do Procurador dos EUA para o Distrito Sul de Nova York afirmou que cada réu teria feito mais de US$ 50.000; as acusações trazem penas máximas de 10 anos por fraude de commodities e 20 anos por fraude eletrônica.

Stablecoin supply reached $303 billion in August 2026, up 6% year-over-year from $285 billion, according to Allium data reported by CoinDesk. Over the first eight months of 2026, identified stablecoin payment volume stood between $401 billion and $527 billion, up 42% to 63% on the previous year—a reading that isolates payment activity from the much larger universe of on-chain transfers.
That distinction is central to interpreting the figures. Allium separates identifiable payments from transfer activity associated with trading, derivatives, protocol mechanics and intermediary routing.
Data Snapshot
MetricCurrentPreviousChangePeriodAs ofSourceStablecoin supply$303 billion$285 billionup 6% year-over-yearAugust 2026August 2026CoinDeskStablecoin payment volumebetween $401 billion and $527 billion—up 42% to 63% on the previous yearfirst eight months of 2026August 2026CoinDeskExchange-held stablecoin supply$89 billion——August 2026August 2026CoinDeskDeFi-held stablecoin supply$26 billion——August 2026August 2026CoinDeskTotal stablecoin transfer volume$85 trillion——January to August 2026August 2026CoinDesk
Identified payments reached between $401 billion and $527 billion
The $401 billion to $527 billion estimate covers the first eight months of 2026 and refers specifically to identified stablecoin payments. Its 42% to 63% increase on the previous year points to growth in the labeled payment segment rather than in every stablecoin transaction recorded on-chain.
Allium’s September 2026 report analyzes more than $300 billion in labeled stablecoin payment volume across more than 150 blockchains from 2024 to 2026. The scope reflects an effort to classify payment use rather than treat raw transfer counts or values as evidence of commercial settlement.
Business-to-business transfers led payment activity
Business-to-business transfers were the largest stablecoin payment lane, with businesses receiving 58% to 64% of identified payments, according to the reported Allium breakdown.
The range applies to recipients within the identified-payment dataset, not to all stablecoin transfers. Allium’s broader methodology includes non-payment categories such as trading, derivatives, protocol mechanics and intermediary routing.
Supply remained concentrated with two issuers
Allium’s August 2026 breakdown showed Tether and Circle accounting for 85% of total stablecoin supply. Total supply was $303 billion, compared with $285 billion a year earlier.
Distribution data also showed $89 billion of stablecoin supply held on exchanges, versus $26 billion held in DeFi in August 2026, according to CoinDesk’s account of Allium’s figures. Those holdings describe where supply was held in the reported breakdown; they do not by themselves identify the purpose of each balance.
The $85 trillion transfer figure covers a broader activity base
Total stablecoin transfer volume reached $85 trillion from January to August 2026. That is not comparable one-for-one with the $401 billion to $527 billion identified-payment estimate: the transfer total also includes trading, derivatives, protocol mechanics and intermediary routing.
Allium and BCG describe the distinction in their methodology discussion, arguing that raw transfer volume is broader than payment activity. The two measures therefore show different parts of stablecoin use: a labeled payments market led by business-to-business flows, and an aggregate transfer market with substantial non-payment activity.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Uma carteira Safe perdeu aproximadamente 2.900 rsETH — avaliados em cerca de US$ 7,73 milhões — em uma transação envolvendo uma rota maliciosa de hook do Uniswap v4 às 04:38:47 UTC de 15 de setembro.
A transação removeu os ativos da carteira 0x40E93a52F6Af9fCD3b476aeDADD7FeABD9f7AbA8, de acordo com o registro da carteira no Etherscan. No mesmo bloco, um bot de MEV conhecido como Yoink fez o front-run do exploit e capturou o rsETH extraído, de acordo com uma reconstrução divulgada pelo Cointelegraph.
Os ativos foram interceptados durante a execução do exploit, em vez de permanecerem com a rota aparente do exploit.

O número central no caso da Casa Branca para restringir o rendimento de stablecoins não é grande: US$ 2,1 bilhões em empréstimos adicionais a bancos dos EUA. Isso é 0,02% do total de empréstimos bancários no modelo-base dela. Para bancos comunitários, o ganho projetado é de cerca de US$ 500 milhões, ou 0,026%.
Essas estimativas não mostram que o rendimento de stablecoins seja irrelevante para os bancos. No entanto, elas tornam difícil apresentar uma proibição como uma medida significativa de expansão de crédito no curto prazo, com base nas próprias suposições da administração. A mesma análise estima uma perda anual líquida de bem-estar de cerca de US$ 800 milhões, com custos que excedem o benefício de empréstimos modelado em 6,6 vezes.

Handicaps de rúgbi vão até quinze e vinte pontos, enquanto handicaps de futebol vão até um. Essa diferença não é apenas estética, e muda quais partes do quadro de rúgbi merecem sua atenção.
O rugby de clubes francês adiciona dois detalhes a mais que a maior parte da cobertura de apostas ignora completamente.
Quatro características que moldam um quadro de rúgbi
Cada uma se comporta de forma diferente do equivalente no futebol.
Handicaps são grandes e meio ponto importa menos
Uma partida de rúgbi pode terminar 38-12. Os handicaps são dimensionados de acordo, e uma linha de quinze ou vinte pontos é totalmente comum.

A França proíbe jogos de cassino online de forma absoluta. Não é restrito, nem licenciado sob condições rígidas. Caixas/slots, roleta, blackjack e baccarat são proibidos para operadores privados, e a França compartilha essa posição com Chipre, apenas, em toda a União Europeia.
Tudo sobre cassinos de cripto e jogadores franceses decorre desse único fato.
Nada aqui é aconselhamento jurídico, e qualquer pessoa com uma pergunta específica deve falar com um profissional na França.
Seis coisas que o arcabouço da ANJ estabelece
A Autorité Nationale des Jeux regula o jogo online na França, e sua posição é incomumente clara.

A aposta em Ligue 1 tem um problema estrutural: um clube dominou o futebol francês por grande parte da década passada, e essa dominação faz algo específico no mercado de apostas: desloca toda a incerteza genuína para os lugares que ninguém está observando.
Dezoito clubes, uma quase certeza, e dezessete perguntas interessantes por baixo dela.
Onde a atenção está contra onde a incerteza está
Estas duas coisas deveriam se alinhar, e não se alinham.

Onde as casas concentram profundidade
Onde a incerteza realmente está
Títulos direto

O fundador da Uniswap, Hayden Adams, disse em 15 de setembro que agregadores — e não o design de hooks da Uniswap — são responsáveis por evitar hooks maliciosos, ampliando uma disputa desencadeada pela análise da 0x no dia anterior. A The Defiant informou que a Uniswap disse que sua API usa hooks validados.
A resposta veio após a afirmação da 0x de que mais da metade dos hooks da Uniswap v4 que ela estudou eram maliciosos, colocando o foco nos riscos de execução para agregadores que roteiam negociações pelo ecossistema permissionless de hooks.
A 0x classifica 54,2% dos hooks como maliciosos

Em 15 de setembro, o HM Treasury apresentou ao Parlamento a legislação final para alterar as regulamentações do Reino Unido sobre criptoativos, propondo uma isenção restrita para certas atividades de pagamentos com stablecoins antes de o regime mais amplo entrar em vigor em outubro de 2027. A medida removeria várias permissões de negociação de criptoativos para transferências e trocas de stablecoins qualificadas emitidas por empresas autorizadas do Reino Unido, mantendo, porém, a salvaguarda tipo custódia e as atividades de empréstimo reguladas.
A proposta do HM Treasury para uma isenção de pagamentos com stablecoins

O Senado, em 15 de setembro, rejeitou uma moção para avançar com o H.R. 3633, a Lei de Clareza para Mercados de Ativos Digitais (Digital Asset Market Clarity Act), ficando aquém do limite necessário para começar a análise do projeto. A votação de encerramento (cloture) foi de 49 a 50 às 14h19 (horário de Brasília), sendo exigidas 60 votos, de acordo com a chamada nominal oficial do Senado.
O resultado significa que o Senado não tomou medidas para analisar o projeto de lei, representando um revés para o esforço de criar uma estrutura federal abrangente para mercados de ativos digitais.
Votação de cloture encerra a consideração do H.R. 3633
A votação tratou de cloture sobre a moção para prosseguir, e não da aprovação final da Lei CLARITY. Mas não superar esse obstáculo processual impediu a Câmara de avançar para analisar o H.R. 3633.

A Chainflip disse em 15 de setembro que corrigiu a vulnerabilidade de TRON USDT por trás de um ataque que drenou 736.442,17 USDT do seu cofre TRON, e detalhou uma reinicialização em etapas da rede que inicialmente excluirá as trocas (swaps) de TRON. A correção foi projetada para impedir que memorandos anexados a chamadas de contratos encapsulados (wrapped) gerem trocas ou reembolsos duplicados, de acordo com a atualização do protocolo.
O anúncio desloca o incidente de uma paralisação emergencial para um retorno limitado de serviço, enquanto mantém a rota TRON afetada fora do reinício inicial.