Coinbase Chief Executive Brian Armstrong has said the company remains open to additional acquisitions after its $2.9 billion Deribit deal, signaling that the largest publicly traded U.S. crypto exchange is prepared to use its balance sheet and public-market position to accelerate growth. Speaking on Bloomberg Television, Armstrong said Coinbase is “always looking” at merger and acquisition opportunities, while emphasizing that the company would remain selective. He said Coinbase has a large balance sheet that can be put to use and noted that being a public company gives it a liquid currency for dealmaking. The comments came after Coinbase agreed to buy Deribit, one of the world’s largest crypto derivatives exchanges, in a transaction announced in May 2025 and later completed in August 2025. The Deribit acquisition was valued at approximately $2.9 billion when announced, consisting of $700 million in cash and about 11 million shares of Coinbase Class A common stock, subject to customary adjustments. The deal gave Coinbase a major position in global crypto options, a market where Deribit had been the dominant venue for Bitcoin and Ether options trading. By the time the transaction closed, Coinbase said Deribit had posted July 2025 trading volumes above $185 billion and approximately $60 billion in open interest. The acquisition made Coinbase a broader global derivatives platform, combining spot trading, futures and options under one corporate structure. Derivatives Become Coinbase’s Expansion Priority Armstrong’s comments show that Coinbase sees acquisitions as a strategic tool rather than a one-off response to market opportunity. The company has increasingly positioned itself as an “everything exchange” for digital assets, expanding beyond spot crypto trading into derivatives, payments, custody, staking, stablecoins and tokenized assets. Deribit fits that strategy because derivatives have become one of the largest and most profitable segments of crypto market structure. Options trading is particularly important for institutional investors, market makers and professional traders seeking hedging, volatility exposure and structured strategies. For Coinbase, adding Deribit strengthens its ability to compete with offshore exchanges that have historically dominated global crypto derivatives volume. The deal also reflects a broader post-2024 shift in crypto mergers and acquisitions. Stronger digital asset prices, improved regulatory sentiment in the United States and rising institutional participation have encouraged larger companies to buy infrastructure, licenses and product capabilities rather than build everything internally. Coinbase’s public listing gives it a funding advantage over many private crypto competitors. Stock-based transactions allow the company to pursue large acquisitions without relying entirely on cash, although they can also create shareholder dilution and expose deal value to equity-market volatility. Regulatory and Integration Risks Remain The company’s acquisition strategy still carries risks. Derivatives markets are more complex than spot trading and face greater regulatory scrutiny, particularly when products are offered across multiple jurisdictions. Coinbase must integrate Deribit’s international operations while managing differences in regulatory treatment between U.S. and non-U.S. crypto derivatives markets. Armstrong has indicated that international opportunities remain a focus, especially companies that can accelerate product development and business growth. That approach could lead Coinbase toward targets in derivatives, payments, tokenization, custody or infrastructure, where acquisitions can expand the platform faster than organic development. The regulatory implications are significant. As Coinbase grows through acquisition, it is likely to face closer attention from regulators assessing market concentration, customer protection, derivatives risk management and cross-border compliance. The company’s ability to absorb acquired platforms while maintaining compliance standards will be central to whether its M&A strategy strengthens or complicates its long-term position. For investors, Armstrong’s remarks suggest Coinbase is preparing for a more aggressive phase of consolidation in digital assets. The Deribit deal established the company as a major derivatives player. Future acquisitions could determine whether Coinbase becomes a full-service global crypto financial platform or remains primarily a U.S.-anchored exchange adapting to a rapidly consolidating market.

Kalshi is reportedly in advanced talks to raise new funding at a valuation of about $40 billion, marking another sharp increase for the U.S.-regulated prediction market platform as investor demand accelerates across the event-contract sector. The reported valuation would nearly double Kalshi’s most recent disclosed mark. In May 2026, the company announced a $1 billion Series F round at a $22 billion valuation, led by Coatue with participation from Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, IVP, Paradigm, Morgan Stanley and ARK Invest. That followed a December 2025 funding round that valued the company at $11 billion, underscoring how quickly investor expectations have shifted around prediction markets. The Financial Times reported that Kalshi could close the new fundraising as soon as the third quarter of 2026, citing people familiar with the matter. The company has not formally announced the round, and the final size, investor lineup and valuation could still change. Kalshi’s rise has been driven by surging interest in event-based trading, where users buy and sell contracts tied to real-world outcomes. The platform offers markets across politics, economics, weather, sports, crypto, financial indices and cultural events. Unlike offshore crypto-native prediction markets, Kalshi operates as a federally regulated U.S. exchange under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Prediction Markets Draw Wall Street Capital The reported $40 billion valuation reflects how quickly prediction markets have moved from a niche forecasting category into a major fintech and market-structure theme. Investors increasingly view platforms such as Kalshi as a hybrid of brokerage, exchange, data platform and consumer trading app, with potential to capture activity from both financial traders and sports-betting users. Kalshi said in May that institutional trading volume had increased 800% over six months, a key metric behind its earlier $22 billion valuation. The Financial Times reported that the platform processed more than $17 billion in trading volume last month, compared with about $5 billion a year earlier. That growth has strengthened the view that event contracts could become a new asset class inside mainstream brokerage and trading ecosystems. The competitive landscape is also intensifying. Polymarket has expanded rapidly in crypto-native prediction markets, while Cboe recently launched Cboe Predicts, a regulated suite of binary options tied initially to Mini-S&P 500 Index outcomes. Meta is also reportedly developing a standalone prediction markets app called Arena, suggesting that Big Tech sees the format as a potential engagement product. Regulatory Battles Remain Central to Valuation Kalshi’s valuation surge comes despite unresolved legal and regulatory challenges. Several U.S. states, including Arizona and Massachusetts, have challenged the platform over whether certain contracts amount to unlicensed gambling rather than federally regulated event derivatives. Kalshi has argued that its products fall under CFTC jurisdiction, setting up a broader conflict between federal commodities oversight and state gaming regulators. The dispute is especially important as sports-related contracts become a larger part of prediction market volume. Reports have indicated that sports and multi-leg event wagers account for a substantial share of Kalshi’s activity, increasing scrutiny from gambling regulators and public-health advocates concerned about addiction risk. The regulatory implications are significant. If Kalshi successfully defends federal preemption for event contracts, it could open the door to a national prediction market model that competes directly with state-licensed sportsbooks and offshore platforms. If state regulators prevail, the company’s growth path could become more fragmented and compliance-heavy. For investors, the reported $40 billion valuation signals confidence that prediction markets can become a mainstream financial category. But it also prices in aggressive growth, continued liquidity expansion and favorable regulatory outcomes. Kalshi’s next funding round, if completed, would be a major test of whether public and private markets are ready to treat prediction markets as one of the defining fintech opportunities of 2026.

Iran-linked wallets have moved more than $3.84 billion through crypto exchange CoinEx since 2019, according to a Wall Street Journal report citing public blockchain analysis, raising new concerns over the role of offshore digital asset platforms in sanctions evasion. The report said wallets with identifiable links to Iran used CoinEx to process billions of dollars in transactions despite U.S. sanctions intended to restrict Tehran’s access to the global financial system. CoinEx, a Seychelles-based exchange, emerged as a major conduit after larger platforms tightened compliance controls, according to the report. The findings add to a broader pattern of U.S. concern over Iran’s use of cryptocurrency to access hard currency, move funds internationally and support sanctioned entities. Washington has already increased pressure on Iranian crypto infrastructure this year, including sanctions against Nobitex, Iran’s largest digital asset exchange, and several other domestic platforms. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned Nobitex in June, accusing the exchange of facilitating transactions for Iran’s government and blacklisted institutions, including entities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Reuters has reported that Nobitex processed millions of dollars connected to Iran’s central bank and the IRGC, while blockchain analytics firms have estimated that Iran’s overall crypto activity reached roughly $8 billion to $10 billion in 2025. CoinEx Becomes Latest Sanctions Flashpoint The CoinEx report highlights how sanctions enforcement can shift activity from one exchange to another rather than eliminating it outright. After compliance actions at larger global platforms, Iran-linked users appear to have sought alternative venues where account controls, geographic restrictions or transaction-monitoring systems were less effective. That pattern has become a recurring challenge for regulators. Crypto transactions are visible on public blockchains, but attribution is difficult and exchanges remain critical gateways for converting assets, accessing liquidity and moving value across jurisdictions. When one venue restricts sanctioned users, funds can move through self-custody wallets, smaller exchanges, brokers or decentralized services. CoinEx has not been sanctioned by the U.S. in connection with the reported Iran-linked flows. However, the size of the alleged transactions could draw greater scrutiny from sanctions authorities, especially if investigators conclude the exchange failed to block prohibited activity or allowed designated entities to access liquidity. The case also illustrates why stablecoins and offshore exchanges have become central to sanctions enforcement. Dollar-linked tokens can allow users in restricted jurisdictions to hold and transfer synthetic dollar exposure without direct access to U.S. banks, complicating traditional financial controls. Crypto Enforcement Expands Beyond Domestic Iranian Exchanges The regulatory implications extend beyond Iran. U.S. authorities have increasingly treated crypto platforms as part of the sanctions-enforcement perimeter, even when exchanges are based outside the United States. Treasury actions this year have also warned foreign financial institutions and counterparties that significant dealings with designated Iranian crypto platforms could create secondary-sanctions exposure. For the crypto industry, the CoinEx report reinforces pressure on exchanges to strengthen know-your-customer screening, wallet monitoring and sanctions controls. It also raises difficult questions about how platforms should handle users in countries where ordinary citizens rely on crypto because access to global banking is restricted, while state-linked actors may use the same rails to evade sanctions. The market impact is reputational as much as financial. Major exchanges have already faced enforcement actions over sanctions and anti-money-laundering failures, and fresh Iran-linked flow data could intensify calls for tighter supervision of offshore venues. For policymakers, the reported $3.84 billion in CoinEx flows underscores the limits of traditional sanctions in a blockchain-based financial system. Public ledgers make illicit movement easier to trace after the fact, but preventing access in real time still depends heavily on exchange compliance, stablecoin issuer cooperation and cross-border enforcement.

Ripple has launched its RLUSD stablecoin in Japan through SBI VC Trade, marking a significant step in the company’s effort to expand regulated dollar-backed stablecoin distribution across major financial markets. SBI VC Trade, the crypto exchange and electronic payment instruments business under SBI Group, said it began handling RLUSD on June 24, 2026, after scheduled maintenance on its VCTRADE platform. The company described RLUSD as Japan’s first “Type 4” electronic payment instrument stablecoin, making the launch a notable development under the country’s regulated digital payments framework. The rollout follows an earlier agreement between Ripple and SBI Group to distribute RLUSD in Japan. SBI VC Trade had previously said it aimed to make the stablecoin available in the country during the first quarter of 2026, reflecting the long-standing relationship between Ripple and SBI in digital assets, cross-border payments and XRP-related infrastructure. RLUSD is a U.S. dollar-backed stablecoin designed to maintain a one-to-one value with the dollar. Ripple says the token is issued on XRP Ledger and Ethereum and is backed by segregated reserves of cash and cash equivalents. SBI VC Trade said RLUSD deposits and withdrawals would be available with no fees, a feature that could support early adoption among users moving funds between exchanges, wallets and payment applications. Japan Opens Door to Dollar Stablecoins The Japan launch gives Ripple access to one of the world’s most developed crypto regulatory environments. Japan established a legal framework for stablecoins through amendments to its Payment Services Act, creating a clearer path for licensed entities to issue, distribute or handle digital payment instruments. That clarity matters for institutional adoption. Stablecoins have become a core settlement tool in global crypto markets, but their use in regulated financial systems depends on reserve transparency, issuer oversight, anti-money-laundering controls and consumer-protection standards. Japan’s framework gives companies such as Ripple and SBI a structured environment to introduce stablecoins without relying solely on offshore distribution. The launch also comes as Japan’s stablecoin market becomes more competitive. SBI VC Trade has also moved forward with JPYSC, a yen-denominated stablecoin backed through a trust-bank structure. The combination of dollar- and yen-based stablecoins could create new rails for cross-border transfers, exchange liquidity and corporate payments. Ripple Expands Stablecoin Strategy For Ripple, RLUSD’s Japan launch strengthens its broader push into regulated stablecoin infrastructure. The company has positioned RLUSD as an institution-grade stablecoin for payments, settlement and tokenized finance, competing indirectly with larger dollar stablecoins such as Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC. The market remains highly concentrated. USDT and USDC continue to dominate global stablecoin liquidity, while RLUSD remains a smaller but growing entrant. Recent market data shows RLUSD’s circulating supply above 1.6 billion tokens, giving Ripple a larger base than during the stablecoin’s early rollout but still leaving it well behind the sector leaders. Ripple has also expanded around stablecoin payments through acquisitions and institutional infrastructure. The company agreed to buy stablecoin payments platform Rail for $200 million in 2025 and has pursued deeper U.S. regulatory integration, including a national bank charter application and a Federal Reserve master account request. The regulatory implications of the Japan launch are significant. If RLUSD gains traction through SBI VC Trade, it could show how stablecoins can enter major markets through licensed intermediaries rather than unregulated offshore channels. For Ripple, Japan offers both a strategically important payments market and a test case for whether regulated dollar stablecoins can scale in jurisdictions with strict oversight and clear compliance rules.

New York, United States, June 24th, 2026, FinanceWire S&P Global Ratings has upgraded ratings on several subsidiaries of Freedom Holding Corp., a Nasdaq-listed international investment and technology group. The ratings on Freedom Finance JSC, Freedom Finance Europe Ltd., Freedom Finance Global PLC, and Freedom Bank Kazakhstan JSC were raised to “BB-” with stable outlooks. S&P also upgraded the long-term Kazakhstan national scale ratings on Freedom Finance JSC and Freedom Bank Kazakhstan JSC to “kzA-.” Earlier, the agency affirmed Kazakhstan’s sovereign credit ratings at “kzAAA” on the national scale and “BBB-” with a positive outlook. Freedom Holding Corp.’s rating remained at “B-” with a stable outlook. According to S&P, Freedom has shown positive momentum in risk management both within the holding company itself and across the group’s subsidiaries. S&P said this should allow the group to more closely monitor and control risks within its growing business, including sanctions compliance, cybersecurity, reputational, regulatory and cryptocurrency risks. The agency expects the group to maintain strong capitalization metrics over the next 12–24 months, despite ongoing investments in telecommunications and consumer lifestyle businesses. According to S&P, Freedom’s earnings metrics remain strong, with a three-year average operating profit-to-risk-weighted-assets ratio of approximately 2.2% for the period from March 2024 to March 2026, which remains high in an international context. S&P also said the development of Freedom’s financial and non-financial businesses is not expected to place significant pressure on Freedom Holding Corp.’s capitalization. The agency also highlighted Freedom’s position as one of Kazakhstan’s leading digital fintech ecosystems, noting the group’s SuperApp mobile application. Monthly active users of the app stood at approximately 2.6 million in March 2026. In its rating update, S&P took into account Freedom Holding Corp.’s annual report for fiscal year 2026. The company reported record revenue of $2.19 billion and a twofold increase in net income to $153.3 million. Freedom also significantly expanded its client base across key business segments. The number of users of the bank’s services doubled over the year to 5.03 million, while the brokerage client base grew by 26% to 858,000 clients. In the insurance and other segments, Freedom serves around 2.2 million people. Overall, the client base of the company’s digital ecosystem across all operating markets exceeded 14 million people by the end of fiscal year 2026. “The expansion of our digital ecosystem beyond our home region, where we built an effective business model in a relatively short period of time, is a key element of our long-term development strategy,” said Timur Turlov, CEO of Freedom Holding Corp. “We are already seeing strong growth in Europe, are close to obtaining banking and brokerage licenses in Turkey, and are actively developing our business in the United States and the Middle East. In Kazakhstan, we have built the experience, expertise and resources needed to compete for global leadership.” As of May 1, 2026, Freedom’s European brokerage business had reached 453,000 clients. Freedom has also announced plans to expand its banking and digital ecosystem operations in several international markets. In early June, the company said it had applied for a banking license in France and planned to invest €500 million in developing its digital ecosystem there. Freedom also expects to invest $300 million in expanding its Turkish operations and has announced the acquisition of 99.32% of the shares of Turkish Bank. The company’s digital banking subsidiary has been operating in Tajikistan since October 2025, and in November 2025, Kazakhstan’s financial regulator granted Freedom permission to open a bank in Georgia. About Freedom Holding Corp. Freedom Holding Corp. provides financial services in 22 countries, including Kazakhstan, the United States, Cyprus, Poland, Spain, Uzbekistan, and Armenia. The Company’s principal executive office is located in New York City. In Kazakhstan, Freedom is actively developing its financial and digital ecosystem, which includes Freedom Bank, Freedom Broker, the insurance companies Freedom Life and Freedom insurance, as well as a lifestyle segment that features Arbuz.kz, Freedom Ticketon, and Aviata. Freedom Holding Corp. shares are traded on the U.S. technology exchange NASDAQ, the Kazakhstan Stock Exchange (KASE), and the Astana International Exchange (AIX) under the ticker symbol FRHC. Freedom Holding Corp. is regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the common stock is included in Russell 3000 Index. Contact Head of Public Relations Natalia Kharlashina Freedom Holding Corp. prglobal@ffin.kz +77013641454

Why Did Prediction Market Activity Surge During The World Cup? Kalshi’s aggregated open interest reached a record $1.16 billion last week, marking the first time the platform has crossed the billion-dollar threshold and showing how major sports events are becoming liquidity engines for prediction markets. The surge came as World Cup trading reshaped activity across the sector. Polymarket’s soccer category generated more than $2 billion in volume during the first 10 days of the tournament, a 300% increase from the previous 10-day period. Daily average volume in the category rose from $53 million in the month before kickoff to about $220 million during the tournament. The driver is simple. The World Cup provides a month-long sequence of short-dated markets, with several matches each day and outcomes that resolve quickly. For prediction platforms, that creates a high-frequency event calendar without needing to manufacture new narratives. Every match becomes a trading product, and every result clears capital for the next one. That structure gives sports markets a different profile from political, macro, or crypto-linked contracts. They resolve faster, attract broader retail participation, and offer repeated trading opportunities. During a tournament of this size, volume can rise quickly even if longer-term open interest behaves differently across platforms. Why Is Kalshi’s Open Interest More Important Than Volume? The larger market story is not only the rise in World Cup trading volume. It is the divergence between Kalshi and Polymarket in open interest. Kalshi’s open interest has grown faster than its trading volume, suggesting that users are holding positions for longer rather than only entering and exiting around short-term price moves. That points to larger directional exposure and a user base that is increasingly willing to leave capital committed through market resolution. That matters because open interest is a better measure of locked market exposure than raw volume. Volume can be driven by repeated turnover, scalping, and short-term speculation. Open interest shows how much risk remains active on the platform. Kalshi’s rise to $1.16 billion suggests the platform is not only seeing more trading activity but also deeper capital formation around event contracts. Polymarket’s open interest, by contrast, has remained relatively flat during the World Cup, despite the sharp rise in soccer trading volume. Its U.S. arm, which is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission like Kalshi, has increased only modestly and has not returned to its April 2026 highs. Investor Takeaway The World Cup has boosted prediction market activity across platforms, but Kalshi’s record open interest points to a different kind of growth. The platform is attracting capital that stays in markets longer, which may matter more than short-term volume spikes. What Gives Kalshi A Structural Edge In The U.S.? Kalshi’s growth reflects more than the World Cup calendar. Its CFTC-regulated structure and direct U.S. dollar on-ramp give it an advantage with U.S. users who want event exposure without offshore custody, crypto wallets, or stablecoin settlement. That distinction is important for institutional and high-net-worth participants. A regulated U.S. platform with dollar rails can reduce operational friction for investors who are willing to trade event contracts but do not want to manage crypto custody or move funds through offshore venues. For those users, the legal and settlement structure may be as important as the markets themselves. The World Cup appears to be the first event large enough to expose that demand at scale. Sports markets create familiar trading behavior for U.S. users, while Kalshi’s regulated structure makes the product look less like offshore crypto speculation and more like a domestic event-contract venue. This positioning also changes Kalshi’s competitive set. The platform is not only competing with Polymarket’s U.S. operations. It is also moving closer to the territory occupied by DraftKings, FanDuel, and other sports-betting platforms, especially when the traded markets are tied to major sports outcomes. Why Does The Polymarket-Kalshi Divergence Matter? The divergence between Polymarket’s volume growth and Kalshi’s open interest growth shows how prediction markets are splitting into different business models. Polymarket’s soccer volume reflects the power of global crypto-native liquidity around major events. The platform can attract rapid turnover when a tournament delivers constant short-dated markets. That is useful for visibility, trading depth, and market breadth. But flat open interest suggests much of the activity may be shorter-term or quickly recycled from one market to another. Kalshi’s open interest growth suggests a more capital-intensive profile. Users appear more willing to hold positions, and the platform’s regulated dollar infrastructure may be drawing participants who treat event contracts as a broader trading allocation rather than a short-term entertainment product. The distinction matters for investors watching the prediction market sector. High volume shows attention. Rising open interest shows capital commitment. During the World Cup, both measures are moving, but they are not moving evenly across platforms. For Kalshi, crossing $1 billion in open interest is a credibility milestone. It shows that regulated event markets can attract meaningful capital when the right event calendar, product structure, and settlement rails line up. For the wider industry, the tournament is proving that sports may be the fastest route from niche prediction markets to mass-market financial infrastructure.

Financial AI agents are no longer being judged only by whether they can answer a market question. The harder test is whether they can participate in a workflow over time without losing context, repeating the same mistakes or forcing users to manually rebuild the agent’s memory at every step. That is the broader issue raised by a new arXiv paper authored by Ailiya Borjigin, Igor Stadnyk, Ben Bilski, Maksym Chikita, Dmytro Kyrylenko, Sofiia Pidturkina and Julia Stadnyk, researchers and engineers affiliated with TRUE AI and Inc4.net. The paper proposes one possible technical framing for this problem, called an interaction-native knowledge harness, or InKH, but the more important industry question is wider than any single architecture: what does it take for AI agents to become reliable participants in financial workflows? FinanceFeeds spoke with the authors about the problem financial firms are increasingly facing as AI moves from one-off question answering toward market analysis, portfolio review, copy-trading evaluation, trade preparation and operational decision support. The key point is not that the paper proves live trading performance. It does not. Its reported results are based on a controlled synthetic benchmark, not real-money execution, investment returns, trading alpha or live market deployment. The paper is best read as infrastructure research: an attempt to measure how financial AI agents handle context, memory, stale information, latency and auditability. The user is still doing too much of the agent’s work The first problem is simple: many financial AI agents still behave like chatbots with tools attached. A user asks a question. The agent answers. Then, when the workflow continues later, the user often has to repeat the same goals, constraints, risk preferences, portfolio assumptions and prior judgments. The system may have access to a transcript, but it does not necessarily convert that transcript into a reliable operational state. Ailiya Borjigin said this is where many financial AI systems fail before they reach anything resembling trading intelligence. “Financial AI is often described as if the main challenge is prediction,” Borjigin said. “But in many real workflows, the first failure is memory. The system forgets what the user already explained, what the portfolio context was, what risk limits mattered and what assumptions were already challenged. When that happens, the user becomes the memory layer.” That creates what the authors describe as financial cognition friction. The phrase refers to the repeated mental work imposed on users when a system cannot preserve useful context across turns, sessions or workflow stages. In consumer chat, that friction is inconvenient. In finance, it can become material. A portfolio review may depend on constraints stated earlier. A copy-trading assessment may depend on prior concerns about drawdown, leverage or market regime. A trade-preparation workflow may depend on whether the user is exploring, confirming or risk-checking. If the agent loses that context, it may still produce a fluent answer. The danger is that the answer can sound coherent while being built on incomplete or outdated assumptions. Financial agents need state, not just conversation history Igor Stadnyk said firms should distinguish between storing conversation history and maintaining financial state. “A transcript is not the same thing as memory,” Stadnyk said. “Financial workflows need structured state: user preferences, market assumptions, risk constraints, portfolio facts, trader observations, evidence and timestamps. The question is not only what was said before. The question is what remains valid now.” That distinction matters as AI agents begin to move closer to operational workflows. A simple market summary can tolerate some repetition. A workflow that reviews a trader, prepares an order summary or flags portfolio risk cannot rely only on the user remembering to restate every constraint. The authors argue that financial AI agents should continuously transform interaction traces into structured and auditable knowledge. In practical terms, that means a system should be able to identify relevant entities, track what was learned, understand when information was last validated and suppress knowledge that has been superseded. The issue is not whether an agent can have “more memory.” The issue is whether the memory is usable, current and governed. More memory can create more risk One of the clearest messages from the authors is that memory is not automatically beneficial. A financial AI system that remembers too little creates repetition and context loss. But a system that remembers too much, without controls, can create a different problem: stale assumptions being reused with confidence. Ben Bilski, Founder of TrueLabs, said this is why financial AI products should not treat long-term memory as a simple feature upgrade. “Remembering everything is not the goal,” Bilski said. “In finance, old information can be dangerous because it often still sounds reasonable. A liquidity assumption, a trader profile or a market view may have been valid under one regime and wrong under another. The agent has to know what to use, what to question and what to stop using.” This is one of the biggest differences between financial AI and general productivity AI. In finance, context is time-sensitive. Market assumptions decay. Risk conditions change. User preferences can change. A strategy that looked robust in one volatility environment may break in another. That means the memory layer needs something closer to governance than storage. It needs confidence, maturity, evidence, timestamps and invalidation. Stale memory is harder to detect than missing memory Missing context is visible. The user notices when the agent asks the same question again. Stale context is more subtle. Dmytro Kyrylenko said stale memory is dangerous because it often appears legitimate. “Stale knowledge rarely announces itself as stale,” Kyrylenko said. “It may look like a perfectly valid statement from a previous workflow. That is the problem. In financial systems, the agent needs to know when new evidence supersedes old memory, not simply retrieve old memory because it is related.” This is particularly important in shock-driven environments. A change in central bank expectations, liquidity conditions, crypto protocol status, broker execution quality or trader performance can make previous judgments unreliable. An AI agent that cannot invalidate old assumptions may become worse over time. It accumulates information, but it also accumulates outdated beliefs. In a high-stakes workflow, that can lead to repeated errors that feel personalized and intelligent because they are based on the user’s own history. The authors’ broader point is that financial AI should not only learn. It should also forget safely. Auditability will separate demos from deployable systems For many firms, the next stage of AI adoption will depend less on how impressive the interface looks and more on whether the system can be reviewed. Sofiia Pidturkina said auditability is central to making AI usable in financial teams. “Financial users do not only need an answer,” Pidturkina said. “They need to know what context shaped that answer, whether the context was current and whether the system relied on information that should no longer influence the workflow. Without that trail, the output is hard to trust operationally.” This is where financial AI agents differ from consumer assistants. A broker, fintech platform, research desk or trading-technology provider may need to understand why an agent flagged a risk, why it viewed a trader differently after a drawdown or why it prepared a certain trade summary. The output alone is not enough. The system needs an inspectable memory trail. That does not mean every detail has to be shown to the end user at all times. But the underlying system should be able to reconstruct what mattered, when it was learned and why it was considered valid. Financial AI is becoming a workflow problem The authors argue that the industry is moving from single-turn AI toward sustained financial workflows. That shift changes the evaluation criteria. A one-shot assistant can be judged mostly on answer quality. A workflow agent must also be judged on continuity, memory discipline, latency, cost, traceability and risk handling. Maksym Chikita said the challenge is to make continuity efficient enough for practical use. “If memory makes the agent slow, expensive or noisy, users will work around it,” Chikita said. “The system has to provide relevant context without turning every interaction into a retrieval project. Financial workflows need continuity, but that continuity has to feel lightweight.” This is one reason the paper emphasizes compact, pre-assembled working context rather than asking the model to search through memory during every task. The broader concept is not product-specific: financial agents need the right information available before reasoning begins, without forcing the user or the model to reconstruct it from scratch. In a broker or fintech environment, this could apply to several workflows: reviewing a client’s recurring preferences, checking whether a trader’s past behavior remains relevant, preparing a trade with known risk constraints, or analyzing a market event against previously stated assumptions. The goal is not to make the AI autonomous by default. The goal is to reduce repeated cognitive work while keeping the human in control. The benchmark should be read carefully The authors’ paper includes benchmark results, but those results should be interpreted narrowly. The evaluation uses a controlled synthetic benchmark with simulated workflows. It tests architecture-level behavior such as latency, token cost, memory reuse, stale-knowledge suppression and traceability. It does not test live trading profitability, real execution outcomes, alpha generation or regulatory deployment. Julia Stadnyk said that distinction is important because financial AI results are often misunderstood. “People naturally want to ask whether an AI system makes better trades,” Julia Stadnyk said. “That is not what this benchmark is designed to answer. It is designed to ask whether the agent handles memory, context and traceability better under controlled conditions. Those are necessary infrastructure questions, but they are not the same as live trading performance.” The paper reports that the proposed design outperformed several baseline agent-memory setups in the synthetic test, particularly on stale-memory suppression and traceability. But the authors are careful to state that the reported results validate system behavior, not live market performance. That limitation makes the research more useful, not less. It keeps the discussion focused on the part of financial AI that many firms are still underestimating: the operating layer between a model’s reasoning ability and a financial workflow’s practical requirements. The real test is what happens after conditions change A financial AI agent may look useful in stable conditions. The harder test is what happens after a shock. Markets are full of regime changes. Volatility rises. Liquidity disappears. A trader’s behavior shifts. A portfolio constraint changes. A token, stock or macro assumption becomes outdated. A broker’s execution quality changes under stress. An agent that remembers well during stable periods but fails to update after shocks can become a liability. Borjigin said this is why financial AI memory should be tested under changing conditions, not only on static tasks. “Financial memory has to be dynamic,” she said. “A system should not treat every previous conclusion as a permanent fact. It needs to understand that some knowledge matures, some decays and some has to be invalidated when conditions change.” That point may become increasingly relevant as firms use agents for monitoring and preparation rather than simple Q&A. A monitoring agent that cannot update its assumptions after new evidence is not truly monitoring. It is replaying old context. Execution safety is not enough The AI finance debate often focuses on execution safety: preventing unauthorized trades, enforcing constraints, blocking unsafe orders and maintaining logs at the point of action. The authors do not dismiss that layer. Instead, they argue that execution safety and cognition safety should be treated as separate but connected problems. Stadnyk said execution controls cannot fully compensate for a weak cognition layer. “You can have strong execution guardrails and still have a poor upstream reasoning process,” he said. “If the agent is reasoning from stale context, the problem starts before execution. Financial AI needs safe action controls, but it also needs safe memory and safe context formation.” This is an important point for institutions testing agentic systems. Guardrails at the execution layer may prevent the worst outcomes, but they do not ensure that the agent’s analysis, summaries or recommendations are based on valid context. In workflows such as copy-trading review, investment research or risk preparation, the agent may influence human judgment even if it never places a trade. That means the cognition layer itself needs governance. The industry should ask better procurement questions For firms evaluating AI agents, the authors suggest that the most important questions may not be about model size or interface design. They are more practical: Does the system maintain structured context across sessions? Can it distinguish current knowledge from stale knowledge? Can it show which memory influenced an output? Can it prevent immature or low-confidence information from influencing high-risk workflows? Can it adapt when market conditions change? Bilski said these questions are likely to become more important as AI products move from demos to deployment. “The first wave of AI adoption was about whether the system could answer,” Bilski said. “The next wave is about whether it can participate in work. Participation requires continuity. It requires knowing what changed, what stayed valid and what should be escalated to a human.” That is the core difference between an AI assistant and an AI workflow participant. The assistant answers a prompt. The workflow participant carries context, but must do so with discipline. The memory layer may become part of compliance infrastructure Financial firms already care about records, audit trails, suitability, supervision and risk controls. AI memory will not sit outside those concerns. Pidturkina said memory governance should be designed with reviewability from the beginning. “If an AI system influences a financial workflow, someone may eventually ask why,” she said. “Why did it flag this risk? Why did it rely on this trader history? Why did it ignore a previous assumption? If the memory layer cannot answer those questions, the system will be difficult to use in serious environments.” This does not mean every AI memory system is a regulated recordkeeping system. But in financial contexts, memory architecture and governance architecture will increasingly overlap. A model may generate the final text, but the memory layer shapes what the model sees. That makes memory a source of both value and risk. Human control still matters The authors are not arguing for fully autonomous financial AI. Their emphasis is almost the opposite: systems should absorb complexity so humans can make better-supervised decisions. Chikita said the goal is not to remove the user from the loop, but to stop wasting the user’s attention. “The user should not have to repeat basic context just to make the agent useful,” Chikita said. “Human attention should go to judgment, exceptions and decisions, not to constantly reminding the system what it already learned.” This framing may resonate with brokers and fintech platforms that want AI to improve productivity without handing control to opaque systems. A well-designed agent should reduce repetitive work while increasing inspectability. That is a different message from the promotional idea of a black-box trading agent. It is closer to operational AI: a system that helps financial professionals manage context, risk and workflow continuity. Why this matters for brokers and fintech platforms Brokers, trading platforms and fintech infrastructure providers are likely to encounter this issue as they add AI features to client and internal workflows. A customer-facing AI assistant may need to remember user preferences without making unsuitable assumptions. An internal operations agent may need to track recurring risk issues across support cases. A research assistant may need to preserve analyst judgments while updating them after new data. A copy-trading tool may need to distinguish between historical performance and current risk. In each case, the challenge is not merely generating language. It is maintaining context over time. Kyrylenko said the wrong memory architecture can make an agent appear smarter than it is. “A fluent answer can hide a weak memory process,” he said. “That is why teams should test agents after context changes, after contradictions and after stale information is introduced. The important question is not only whether the answer sounds good. It is whether the system used the right context.” That kind of testing may become a standard part of AI due diligence in financial services. A small research paper with a larger industry question The arXiv paper itself is a technical contribution, but the issue it raises is larger than the specific design it proposes. Financial AI agents are being pulled in two directions. On one side, users want more continuity and personalization. On the other, financial workflows require caution, auditability and control. Memory sits directly between those two demands. Too little memory, and the agent becomes repetitive and shallow. Too much unmanaged memory, and the agent may reuse stale assumptions. The useful middle ground is governed memory: context that is structured, current, bounded and reviewable. Julia Stadnyk said the adoption question will come down to whether agents can operate responsibly across a chain of work. “The market does not need more systems that sound confident for one turn,” she said. “It needs systems that can support a sequence of work, update their assumptions and show what shaped the output.” That may be the clearest takeaway. Financial AI agents will not be judged only by their best answer in a clean demo. They will be judged by how they behave after repeated use, changing conditions and accumulated context.  

Why Does NAGA’s MiCA Approval Matter Now? The NAGA Group has obtained authorization under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, giving the company a regulated route to continue offering crypto-asset services across Europe as the bloc moves toward the final stage of its unified digital asset framework. The authorization was granted by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission to NAGA X Ltd, the group’s European crypto entity. The approval allows NAGA to provide crypto-asset services including the buying, selling and exchange of digital assets, as well as custody and safeguarding services for clients across the European market. The timing is important. MiCA’s transition period for existing crypto-asset service providers is scheduled to end on July 1, 2026. Firms that have not secured authorization under the new regime face restrictions on their ability to continue operating across the European Union. For NAGA, the approval is not a standalone product launch. It gives regulatory certainty to crypto services that have already been part of the company’s platform alongside contracts for difference, stock investing, social trading and payments. The license places those activities under a harmonized European framework rather than a patchwork of national crypto rules. How Does MiCA Change NAGA’s European Crypto Strategy? MiCA authorization gives NAGA a clearer structure for scaling crypto services across EU markets. Instead of relying on separate national registrations, the company can operate within a single regulatory framework designed to support passporting across the bloc. That distinction matters for trading and fintech platforms trying to build multi-market products. Crypto services are becoming harder to offer without clear licensing, custody standards, disclosure controls and compliance systems. Under MiCA, firms that secure authorization can continue serving European clients while operating under a rulebook that is intended to be consistent across member states. Cyprus has become one of the more active EU jurisdictions for crypto licensing, with brokers, exchanges and fintech firms using the country as a regulatory base. NAGA had already operated under Cyprus’ national crypto registration regime, but the move to MiCA gives it broader regulatory certainty as the EU’s older national frameworks are replaced. The approval also supports NAGA’s broader “SuperApp” strategy. The company has been working to combine investing, social trading, payments, crypto services and banking-style features within a single platform. Crypto remains a key part of that model despite tighter regulatory requirements across Europe. Investor Takeaway NAGA’s MiCA approval reduces regulatory uncertainty around one of its key product categories. The commercial question is whether regulated crypto access can strengthen user engagement and cross-selling across trading, investing, payments and digital assets. What Are The Implications For NAGA’s Growth Plan? The authorization comes as NAGA works to prove the benefits of its merger with CAPEX.com. The transaction expanded the group’s customer base and international footprint, while management has focused on turning scale into stronger profitability and a broader product offering. Preliminary financial results released earlier this year showed revenue of €62.4 million for 2025 and EBITDA of €3.3 million. For 2026, the company has guided for revenue of €68 million to €75 million and EBITDA of €10 million to €15 million. Against that backdrop, MiCA authorization is more than a regulatory milestone. It removes uncertainty around crypto services at a time when NAGA is trying to build a more integrated financial platform. Regulated crypto access can create more opportunities to connect digital assets with payments, investing, social trading and other services inside the same ecosystem. The approval may also help NAGA compete with larger trading platforms seeking to position themselves as all-in-one financial applications. As crypto regulation tightens, firms with authorization may be better placed to retain users who want digital asset access without leaving regulated platforms. Why Is MiCA Becoming A Market Filter? MiCA is changing the competitive structure of Europe’s crypto market. In earlier phases, national registrations were enough for many firms to operate across parts of the region. That model is now being replaced by a more demanding authorization process that places greater weight on governance, safeguarding, disclosures and supervisory oversight. For investors, this creates a clearer split between firms that can continue operating under the EU’s new crypto framework and those still exposed to licensing uncertainty. As the transition deadline approaches, authorization is becoming less of a competitive advantage and more of a requirement for continued participation in the European market. NAGA has avoided the uncertainty facing firms that remain in the licensing process. The approval gives the company a stronger regulatory base before the final implementation phase and supports its long-term plan to integrate digital assets into a wider financial services platform. The larger question is whether regulated crypto services can become a meaningful driver of revenue and user activity as Europe’s digital asset sector matures under MiCA. For now, NAGA has secured the permission needed to keep crypto inside its European platform strategy at a time when the market is moving toward a single rulebook.

KEY TAKEAWAYS Symbiotic raised $34.8 million across two rounds: a $5.8 million seed co-led by Paradigm and Cyber Fund in June 2024 and a $29 million Series A led by Pantera Capital in April 2025. No native token is live despite a points program that has been running since June 2024, and the project confirms that no supply, allocation, vesting schedule, or conversion mechanics have been announced publicly yet. The protocol says its infrastructure secures more than $550 million across dozens of applications, spanning credit underwriting, insurance, stablecoins, and tokenized asset liquidity through its Liquid Lane product. Symbiotic co-founder Misha Putiatin told CoinDesk that the RWA market has crossed $33 billion, but most tokenized assets still cannot be redeemed on demand, which frames the liquidity problem that Liquid Lane targets. Competitors EigenLayer and Babylon both offer live token or staking infrastructure, creating pressure on Symbiotic to convert its points program before restakers migrate their capital to platforms with confirmed tokenomics. Two years of points accumulation and $34.8 million in venture funding have not produced a Symbiotic token. The restaking protocol, backed by Paradigm, Pantera Capital, and Coinbase Ventures, continues to reward depositors with Symbiotic Points that it has never formally committed to converting into a tradable asset.  That uncertainty is fueling growing skepticism, even as the protocol expands well beyond its original restaking mandate. Symbiotic launched Liquid Lane on June 2, 2026, a network offering instant stablecoin redemptions for tokenized assets, including funds and private credit.  This article examines where the token question stands, what the protocol has actually built, and why the delay matters. The Points Program Without a Token Symbiotic's points system has been active since June 2024. Users earn points only when their deposited assets are actively delegated to secure partner networks, not when collateral is left idle. Points accrue weekly, and DropsTab's project profile notes that there is no vesting calendar because no token exists. If someone sees a SYM or similar ticker on exchanges, that is likely Symbiosis Finance's SIS token, which is an entirely different project. Symbiotic has issued no coin and has no exchange listings. That means every restaker earning points is operating on an implied promise with zero contractual guarantee of a future airdrop or token distribution. Analysis: The delay creates an adverse selection risk. Sophisticated yield farmers may maintain positions to capture a potential airdrop, while long-term infrastructure users begin questioning whether the points carry any economic value.  Every month without a token announcement increases the probability that restakers will rotate capital into EigenLayer's live EIGEN token or Babylon's BTC staking program, both of which offer confirmed tokenomics. What Symbiotic Has Actually Built The protocol has evolved from a pure restaking platform into what it now calls a collateral-markets platform. Symbiotic's official website lists live applications spanning credit underwriting through Cap Labs, which manages over $400 million in stablecoin lending backed by committed collateral, and insurance underwriting through Nexus Mutual, which is scaling to $100 million in coverage capacity. The most significant recent product is Liquid Lane, launched in early June 2026. "The RWA market has crossed $33 billion, but most of those assets still can't be redeemed on demand," Symbiotic co-founder Misha Putiatin told CoinDesk. "Institutions understand that, which is why liquidity gets priced at a premium."  Fasanara Capital serves as the first vault curator alongside Avantgarde Finance, Barter, and KPK. Midas is the first integrated issuer. Citi has projected that tokenized assets could become a $5 trillion market by 2030. In August 2025, Symbiotic launched External Rewards, enabling partner networks to distribute their own native tokens to stakers. "This launch is a pivotal moment," Putiatin said in an interview with Blockworks.  "External rewards are proof that shared security is delivering measurable value, and networks are willing to pay for access." Eight networks, including Omni, which committed $10 million in rewards, went live with the feature. The Competitive Pressure From EigenLayer and Babylon EigenLayer's Permissionless Token Support now lets actively validated services restake with any ERC-20 token, broadening beyond ETH and liquid staking tokens. Babylon enables emerging chains to bootstrap economic security by allowing users to stake BTC natively. Both offer confirmed token mechanics, a tangible advantage when competing for restaker capital. Symbiotic's differentiator is modularity. It accepts any ERC-20 token as collateral and lets each network set its own rules. Over 50 networks had been integrated by late 2025, including Hyperlane, Avail, Ethena, Frax, and EtherFi. But flexibility adds complexity, raising the risk of smart contract bugs and liquidity fragmentation, as noted in DropsTab's risk assessment. Regulatory Implications Regulatory oversight of restaking protocols remains a developing area. If Symbiotic Points are later deemed to function as investment contracts under the Howey test, retroactive enforcement could complicate any token launch. The SEC's crypto task force, launched in January 2025 under Commissioner Hester Peirce, is pursuing rules on digital asset custody, lending, and staking that could directly affect how restaking protocols structure token distributions. What's Next? Symbiotic's roadmap includes developer SDKs, cross-chain collateral, and advanced risk modeling. The protocol secures over $550 million, validating the infrastructure but not resolving the token question. Until Symbiotic publishes a formal tokenomics framework, skepticism will persist, and the risk of capital migrating to competitors with confirmed tokens will grow. FAQs Does Symbiotic have a live native token as of June 2026? No, Symbiotic has not launched a native token. Users earn Symbiotic Points through active delegation, but no timeline for supply, allocation, or conversion has been publicly confirmed yet. How much funding has Symbiotic raised from venture investors? Symbiotic raised $34.8 million total across a $5.8 million seed round co-led by Paradigm and Cyber Fund and a $29 million Series A led by Pantera Capital with Coinbase Ventures. What is Liquid Lane, and when did it launch? Liquid Lane launched on June 2, 2026, as a network offering instant stablecoin redemptions for tokenized assets, including funds and private credit, with redemption delays of up to 180 days. How does Symbiotic differ from EigenLayer in its approach? Symbiotic accepts any ERC-20 token as collateral and lets each network define custom reward and slashing rules, while EigenLayer historically centered its model on ETH and liquid staking derivatives. What value does Symbiotic secure across its partner applications? The protocol says its infrastructure secures more than $550 million across dozens of applications spanning credit underwriting, insurance, stablecoins, and tokenized asset settlement through Liquid Lane. Who are the key institutional partners using Symbiotic? Key partners include Cap Labs for stablecoin lending, Nexus Mutual for insurance underwriting, Fasanara Capital and Midas for Liquid Lane vaults, and Omni, which committed $10 million in network rewards. What risks should restakers consider before depositing into Symbiotic vaults? Restakers face smart contract risk due to untested slashing logic, the absence of a confirmed token conversion, limited independent audits relative to EigenLayer, and potential regulatory uncertainty around points-based systems. References CoinDesk: Symbiotic Aims to Make Tokenized Assets Easier to Cash Out Blockworks: Symbiotic Launches Token-Based Rewards Across Eight Networks DropsTab: Symbiotic Project Profile and Token Activities Symbiotic Official Website: Collateral Markets Platform

KEY TAKEAWAYS Buying cryptocurrency directly from another person through peer-to-peer platforms or in-person transactions is legal in Western Europe and North America as of 2026, with no licensing required for personal-use purchases. The IRS treats all cryptocurrency as property under Notice 2014-21, meaning the buyer must establish and document a cost basis at the time of acquisition to calculate future capital gains or losses accurately. Form 1099-DA reporting began for 2025 transactions with gross proceeds only, but mandatory cost-basis reporting starts for assets acquired after January 1, 2026, substantially increasing the compliance burden for P2P buyers. Gifting crypto is not a taxable event for the sender, but the recipient inherits the original cost basis, meaning a $5,000 Bitcoin purchased years ago and gifted at $25,000 creates a $20,000 taxable gain upon later sale. PwC's 2026 Global Crypto Tax Report covers 58 jurisdictions and warns that significant differences remain in how countries characterize and tax digital assets, complicating cross-border P2P transactions for international buyers. More people are buying cryptocurrency directly from other individuals than at any prior point. Centralized exchanges have tightened KYC requirements, triggering a shift toward peer-to-peer platforms and direct wallet-to-wallet transfers.  That shift creates specific legal and tax questions most buyers do not address until it is too late. The IRS FAQ on virtual currency transactions makes clear that cryptocurrency is treated as property, and every disposition triggers gain or loss recognition.  This article covers P2P legality, buyer tax obligations, and the new Form 1099-DA regime, which changes compliance requirements starting in 2026. The Legal Framework for Peer-to-Peer Crypto Purchases Simply buying or selling crypto P2P for personal use is not illegal in Western Europe or North America as of 2026. The legal grey areas arise around large-scale trading that regulators classify as running an unlicensed money services business, a concern that typically applies only to high-volume professional traders. For individual buyers making personal purchases, there is no licensing requirement in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, or Canada. "Crypto transactions are becoming more visible to tax authorities as reporting obligations expand and cross-border information sharing increases," PwC's 2026 Global Crypto Tax Report noted. The report covers 58 jurisdictions and warns that significant differences remain in how countries characterize and tax digital assets, complicating cross-border P2P transactions. Tax Obligations the Buyer Must Meet The IRS Digital Assets page states that for U.S. tax purposes, digital assets are considered property, not currency. Purchasing cryptocurrency with fiat currency does not, by itself, trigger a taxable event. However, the buyer assumes an obligation that will matter in every future sale: establishing and documenting the cost basis. Cost basis is the amount paid for the asset, including any fees. When the buyer later sells, trades, or uses the crypto to purchase goods or services, the difference between the sale price and the cost basis determines the taxable gain or loss.  For P2P purchases, where no exchange automatically generates records, the buyer must maintain documentation of the purchase date, amount paid, amount of crypto received, and counterparty information, if available. Deloitte Senior Manager Jonathan Cutler told Thomson Reuters that the 2025 tax year is "mainly a flag to the IRS that the taxpayer transacted in crypto" through the new Form 1099-DA, according to a Thomson Reuters analysis. But the real compliance shift arrives with 2026 transactions, when brokers must report both gross proceeds and cost basis for covered securities. Analysis: P2P buyers face a structural disadvantage. Exchange platforms will automatically generate 1099-DA forms, creating a paper trail. P2P buyers who fail to track cost basis independently face a zero-basis assumption if audited, resulting in tax liability on the full sale amount rather than the gain alone. Gift Transfers, Inherited Basis, and Common Mistakes The annual gift tax exclusion for 2026 is approximately $19,000 per recipient, as CountDeFi's analysis explains. Gifting crypto is not a taxable sale for the sender. The sender pays no capital gains tax on appreciated crypto given away.  However, the recipient inherits the original cost basis. If the sender bought Bitcoin at $5,000 and it is worth $25,000 at the time of the gift, the recipient will owe taxes on the $20,000 gain when they eventually sell. The most common mistake is labeling a payment as a gift when it is actually compensation. The IRS looks at intent and substance. A payment for services described as a gift on Venmo or PayPal is still taxable to the recipient as ordinary income. Regulatory Implications The IRS mandated wallet-by-wallet cost-basis tracking starting January 1, 2025, under Revenue Procedure 2024-28, ending universal basis aggregation across wallets. For P2P buyers storing assets in personal wallets, each wallet must maintain separate basis records. The new 1099-DA regime requires custodial brokers to report transactions from 2025, with full basis reporting for covered securities starting in 2026. What's Next? The IRS has signaled continued expansion of digital asset reporting. A 2026 Tax Court memo confirmed that staking rewards are taxable income, extending the reporting frontier. P2P buyers should maintain timestamped records of every acquisition, use crypto tax software to track cost basis, and consult a tax professional familiar with digital asset rules before filing. FAQs Is it legal to buy crypto directly from another person in the United States? Yes, buying cryptocurrency through peer-to-peer transactions for personal use is legal across Western Europe and North America, with no licensing requirement for individual personal-use buyers as of 2026. Does buying crypto with cash trigger a taxable event for the buyer? No, purchasing cryptocurrency using fiat currency is not a taxable event under IRS rules, but the buyer must establish and document a cost basis to calculate future capital gains upon sale. What is Form 1099-DA, and how does it affect P2P crypto buyers? Form 1099-DA is the IRS's new information return requiring custodial brokers to report digital asset transactions, but P2P buyers who transact outside custodial platforms must self-report all transactions. What happens if I receive crypto as a gift from a friend or family member? The recipient inherits the sender's original cost basis, meaning future sales are taxed on the gain calculated from the sender's original purchase price rather than the gift date value. Do I need to report a P2P crypto purchase if no exchange is involved? The purchase itself does not require reporting, but any subsequent sale, trade, or use of that crypto to buy goods or services must be reported on Schedule D and Form 8949. What is the annual gift tax exclusion for cryptocurrency transfers in 2026? The annual gift tax exclusion for 2026 is approximately $19,000 per recipient, below which the sender generally faces no tax payment and no reporting obligation under current IRS gift tax rules. How should I track the cost basis for crypto bought through peer-to-peer transactions? Maintain timestamped records, including purchase date, fiat amount paid, quantity of crypto received, wallet addresses used, and any counterparty information, using dedicated crypto tax software for reconciliation. References IRS: Frequently Asked Questions on Virtual Currency Transactions IRS: Digital Assets Tax Information and Guidance PwC 2026 Global Crypto Tax Report Thomson Reuters: Form 1099-DA Debut Will Test Broker and Taxpayer Readiness

Why Is Starling Using AI To Interrupt Scam Payments? Starling Bank has added an AI-powered scam feature to its in-app assistant, aiming to slow customers down before they transfer money in situations that may involve fraud. The tool is designed to break what the bank describes as the “spell” fraudsters can create when they pressure victims into sending money quickly. Rather than only flagging suspicious transactions after the fact, the feature prompts customers to explain what they are doing and why before money leaves the account. The feature sits inside Starling Assistant, the bank’s in-app AI tool launched in March 2026. Customers can already use the assistant through voice or natural language to ask questions about their money, plan transfers, and manage budgeting. The new fraud function expands that role from customer service into real-time risk prevention. Starling said the assistant now includes a scam intelligence tool first launched in 2025 to identify fraudulent online marketplace ads. The system has been expanded to detect several types of fraud and guide customers through what to do next. How Does The Scam Tool Work? The bank gave the example of a customer saying they had been asked to transfer £3,000 for a plane ticket for a new partner. In that case, Starling Assistant can detect early signs of a romance scam and ask follow-up questions before the payment is made. The questions may include why the partner cannot fund the ticket themselves, where the customer met them, and how long the relationship has lasted. The assistant can then say whether the situation is likely to be a scam and suggest speaking with the bank’s support team. The approach shows how banks are trying to use AI not only to automate service but also to influence customer behavior at the point of risk. Fraud prevention often depends on timing. Once a payment has been authorized, recovery can be difficult, especially when victims have been socially engineered into believing the transfer is legitimate. Harriet Rees, Starling Bank’s group chief information officer, said: “We want anyone and everyone to realise that they too could be a victim of a scam.” “That starts with asking simple questions, and being inquisitive about what you plan to spend.” Investor Takeaway AI in banking is moving beyond chatbots and back-office automation. Starling’s fraud feature shows how banks are using AI inside payment journeys, where small changes in customer behavior can reduce losses and regulatory exposure. Why Are Banks Accelerating AI Adoption? Starling’s fraud tool arrives as larger banks are also expanding AI across their operations. Banco Santander, the Spanish owner of Santander UK, said it is targeting more than €1 billion in additional revenues and cost savings from AI by the end of 2028. More than half of that target is expected to come through cost-cutting. Santander said the savings will be driven by automation, productivity gains, and process simplification. The bank did not disclose how many jobs could be affected and has not announced a workforce reduction programme linked to the AI rollout. The group expects to deliver more than €200 million in business value from AI by the end of 2026 alone, including across Santander UK. It reported €35 million of benefit in the first quarter, with that figure expected to rise in the second quarter. Santander is also giving AI access to all 185,000 staff globally, including about 15,000 in the UK. Nearly 40,000 employees are already actively using AI, according to the bank. Ricardo Martin Manjon, Banco Santander’s chief data and AI officer, said: “Santander is moving from AI ambition to execution.” “One year after setting out our ambition to become a data and AI-first bank, artificial intelligence is already helping us improve how we work, serve customers, manage risk and run the bank.” What Does This Mean For The Banking Sector? The two announcements show the split in how banks are deploying AI. Starling is using the technology to reduce fraud losses and protect customers before a transaction is completed. Santander is using it at group level to extract measurable value from automation, customer service, risk management, and internal productivity. For investors, the key question is whether AI becomes a durable margin tool or another technology cost. Banks that can use AI to reduce fraud, simplify operations, and improve staff productivity may gain operating leverage. But the rollout also brings execution risk, customer trust questions, and pressure to explain how automation affects employment. The sector is already sensitive to that issue. Standard Chartered recently faced criticism after its chief executive referred to AI replacing “lower-value human capital” while the bank was cutting jobs. He later said the comments were taken out of context. Fraud prevention may be the easier near-term case for banks to defend. A customer-facing AI tool that challenges suspicious payments can be framed as protection rather than replacement. Cost-cutting programmes are more complex because they raise questions about workforce impact, service quality, and whether efficiency gains can be delivered without reputational damage. The direction is still clear. Banks are moving from AI pilots into operational deployment. The next phase will be judged not by how many assistants or internal tools they launch, but by whether AI lowers losses, improves compliance, and produces measurable financial results without weakening customer confidence.

KEY TAKEAWAYS At least eight providers now sell eSIM plans for cryptocurrency in 2026, including Bitrefill, CoinsBee, Cryptorefills, eSIM Now, BitJoy, MobiMatter, BNESIM, and Surfroam, covering over 200 countries and territories worldwide. Bitcoin Lightning Network transactions offer the lowest fees, often below $0.01 per payment through Bitrefill, while USDT on Tron via BitJoy or MobiMatter costs between $0.50 and $2.00 per transaction. Prices start as low as $0.60 per gigabyte on larger plans through marketplace aggregators, but buying indirectly through gift card resellers like CoinsBee can add 10 to 20 percent markup over direct provider pricing. Most providers require only an email address for purchase and deliver eSIM QR codes within minutes of blockchain confirmation, offering privacy that traditional carrier plans and credit card purchases do not provide. Modern smartphones, including iPhone XS and newer, Samsung Galaxy S20 and newer, and Google Pixel 3 and newer, support eSIM activation, but buyers should verify device compatibility and carrier unlock status before purchasing. Buying mobile data with cryptocurrency has moved from novelty to a practical solution for travelers and privacy-focused users. At least eight providers now accept Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT, and other cryptocurrencies, covering over 200 countries.  Cryptorefills' guide explains that crypto eSIM purchases eliminate the 3% foreign transaction fee banks typically charge and reduce exposure of sensitive banking information. This article compares providers, breaks down costs, and walks through the purchase and activation process. How Buying an eSIM With Crypto Works The process follows five steps across most providers. Select a destination and data plan. Enter an email for QR code delivery. Choose a cryptocurrency and network at checkout. Send payment from a wallet such as MetaMask, Phantom, or Binance. Once the blockchain confirms, the provider emails a QR code for device activation. "Transactions on networks like Solana or Layer 2s settle in seconds, delivering your QR code immediately," Cryptorefills noted in its step-by-step walkthrough. Bitcoin transactions on the main network typically require 10 to 30 minutes for one confirmation, while Ethereum and USDT settle in 2 to 5 minutes. Lightning Network payments are effectively instant. A key distinction is between direct providers and resellers. Direct providers such as eSIM Now and BitJoy sell their own plans at base prices. Resellers like Bitrefill and CoinsBee aggregate plans from providers such as Airalo and Holafly, adding a 10-20% marketplace margin. Comparing the Major Crypto eSIM Providers Bitrefill, founded in 2014, is the most established crypto-native option. It accepts over 20 cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, USDT, USDC, and Litecoin, with Bitcoin Lightning Network support for instant, low-fee payments. Bitrefill's eSIM page notes that all plans are data-only, with no phone number included, and delivery is instant via QR code and email. CoinsBee supports over 50 cryptocurrencies, including Monero, Dogecoin, and niche altcoins. However, the purchasing model is indirect, often involving gift card vouchers for underlying eSIM providers rather than direct eSIM issuance. eSIM Now's comparison guide rated CoinsBee's model as potentially confusing for activation and support. BitJoy, based in Dubai, offers pricing starting at $2.50 per gigabyte with a 5-day money-back guarantee valid as of April 2026. It covers 190-plus countries and supports BTC, ETH, and USDT payments. BitJoy also offers both data-only and call-enabled packages for Canada and Australia, a feature most competitors lack. Analysis: The optimal provider depends on the cryptocurrency held. Bitcoin Lightning users should prioritize Bitrefill for sub-cent fees. Altcoin holders should check CoinsBee's list of 50+ coins. Travelers seeking direct experience with refund protection should consider BitJoy or eSIM Now, which offer plans with transparent base pricing. Costs, Fees, and Common Pitfalls Network fees vary dramatically by blockchain. Bitcoin Lightning fees are often below $0.01. USDT on Tron costs $0.50 to $2.00. On the Ethereum mainnet, gas fees can exceed $5 to $20, making small eSIM purchases uneconomical. eSIM Now's guide specifically warns against buying a $3 plan while paying $4 in gas. Refund policies for crypto purchases are more restrictive than credit card purchases because blockchain transactions are irreversible. Most providers process refunds as account credit or return the USD-equivalent value at the time of refund. BNESIM differentiates itself by offering 5% cashback on crypto purchases through its BNE Wallet, according to its product page. One important tip: install the eSIM profile over Wi-Fi before traveling, but do not activate it until arrival. Most plans start their data clock only when the eSIM connects to a network in the destination country. Saving the QR code image to a camera roll provides a backup if email access is lost during transit. Regulatory Implications Crypto payments for eSIMs carry no special regulatory restriction beyond standard crypto tax rules. In the U.S., paying for a service with crypto is treated as a taxable property disposition under IRS guidance, potentially triggering capital gains tax. Buyers should track the fair market value of the crypto used at the time of purchase to ensure accurate reporting. What's Next? The convergence of crypto payments and eSIM technology is accelerating. Providers are expanding 5G support, adding voice-enabled plans, and integrating with decentralized identity protocols.  The 2026 FIFA World Cup is driving a surge in destination-specific eSIM packages. As eSIM-compatible devices continue to replace physical SIM slots, crypto-native purchasing is poised to grow from a niche offering into a mainstream travel utility. FAQs Which cryptocurrencies can I use to buy an eSIM in 2026? Most providers accept Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT, and USDC at a minimum, with Bitrefill supporting over 20 coins and CoinsBee accepting more than 50, including Monero, Litecoin, and Dogecoin. What is the cheapest way to pay for an eSIM with crypto? Bitcoin Lightning Network via Bitrefill offers fees often below 1 cent per transaction, while USDT on Tron via BitJoy or MobiMatter typically costs $0.50 to $2.00 per payment. How long does it take to receive an eSIM after paying with cryptocurrency? Lightning Network payments deliver QR codes instantly; Ethereum and USDT settle in 2 to 5 minutes; and Bitcoin mainnet transactions require 10 to 30 minutes for a single blockchain confirmation. Do I need to provide personal identification to buy an eSIM with crypto? Most crypto eSIM providers require only an email address for QR code delivery, with no passport, government ID, or credit card billing address linked to the purchase or location data. Can I get a refund for an eSIM purchased with cryptocurrency? Refund policies vary but are generally more restrictive than credit card refunds, as blockchain transactions are irreversible; most providers offer account credit in USD-equivalent amounts. Is buying an eSIM with crypto a taxable event in the United States? Yes, paying for any service with cryptocurrency is treated as a disposition of property under IRS rules, potentially triggering capital gains tax if the crypto has appreciated since acquisition. Which smartphones support eSIM activation for crypto-purchased travel data plans? Modern smartphones, including iPhone XS and newer, Samsung Galaxy S20 and newer, and Google Pixel 3 and newer, support eSIM profiles, but buyers should confirm carrier unlock status beforehand. References Cryptorefills: What Is an eSIM and Can You Pay With Crypto eSIM Now: Best eSIM Providers That Accept Crypto in 2026 Bitrefill: Purchase eSIMs With Bitcoin or Crypto BNESIM: Buy eSIM With Crypto and Get 5% Cashback

Why Was The CBDC Ban Delayed? U.S. President Donald Trump cancelled the signing ceremony for a housing bill that included a temporary ban on a central bank digital currency, delaying a measure that had already cleared both chambers of Congress. In a Wednesday morning post on Truth Social, Trump said the signing of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act would be cancelled “until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE America Act.” The decision ties the fate of a housing affordability bill, and its crypto-related provisions, to a separate voting measure that has become a political priority for the White House. The housing bill passed the House on Tuesday after earlier clearing the Senate in an 85-5 vote. It included language barring the Federal Reserve from issuing or creating a CBDC, or any substantially similar digital asset, until the end of 2030. That provision would have placed a multi-year statutory block on any U.S. central bank digital currency effort. The delay is significant because the bill was expected to be signed without major friction. Its CBDC provision had become part of a broader Republican push to limit the Fed’s ability to develop a government-backed digital dollar, while preserving room for private-sector stablecoins. How Does The Bill Treat Stablecoins? The CBDC ban was not written as a blanket restriction on all digital dollar products. The bill included a carve-out for stablecoins, allowing dollar-denominated currency that is open, permissionless, and private. That distinction matters for crypto firms, payment companies, and banks. A CBDC ban would restrict the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital dollar, but the stablecoin carve-out would keep private digital dollar markets open. In practice, the bill would have reinforced a policy divide between state-issued money and privately issued tokenized dollars. For the crypto industry, that framework is favorable compared with a broad digital asset restriction. Stablecoin issuers would remain positioned as private infrastructure providers, while the Fed’s role in retail digital currency would be legally constrained for several years. The political delay does not change the text of the bill, but it prevents those protections from becoming law for now. Until the legislation is signed, the CBDC ban remains passed language rather than enforceable policy. Investor Takeaway The market impact is not about an immediate CBDC launch. It is about policy certainty. The bill would have locked in a clear federal block on a digital dollar while preserving stablecoin activity, but the signing delay keeps that framework unresolved. Why Is A Voting Bill Affecting Crypto Policy? Trump’s decision reflects a broader legislative tactic. In March, he said he would “not sign other bills” until the SAVE America Act was passed. That measure would require voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship in person to register. Supporters argue the measure is needed to protect election integrity. Critics say it could disenfranchise citizens who are already eligible to vote, particularly those who may face difficulty producing the required documents or registering in person. By linking the housing bill to the voting measure, the White House has placed crypto policy inside a much larger political dispute. That creates uncertainty for digital asset provisions that had otherwise moved through Congress with support attached to a broader housing package. The delay also creates an awkward position for lawmakers who supported the housing bill. Republican Senator Tim Scott, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, backed the legislation. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a co-sponsor, also praised the bill, saying, “I don’t say this often these days, but Congress actually passed something good.” Could This Affect Market Structure Legislation? The immediate question for crypto markets is whether Trump’s stance could also affect separate digital asset legislation. The Senate is still expected to consider the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, known as the CLARITY Act, which would reshape the roles of financial regulators in overseeing digital asset markets. Trump has previously said he wants to codify a “future-proof digital asset market structure,” a phrase widely understood to refer to market structure legislation. That makes the housing bill delay more complicated. The president supports major crypto legislation in principle, but his refusal to sign other bills before the voting measure advances could slow even legislation that aligns with his stated digital asset agenda. If Trump vetoes or refuses to sign crypto-related bills, Congress could attempt to override him with a two-thirds majority in both chambers. That threshold is difficult, even for bills that have already shown bipartisan support. Investor Takeaway Crypto legislation now faces a procedural risk that is separate from digital asset policy itself. Even measures with industry support and congressional momentum can be delayed if they become tied to broader political bargaining. What Does This Mean For Crypto Firms? For stablecoin issuers, the delay keeps an important policy distinction unfinished. The bill’s language would have helped separate privately issued dollar tokens from a prohibited CBDC, giving stablecoin markets a clearer federal backdrop through 2030. For exchanges and institutional crypto firms, the broader concern is timing. Market structure legislation, stablecoin rules, and CBDC restrictions are all moving through a political calendar where unrelated disputes can slow final approval. That makes planning harder for firms building compliance systems around expected federal rules. The episode also shows that crypto policy is no longer isolated from national political fights. Digital asset provisions may pass through Congress, but their final path still depends on White House priorities, election-year leverage, and the legislative trade-offs surrounding unrelated bills. Until the housing bill is signed, the U.S. still lacks a statutory CBDC ban. The Fed remains politically constrained, stablecoins remain central to the private digital dollar debate, and crypto firms are left waiting for Congress and the White House to turn passed language into enforceable law.

A coalition of major US law enforcement organizations is urging the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House to reconsider provisions in the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, warning that parts of the landmark crypto bill could create oversight gaps and make it harder to investigate illicit activity.  The concerns center on Section 604, a controversial provision intended to shield non-custodial blockchain developers from being treated as money transmitters. It also highlights the increasingly delicate balancing act facing lawmakers as they seek to provide regulatory clarity for digital assets without weakening anti-money laundering safeguards.  Joint Letter From the Law Enforcement Groups. Source: Novi AMS Police, Prosecutors, and Law Enforcement Groups Fear Oversight Gaps According to reports, the joint letter came from four organizations: the National Association of District Attorneys, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs' Association.  This group of law enforcement officers warned the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, and the White House crypto adviser, Patrick Witt, about the bill. The focus was on Section 604, also known as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), which was initially introduced as a standalone bill before being incorporated into the broader CLARITY Act.  The provision seeks to clarify that non-custodial developers and infrastructure providers are not money transmitters solely because they write software or support blockchain networks. The law enforcement groups emphasized that their objections are not aimed at software developers themselves. They said: "Rather, our concern is with broad exemptions that may shield individuals or entities whose activities facilitate the movement of digital assets, create obstacles to legitimate oversight, or weaken longstanding investigative and enforcement authorities relied upon by law enforcement." The US law enforcement groups argue that the bill could reduce transparency, weaken accountability, and create gaps within the anti-money laundering framework. Their intervention comes as Congress continues debating one of the most consequential pieces of crypto legislation in US history. The CLARITY Act aims to establish a market structure framework for digital assets and provide long-sought regulatory certainty for the industry. Supporters Argue For and Against the Warning The latest objections add to a growing list of concerns surrounding Section 604. Catholic organizations and anti-human trafficking groups have also raised alarms, arguing that the provision could make it harder to track financial flows linked to organized crime and human trafficking networks. However, supporters of the legislation argue that the fears are overstated. Blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs recently published an analysis arguing that Section 604 preserves existing criminal liability and does not eliminate authorities used in previous prosecutions involving illicit finance.  White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt has similarly defended the legislation, maintaining that the CLARITY Act is both "regulation-supporting" and "enforcement-supporting" and arguing that the United States should lead in setting global standards for digital assets. As the bill moves closer to Senate consideration, the clash between developers and law enforcement agencies may ultimately shape America's digital asset framework.

Why Is Meta Investing In CRED? Meta Platforms has committed $900 million to Indian fintech startup CRED through a Series H funding round, pairing a minority investment with a major leadership move at WhatsApp. CRED founder and CEO Kunal Shah is set to lead WhatsApp globally, replacing Will Cathcart, in a shift that gives Meta direct access to one of India’s most visible fintech operators as it looks to deepen its role in payments, financial services, and consumer commerce. The investment values CRED at more than $4 billion. The company said it plans to use the funds to “accelerate growth, build institutional muscle, and extend its leadership across categories.” CRED rewards users for paying credit card bills on time and now handles more than 40% of India’s credit card bill payment volume. The structure of the deal is important. Meta is not acquiring CRED, and the investment does not include access to CRED’s user data. Instead, the strategic value sits in Shah’s move to WhatsApp and Meta’s minority exposure to a fintech platform with scale in one of the world’s most competitive digital payments markets. “Meta comes in as a minority investor in CRED. No access to member data. While it's come very far, the delta between WhatsApp today and its full potential is massive,” Shah wrote on X. Why Does Kunal Shah’s Move Matter For WhatsApp? Shah’s appointment gives WhatsApp a leader with direct experience building financial products for Indian consumers. That matters because WhatsApp has enormous reach in India, with about 500 million users, but its payments tool has struggled to become a dominant force in a market already shaped by UPI, local fintech apps, banks, and large consumer platforms. WhatsApp’s challenge has never been distribution. It has been converting a messaging audience into a payments habit. India’s digital payments market is crowded, fast-moving, and heavily regulated. Consumers already have trusted payment options, and merchants often rely on existing UPI-based workflows. For WhatsApp, the opportunity is large, but the conversion problem is difficult. Shah’s background at CRED gives Meta a different kind of operating knowledge. CRED built its brand around trust, rewards, credit behavior, and premium consumer engagement rather than pure transaction volume. That experience could help WhatsApp rethink how payments sit inside messaging, commerce, credit-linked services, and financial engagement. Investor Takeaway Meta’s CRED investment is less about direct data access and more about financial product execution. The bigger asset may be Kunal Shah’s operating experience in India’s fintech market, where WhatsApp has reach but not yet payments dominance. Is This A New Big Tech Playbook? The transaction also fits a broader pattern in Big Tech dealmaking. Rather than buying companies outright and inviting heavier regulatory scrutiny, large technology groups are increasingly using minority investments alongside founder recruitment to gain strategic influence without taking formal control. Independent analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera described Meta’s latest move as “an acqui-hire wearing a minority stake as a disguise.” He argued that Meta used a similar structure with Scale AI, investing heavily while recruiting founder Alexandr Wang to lead a new artificial intelligence lab. “Two deals, one pattern, and the pattern is the headline nobody is printing,” Perera wrote on X. That interpretation is especially relevant in India, where data-localization rules, foreign-ownership sensitivity, and regulatory oversight can complicate full acquisitions. A minority investment gives Meta financial exposure and strategic proximity without taking control of CRED’s data or governance. Bringing Shah into WhatsApp gives the company the talent and market knowledge it wants without the regulatory burden of a full takeover. For CRED, the trade-off is also clear. The company gains a major global investor and additional capital while preparing for its next stage of growth. Following Shah’s departure, Miten Sampat, who previously handled strategy and finance at CRED, will serve as interim CEO. The company’s board is also working on “constituting the right leadership structure towards eventual IPO.” What Are The Market Implications? For Meta, the deal strengthens its India strategy at a time when the company is expanding across payments, AI infrastructure, subscriptions, and consumer services. Earlier this month, Meta announced a partnership with Reliance to build a 168-megawatt facility in Jamnagar, Gujarat, to support global infrastructure and AI computing needs. The CRED investment adds a financial-services angle to that expansion. WhatsApp already sits at the center of daily communication in India. If Meta can make payments, subscriptions, commerce, and financial tools work inside that environment, WhatsApp could become a larger transaction layer rather than only a messaging platform. The risk is execution. India’s digital payments market rewards scale, reliability, merchant acceptance, and regulatory alignment. WhatsApp has the user base, but user base alone has not been enough. Meta will need to show that Shah’s leadership can turn WhatsApp Pay from an underused feature into a stronger payments and financial-services channel. For investors, the deal points to a wider strategic shift. Big Tech companies are not only competing for products or users. They are competing for founders who understand regulated, high-growth markets. Meta’s $900 million CRED investment may be structured as a minority stake, but the larger bet is on whether fintech leadership can unlock WhatsApp’s next stage of growth in India and beyond.

Why Is Bitcoin Testing Lower Levels Again? Bitcoin fell below $60,000 at Wednesday’s Wall Street open, reaching its lowest level in two weeks as traders focused on whether the current range floor can hold or whether a deeper liquidity sweep is needed before any relief bounce develops. The decline followed a weaker daily close near $62,700 on Tuesday, the lowest since June 10. Bitcoin then lost the $63,000 area as short-term support and continued to print lower highs after failing near $66,000 earlier in the week. The move also formed a bearish engulfing candle against Monday’s range, wiping out the prior session’s gains and pointing to softer near-term momentum. Despite the break below $60,000, traders are still treating the move as part of a broader range rather than a confirmed breakdown. Several short-term forecasts continue to place the lower boundary around $60,000 to $60,500, with any recovery likely to face resistance first near $63,500 and $64,000 before a stronger move toward the upper part of the range. “It’s time to start bouncing soon on the LTF,” trader Killa wrote on X, referring to low time frames. “Range bound till proven otherwise.” Is A Relief Bounce Toward $70,000 Still Possible? The main short-term question is whether the latest downside move is clearing leverage before a rebound or starting a deeper correction. Some traders still expect a relief bounce toward $70,000, but the quality of that move matters. A rally that fails to reclaim stronger supply zones could create what traders call a lower high, leaving bitcoin vulnerable to another retest of the range floor. RektProof outlined a similar view, saying bitcoin could continue trading with $60,000 as the floor for the rest of the month before moving back toward supply and later forming weak highs near $70,000. That outlook keeps bitcoin inside a tactical trading environment. Bulls need to see demand absorb selling pressure near the lower range and push price back above short-term resistance. Bears, by contrast, need a clean loss of the $60,000 to $60,500 area to show that the current range has failed. Crypto trader Lennaert Snyder also urged caution, saying he was not yet ready to buy the initial bounce. “Bitcoin started a little bounce, but I’m not convinced and not buying in yet,” he wrote. He identified $61,500 and $60,500 as the key areas to watch for bullish reactions, while pointing to $63,500 and $64,000 as upside liquidity zones that could attract price before another move lower. Investor Takeaway Bitcoin’s decline is being driven by short-term liquidity and leverage pressure rather than a confirmed structural break. The $60,000 to $60,500 area is now the key test: holding it keeps the range intact, while losing it would weaken the case for a near-term rebound. How Important Is The Liquidity Around $60,500? Order book data showed more than $525 million in buy bids initially stacked between $60,500 and $61,500, creating a dense demand zone beneath spot price. Bitcoin has already traded through a meaningful part of that area, triggering roughly $270 million in buy orders as price dipped below $61,000. The remaining bids are concentrated closer to the lower end of that liquidity cluster, where traders are trying to absorb the latest wave of selling. That makes the $60,500 to $61,000 region more important than a normal support level. It is both a technical floor and a liquidity zone where spot demand and leveraged positioning are clustered. The move below $61,000 also flushed a large portion of leveraged long exposure. More than $125 million in long liquidations were recorded over the past hour, reducing near-term downside liquidation pressure around current levels. With many long positions already cleared, the liquidation map is now more heavily tilted toward shorts above spot price. More than $1.2 billion in short positions sit near $63,500, while a larger concentration of more than $2.4 billion is positioned near $65,000. If bitcoin stabilizes near the lower range, those short liquidation zones could become upside targets for a fast relief move. Why Has The Iran Peace Progress Not Helped Risk Assets? Macro conditions offered limited support. U.S. equities opened mostly flat even after further signs of cooperation between the United States and Iran. President Donald Trump said on Truth Social that there would be “no tolls, no insurance costs, & no other charges of any kind being sought or received by Iran on ships traveling” through the Strait of Hormuz. The muted market reaction suggests investors had already priced in much of the relief from the U.S.-Iran peace deal. The S&P 500 was up modestly near the open, while the Nasdaq Composite briefly turned slightly negative. For bitcoin, the lack of follow-through in equities matters because it leaves crypto more exposed to its own liquidity structure. Without a strong risk-asset bid, short-term price action is being shaped by order book demand, liquidation clusters, and whether traders are willing to defend the lower end of the range. The immediate setup is therefore narrow but important. Bitcoin must hold the lower liquidity zone to keep a relief bounce toward $63,500, $65,000, and possibly $70,000 in play. If buyers fail to defend that area, the current move would shift from a range sweep into a more damaging breakdown.

Japan's financial conglomerate SBI Group has launched JPYSC, the country's first yen-denominated stablecoin backed by a trust bank. The move shows the growing convergence between traditional finance and digital assets, and it represents another milestone for Japan, one of the first major economies to establish a comprehensive legal framework for stablecoins.  The new stablecoin is issued through SBI Shinsei Bank, making it the first digital currency in Japan to adopt a trust bank structure. Unlike many crypto-native stablecoins, JPYSC is designed to combine blockchain efficiency with the safeguards and investor protections associated with regulated banking. Statement from SBI and Starstale. Source: SBI Holdings  Japan Turns Stablecoins Into Banking Products The stablecoin launch by SBI Group highlights how Japan's approach to stablecoins differs from that of many other jurisdictions. Instead of private issuers operating outside the traditional financial sector, Japanese regulators have favored structures involving banks, trust companies, and licensed money transfer businesses.  Amendments to the country's Payment Services Act, which came into effect in 2023, formally recognized stablecoins as electronic payment instruments and established clear requirements for issuance and redemption. JPYSC is one of the clearest examples of the framework in action. According to SBI: “JPYSC is designed as a trust-based stablecoin issued by Shinsei Trust and Banking Co., Ltd., under Japan’s regulatory framework and is structured to operate seamlessly across traditional financial systems and blockchain networks.”  SBI added that the initiative is intended to provide a safe and reliable digital settlement infrastructure. By using a trust bank structure, holders of JPYSC have a claim on trust assets, providing stronger redemption protections and reducing concerns around reserve management.  The model resembles the approach adopted by several tokenized deposit initiatives emerging in Europe and the United States. SBI is Expanding Its Digital Asset Footprint The launch is the latest step in SBI's broader push into blockchain and digital assets. Over the years, the group has invested heavily in tokenization, crypto exchanges, and cross-border payments.  SBI has maintained a long-standing partnership with Ripple and has been one of the most active proponents of blockchain adoption among traditional financial institutions in Asia. Its subsidiaries have also explored digital securities, tokenized real-world assets, and institutional crypto custody services. With JPYSC, SBI is extending those efforts into digital payments and programmable money. The timing is notable because banks and payment companies worldwide are increasingly embracing stablecoins. Visa and Mastercard have expanded support for stablecoin settlement, while major US banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citi, are reportedly exploring tokenized deposit networks.  In the UK, the Bank of England recently relaxed some of its proposed restrictions on systemic stablecoins, while South Korea's KG Inicis announced plans to bring stablecoin payments to Solana. Based on these events, Japan's first trust bank-backed stablecoin reflects a broader global shift in which regulated financial institutions are taking ownership of digital money infrastructure. As jurisdictions race to establish digital asset infrastructure, the stablecoin signals that the future of digital money could be well within the banking system. 

Ras Al Khaimah, UAE, June 24th, 2026, FinanceWire Fintech developer Virell Trade has officially announced the launch of Stabliq Wallet, a secure, non-custodial cryptocurrency wallet engineered specifically for the management of stablecoins across the Ethereum and TRON networks. Designed to enhance digital asset security and accessibility, the application provides comprehensive storage, transfer, and exchange capabilities for major stablecoins, including USDT and USDC. To mitigate the complexities typically associated with decentralized finance (DeFi), Stabliq Wallet introduces a specialized architectural design that appeals to both institutional digital asset managers and retail users entering the Web3 ecosystem. Key Infrastructure and Technical Features Include: Gasless Ethereum Token Swaps: The wallet features native in-app token exchange capabilities on the Ethereum network, incorporating advanced transaction routing that eliminates the standard requirement for users to hold native Ether (ETH) to cover network gas fees. Non-Custodial Security Framework: Built on a strict zero-trust, non-custodial architecture, the platform ensures users retain exclusive ownership of their private keys. Local security protocols are reinforced by biometrics (Face ID), password protection, and standardized seed phrase recovery mechanisms. Multi-Account and Multi-Network Integration: Users can manage multiple distinct accounts, import existing wallets via standard seed phrases, and track cross-network digital assets seamlessly within a unified interface. Operational Workflow Optimization: The application streamlines daily transactions through an integrated address book, comprehensive transaction historical ledgers, custom token import support, and quick-response (QR) code transfer protocols. By focusing on the dual infrastructure of Ethereum and TRON — the two largest networks for stablecoin volume — Stabliq Wallet directly addresses the market's demand for high-throughput, secure, and cost-effective digital asset management. Representative of Virell Trade: «Stabliq Wallet uses a non-custodial architecture, meaning users have full control over their private keys. Security features include Face ID, password protection, and seed phrase backup», said the company. About Virell Trade Virell Trade is a digital asset technology company based in Ras Al Khaimah, UAE. The firm specializes in developing secure Web3 infrastructure, decentralized financial applications, and consumer-focused blockchain tools designed to enhance efficiency and security in the global digital economy. For more information, users can visit the official Stabliq Wallet platform. Contact Stabliq Wallet dev@virell.io

Five Senate Democrats urged Republican committee chairs on Tuesday to open immediate hearings into a reported $500 million United Arab Emirates investment in the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture, warning the deal may have shaped national security decisions by President Donald Trump and his administration. The lawmakers cited reporting that lieutenants to an Abu Dhabi royal secretly signed a deal four days before Trump's inauguration last year to buy a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial for half a billion dollars. Foreign buyers reportedly paid $218 million up front to entities tied to the families of Trump and his lead Middle East diplomat, Steve Witkoff. The senators identified the backer as Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE's National Security Advisor. World Liberty Financial was founded by Trump, his sons, and Witkoff's sons, Zach and Alex. The senators called the arrangement unprecedented in American politics, marking the first time a foreign government official took a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president's company. They added that the stake compounded earlier concerns over an investment by MGX, a UAE state-backed firm, that lifted the market capitalization of the Trump family's stablecoin by almost $2 billion overnight. Arms And Chips Followed The Stake Since Trump took office in January 2025, the administration has approved a string of deals benefiting the UAE. In May 2025, it cleared $1.4 billion in arms sales to the country despite lawmakers' concerns tied to human rights abuses in Sudan. In November 2025, it authorized the sale of 35,000 advanced AI chips worth over a billion dollars to the UAE's G42 firm, over national security officials' warnings that China could gain access. The senators also flagged a January 2026 transaction in which UAE-backed MGX bought a stake in TikTok at what they called a bargain price, despite Trump's pledge it would be owned by American companies. Senators Want Testimony Under Oath The lawmakers tied the investment to broader administration moves on crypto, including steps exempting digital assets and their service providers from existing financial regulations and the disbanding of the Justice Department's National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. They wrote that administration officials must explain under oath what they knew about payments to the families of the president and Witkoff, and when. The letter went to Finance Chairman Mike Crapo, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Ron Johnson, Homeland Security Chairman Rand Paul, and Banking Chairman Tim Scott. Warren, the Banking Committee's ranking member, signed it alongside Richard Blumenthal, Gary Peters, Richard Durbin, and Ron Wyden. The request adds to a sustained campaign by Warren against the family's crypto holdings. In March 2026, she and Blumenthal pressed the SEC over the resignation of its enforcement chief, alleging political appointees shielded Trump-linked firms from enforcement. In November 2025, Warren and Senator Jack Reed asked the Justice Department and Treasury to investigate alleged WLFI token sales to sanctioned actors. And in June 2026, she joined Bernie Sanders in urging the Labor Department to drop a rule easing crypto's inclusion in 401(k) plans.

Capital.com has secured two regulatory approvals from South Africa's Financial Sector Conduct Authority, establishing a fully regulated operating framework in one of Africa's largest and most sophisticated financial markets. The approvals authorize Capital.com South Africa as both an Over-the-Counter Derivatives Provider and a Category 1 Financial Services Provider. Together, the licenses allow the broker to offer CFDs across equities, commodities, indices, foreign exchange, and crypto-related products while operating under direct FSCA supervision. At first glance, the announcement appears to be another broker licensing update. The bigger story is that global brokers are increasingly targeting Africa as one of the few major retail trading markets that remains significantly underpenetrated compared with Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The approval also highlights a broader trend reshaping the brokerage industry: regulation has become a competitive weapon. Firms are increasingly competing not only on spreads, platforms, and products, but also on the breadth and quality of their regulatory footprint. Why South Africa Has Become A Strategic Market For Global Brokers South Africa occupies a unique position within the global retail trading industry. Unlike many emerging markets, it combines a sophisticated financial sector, an established regulatory framework, a developed banking system, deep capital markets, and a large base of retail investors already familiar with leveraged products. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange remains Africa's largest exchange by market capitalization, while South Africa's asset management industry oversees more than $1 trillion in assets according to industry estimates. Retail participation in forex and CFD trading has grown steadily over the last decade, making the country one of the most important markets for international brokers operating on the continent. This has led many firms to pursue local authorization rather than serving clients through offshore entities. Valentina Rzheutskaya, Executive Director at Capital.com, commented, “Operating under local regulatory supervision is fundamental to how we approach market entry. The FSCA approvals define the framework within which Capital.com is permitted to operate in South Africa, including the standards we must meet around governance, conduct and risk controls.” The strategic importance of South Africa becomes clearer when compared with other jurisdictions where Capital.com already operates. Jurisdiction Regulator Primary Strategic Value United Kingdom FCA Major retail and institutional market European Union CySEC EEA passporting and retail distribution Australia ASIC Asia-Pacific market access UAE Capital Markets Authority Middle East growth Kenya Capital Markets Authority East Africa expansion South Africa FSCA Africa's largest regulated retail trading market The South Africa approval therefore fits into a larger expansion strategy that increasingly focuses on regulated local operations rather than cross-border servicing. What The Two Licences Actually Allow Capital.com To Do The dual-license structure is more significant than a standard broker authorization because each approval serves a different purpose. The Over-the-Counter Derivatives Provider licence allows Capital.com to execute derivative transactions under South Africa's regulatory framework. This includes CFDs linked to equities, commodities, indices, foreign exchange markets, and crypto assets. The Category 1 Financial Services Provider licence serves a different role. It allows the company to market and promote its services locally while providing intermediary services related to approved financial products. Together, the licences create a complete operating framework that enables the broker to acquire clients, market products, and execute transactions through a locally regulated entity. This structure differs from many offshore models where brokers may possess authorization in one jurisdiction but market products into another without a locally regulated presence. Licence Type Purpose What It Enables ODP Derivative execution CFD and OTC derivatives trading Category 1 FSP Financial services provider Marketing, client onboarding and intermediary services The ability to offer crypto CFDs is also notable. While South Africa has introduced oversight of crypto asset service providers, the country's regulatory approach has generally been viewed as more accommodating than some jurisdictions that have imposed outright restrictions on crypto derivatives. Capital.com Is Building One Of The Broadest Regulatory Networks Among CFD Brokers The South African authorization is the latest addition to a licensing portfolio that has expanded rapidly over the last several years. Capital.com now operates through entities regulated by the FCA in the UK, CySEC in Cyprus, ASIC in Australia, the Securities Commission of The Bahamas, the UAE Capital Markets Authority, the Bermuda Monetary Authority, Kenya's Capital Markets Authority, and now the FSCA. While many brokers highlight the number of licences they hold, the quality and strategic value of those approvals often matters more than the raw count. Capital.com's regulatory network now covers most of the world's major retail trading regions. Region Key Licence Market Access United Kingdom FCA UK retail market Europe CySEC European Economic Area Asia-Pacific ASIC Australia and regional clients Middle East UAE CMA Regional expansion East Africa Kenya CMA Kenyan market Southern Africa FSCA South African market The approval also follows Capital.com's authorization in Kenya earlier this year. Viewed together, the two licences suggest the company is pursuing a broader African strategy rather than treating South Africa as an isolated market. FinanceFeeds recently reported on Kraken parent Payward's expansion of its global licensing network. Similar dynamics are emerging across the brokerage sector, where regulatory reach increasingly influences competitive positioning. FinanceFeeds also recently covered Plus500's expansion into new products and market structures and the industry's push toward broader multi-asset offerings. The common thread is that brokers are investing simultaneously in product expansion and regulatory expansion. Capital.com has appointed Travis Robson as Chief Executive Officer for South Africa. His background includes building regulated financial services businesses, engaging with regulators, and overseeing regulated trading operations. Robson commented, “Operating through a regulated local entity matters because it shapes the environment in which decisions are made. Our role is to ensure clients engage with markets within a framework that is governed, supervised and designed to prioritise clarity around risk.” The appointment suggests Capital.com intends to establish a meaningful local operation rather than simply obtaining a licence and servicing clients remotely. That distinction may become increasingly important as regulators worldwide place greater emphasis on governance, local accountability, and operational substance. Takeaway Capital.com's South African approval is about more than entering another country. It provides access to Africa's largest regulated retail trading market and completes another piece of the broker's increasingly global regulatory footprint. Combined with recent approvals in Kenya, the move points toward a broader African growth strategy at a time when many mature retail trading markets have become highly competitive. As brokers continue expanding products and geographic reach, regulatory infrastructure is increasingly becoming as important as technology and pricing in determining long-term winners.