Effective July 1, 2026, MIAX Options, MIAX Pearl Options, MIAX Emerald Options and MIAX Sapphire Options Exchanges will amend the following fees pending filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission: MIAX Pearl Options Exchange – Non-Penny class rates Simple Maker Rebates for Non-Penny Classes amended to new rates below Priority Customer: ($1.19) for Tiers 1-6 Pearl Market Maker: ($0.80) for Tiers 1-6 Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD, and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker: ($0.80) for Tiers 1-6 Simple Taker Fees for Non-Penny Classes amended to new rates below Pearl Market Maker $1.21 for Tiers 1-6 Non-Priority Customer, Firm, BD, and Non-MIAX Pearl Market Maker: $1.21 for Tiers 1-6 MIAX Options, MIAX Pearl Options, MIAX Emerald Options and MIAX Sapphire Options –  Historical Open-Close Report discount extension From July 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026, any single purchase of $20,000 or more of historical End-of-Day Open-Close Report data and/or historical Intra-Day Open-Close Report data by an existing subscriber to the End-of-Day or Intra-Day Open-Close Report, will receive a 20% discount when the subscriber purchases the same category of historical data for which they have a monthly subscription. MIAX Sapphire Options does not have minimum single purchase size This discount cannot be combined with any other discount offered by the Exchange, including the academic discount provided for Qualifying Academic Purchasers of historical Open-Close Report data REMINDER:  MIAX Exchange Group will modify its Options Regulatory Fee ("ORF") rates beginning in July 2026 as previously announced in this previous Alert: $0.0170 per contract on MIAX Options Exchange $0.0240 per contract on MIAX Pearl Options Exchange $0.0220 per contract on MIAX Emerald Options Exchange $0.0220 per contract on MIAX Sapphire Options Exchange Attached are highlighted summaries of the July 2026 fee changes. MIAX Sapphire Exchange MIAX Emerald Exchange MIAX Pearl Options Exchange MIAX Options Exchange Complete details will be contained in the July 2026 exchange fee schedules, when posted on the MIAX website at MIAX Options Fee Schedule, MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule, MIAX Emerald Options Fee Schedule and MIAX Sapphire Options Fee Schedule.For additional information, please contact MIAX Sales at Sales@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-8177.For assistance, please contact MIAX Trading Operations at TradingOperations@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7302.

Why Did Bank of America Agree To Pay $7.5 Million? Bank of America agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that its Merrill Lynch brokerage failed to properly file all required suspicious activity reports. The settlement centers on Merrill’s anti-money laundering controls between April 2020 and September 2024. According to the SEC’s administrative action filed Monday, Merrill did not investigate all suspicious activity that should have been reviewed because of the way Bank of America’s internal transaction-monitoring system flagged events for additional scrutiny. The case highlights a recurring compliance risk for large financial institutions: automated monitoring systems can create gaps when risk thresholds are not calibrated correctly. For brokerages, those gaps can affect whether suspicious activity is reviewed, escalated, and reported to regulators. The SEC said Bank of America’s software assigned certain events or transactions risk scores between 1 and 20. Events above the threshold were sent for further investigation. But internal reviews by the bank and Merrill found that some events scoring below 20 would have required suspicious activity reports if they had been investigated. What Did The SEC Say Merrill Failed To Do? The SEC said Merrill failed to file numerous suspicious activity reports because certain event groups below the 20-point threshold were not investigated. Suspicious activity reports, or SARs, are a core part of the U.S. anti-money laundering framework and are used to alert authorities to potentially improper transactions or conduct. “During the relevant period, Merrill failed to file numerous SARs due to its failure to investigate certain event groups with risk scores below 20,” the SEC said. The issue was not that suspicious activity reports were never filed. The SEC’s allegation was narrower: Merrill’s monitoring process failed to capture all activity that should have been investigated, and that failure resulted in missed filings. That distinction matters for investors and compliance teams. It shows how regulatory exposure can arise even when a bank has a formal AML program in place. If the scoring model excludes activity that later proves reportable, the institution can still face enforcement risk. Investor Takeaway The settlement is a compliance-control case rather than a balance-sheet event for Bank of America. The main risk is reputational and supervisory: regulators are signaling that automated AML systems must be tested, adjusted, and documented when thresholds miss reportable activity. How Did The Bank Respond? Bank of America did not admit to the SEC’s allegations, according to the administrative action. The bank changed the way its system scored events in December 2023, and the SEC said it considered the company’s cooperation and remedial steps when calculating the penalty. Those details are important because they show how the final fine was shaped. The SEC did not describe the settlement only as a failure case. It also acknowledged that the company had taken corrective action and cooperated during the investigation. Bank of America defended its broader anti-money laundering practices. “We maintain rigorous anti-money laundering practices,” a spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “We have been engaged with regulators on this matter, and we continually review and enhance our AML systems to address evolving risks and report and detect suspicious activity.” The statement points to the central challenge for large brokerages. AML systems must process large volumes of transactions, but regulators expect firms to keep improving those systems as risks change. Static thresholds can become a liability if internal testing shows that they are missing conduct that should be escalated. Why Does This Matter For Brokerage Compliance? The case adds to regulatory pressure on financial firms that rely heavily on automated surveillance, risk scoring, and model-based monitoring. These tools are now central to compliance operations, but they do not reduce a firm’s responsibility to investigate suspicious activity. For broker-dealers, the settlement reinforces the need to review not only alerts that are generated, but also activity that falls just below alert thresholds. If back-testing shows that lower-scoring events should have produced SARs, regulators may expect the firm to revise its monitoring rules and address past gaps. The case also shows how parent-company systems can create subsidiary-level exposure. The SEC’s allegations involved Merrill’s filings, but the monitoring framework was tied to Bank of America’s software and escalation process. That makes governance and oversight across business lines a key part of AML compliance. For investors, the $7.5 million penalty is modest relative to Bank of America’s size. The broader significance is regulatory. Supervisors are continuing to focus on whether major financial institutions can prove that their compliance technology works in practice, not just that it exists on paper.

Poland just posted its largest annual jump in brokerage accounts on record, and a new FM Intelligence report sets out what that growth means for brokers weighing the country as a place to set up.The headline number is hard to ignore. Brokerage accounts reached 2.86 million in May 2026, up 713,711 in a year, putting the market on course to pass 3 million within months, according to the Polish Central Securities Depository.Much of that has flowed to one name. XTB became the first broker in the country to top 1 million domestic accounts and reported first-quarter net profit of PLN 535 million, up 176% year over year, a run FinanceMagnates.com has tracked through the year.What Tilts the Math Toward PolandFor years, Cyprus was the default EU home for CFD brokers. That gap has closed. Capital floors are now harmonized across the bloc, so a market-making license costs the same EUR 750,000 in Warsaw as it does in Limassol. The decision shifts to cost base, talent and supervision instead.FM Intelligence estimates Polish labor costs run 40% to 60% below Western European levels, drawing on a deep pool of engineers and compliance staff who already serve global firms operating from the country.Poland also offers a product hook that pure ESMA jurisdictions cannot match. Under a KNF carve-out, an "experienced retail client" can use leverage up to 1:100 on major FX, gold and major US indices, against the standard retail cap of 1:30. A standalone brokerage also sits outside the 30% bank levy that hit Polish lenders in 2026.The Catches Worth Pricing InThat 2.86 million counts securities accounts, not CFD clients, so the contestable derivatives layer is far smaller.It is not small in absolute terms, though. KNF data counted roughly 370,000 active forex clients in Poland in 2025, a heavy single-country base at a time when the whole industry was running near 6 million active CFD accounts.The contrast with Germany is sharper. Europe's biggest economy reported about 63,000 active CFD and forex traders over a comparable period, leaving Poland among the continent's larger retail trading bases by head count.The catch is the outcome, with 72.2% of those clients losing money over the year, according to the regulator.The KNF fined XTB PLN 20 million over CFD marketing rules, a penalty the broker is contesting, which any entrant should treat as part of the Poland case rather than an exception.FM Intelligence maps three paths for the account base by end-2027, ranging from about 3.2 million in the bear case to near 4 million in the bull case.The full study, with the entry routes, the cost tables and the Poland-versus-Cyprus comparison, is in the FM Intelligence report. This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.

The US National Futures Association (NFA) has ordered Marex Spectron International Limited, an NFA Member introducing broker located in London, U.K., to pay a $350,000 fine. The post NFA orders Marex Spectron International Limited to pay $350k fine appeared first on FX News Group.

Why Are Major Financial Firms Backing Open USD? More than 140 companies, including Visa, Stripe, Mastercard, BlackRock and Coinbase, have joined Open Standard to support Open USD, a new stablecoin designed to share most of the earnings from its reserves with participating businesses. The launch group brings together payment networks, banks, asset managers, technology firms and crypto companies. That mix gives Open USD a broader starting base than many stablecoin projects that begin with a single issuer, exchange, or blockchain ecosystem. Open Standard said businesses will be able to mint and redeem Open USD without fees or volume limits. Most of the income generated by the stablecoin’s reserves will be distributed to participating businesses after a small management fee. The stablecoin is expected to launch later this year, according to the project’s website. The model is aimed at one of the main commercial questions in stablecoins: who captures the economics of reserve income. In traditional stablecoin structures, the issuer often keeps most of the yield earned on Treasury bills or cash equivalents backing the token. Open USD is structured to return a large portion of that income to businesses that help drive adoption. How Does The Open Standard Model Work? Companies that join Open Standard are expected to use Open USD as a core payment asset inside their products and services. They will also receive technical and integration support and earn revenue based on the stablecoin’s adoption. The governance structure is also different from a single-issuer model. Open USD will be managed by an independent organization, with governance shared among partner companies rather than controlled by one issuer. That design is intended to make the stablecoin more acceptable to companies that compete with one another but still want common payment infrastructure. The launch members include major payment networks such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Discover; financial institutions including BlackRock, BNY and Standard Chartered; technology firms such as Google, Shopify and IBM; and crypto companies including Coinbase, Bybit, OKX, MetaMask, Ripple and Galaxy. Visa’s head of crypto, Cuy Sheffield, described Open USD as “a shared stablecoin designed for the global financial system.” Mastercard Chief Product Officer Jorn Lambert said shared, interoperable infrastructure was key to bringing stablecoins into the broader financial system, while Stripe President of Technology and Business Will Gaybrick said Open USD is intended to become the default stablecoin for businesses using Stripe. Investor Takeaway Open USD is not only a new stablecoin launch. It is an attempt to change the economic split behind stablecoin adoption by giving businesses a direct share of reserve income and a role in governance. Why Does Reserve Income Matter? Reserve income has become one of the most important profit pools in stablecoins. When interest rates are high, the assets backing stablecoins can generate significant income. That income has helped turn large stablecoin issuers into highly profitable businesses, especially when customer balances scale quickly. Open USD is trying to make that economics more attractive to distribution partners. If merchants, payment platforms, exchanges and fintech companies can earn a share of reserve income, they may have a stronger incentive to integrate the stablecoin into payment flows, wallets, treasury tools and settlement products. That could increase competition in a market where the largest stablecoins have benefited from network effects, deep exchange liquidity and existing user habits. Open USD’s challenge will be converting a large launch-member list into real transaction volume. Stablecoin adoption depends not only on brand support but also on liquidity, redemption reliability, regulatory comfort, and whether users have a practical reason to switch from existing tokens. The presence of major payment networks and technology firms gives Open USD credibility, but it also raises execution questions. A shared governance model can reduce dependence on one issuer, yet it may also make decision-making more complex. Reserve management, risk controls, compliance standards and distribution economics will need to remain clear as more companies connect to the system. What Role Will Tempo Play? Tempo CEO Matt Huang said Open USD will be natively issued on Tempo’s network from day one, with support for payments, liquidity, exchanges and decentralized finance. Open Standard has not yet said whether Tempo will be the exclusive network for native issuance at launch. That point matters because network choice can shape how stablecoins are used. A stablecoin built for payments needs low transaction costs, fast settlement, reliable liquidity and integrations across wallets, merchants, exchanges and financial institutions. Native issuance on Tempo could give Open USD a clear technical home at launch, but broader adoption may depend on how easily the asset can move across other networks. For exchanges, payment companies and fintech platforms, Open USD could become a new settlement and revenue-sharing layer if it reaches meaningful liquidity. For banks and asset managers, the project offers exposure to stablecoin infrastructure without relying on a single crypto-native issuer. For crypto firms, it adds another potential bridge between centralized finance, payments and decentralized finance. The larger market implication is that stablecoin competition is moving beyond token supply alone. The next phase is likely to focus on distribution, reserve economics, governance rights and payment integration. Open USD enters that race with a large group of launch members and a clear commercial pitch: shared infrastructure, shared economics and a stablecoin built for business adoption.

FinTelegram has released v2.0 of its SoftSwiss / Dream Finance Compliance Intelligence Report, expanding the original dossier with a major new structural development: the emergence of Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o. in Poland as the legal entity behind the newly separated Coinspaid Dev engineering layer. The v2 update is now available for download. Download: [SoftSwiss / Dream Finance Compliance Report v2.0 – PDF] Download: [SoftSwiss / Dream Finance Compliance Report v2.0 – PDF] The new version updates FinTelegram’s risk-based analysis of the SoftSwiss / Dream Finance / CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing / FinteqHub ecosystem and focuses on a key question that has become even more important: Who controls the engineering, IP, infrastructure, wallet, settlement and compliance-tooling layer behind CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing? From v1 to v2: Why This Update Matters In the first version of the report, FinTelegram identified a central ownership and control issue. The Estonian operating entity Dream Finance OÜ, which operates the CoinsPaid and CryptoProcessing brands, publicly records Alexander Horst Riedinger as shareholder and beneficial owner. At the same time, founder-level materials, litigation materials, whistleblower accounts and adverse-media reporting pointed to the broader Ivan Montik / SoftSwiss founder ecosystem as relevant to the control analysis. FinTelegram treated this carefully in v1: registered ownership, alleged beneficial ownership, public founder roles, whistleblower claims and FinTelegram hypotheses were kept separate. The v2 update does not abandon that discipline. It strengthens it. The new Polish Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o. structure does not, by itself, disprove the Estonian register entry naming Riedinger as beneficial owner of Dream Finance OÜ. However, it adds a new and highly relevant register-level signal: Ivan Montik appears in public Polish company-data sources as a beneficial-owner entry of Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o., while the company’s shareholders are listed as Bitcapital Ltd, PrimeFuture Ltd and WRU Investments Ltd. Those shareholder names are not new to FinTelegram’s SoftSwiss / Dream Finance mapping. They have already appeared in the broader SoftSwiss / Montik / founder-circle ecosystem. This is why v2 matters. The Key v2 Update: The Polish Engineering Layer Public reporting describes Coinspaid Dev as the engineering team behind the infrastructure powering Coinspaid Solutions, now separated from Coinspaid as a dedicated engineering brand. The public narrative is straightforward: after more than a decade of building blockchain payment infrastructure, the engineering function is stepping out as a separate infrastructure and development brand. According to public reporting, Coinspaid Dev claims: more than 120 engineers; more than 11 years of blockchain infrastructure experience; infrastructure across more than 20 blockchain networks; expertise in distributed systems, backend architecture, cybersecurity, cloud infrastructure, data analytics and payment-infrastructure engineering. Coinspaid’s own public positioning also emphasizes that it is not merely a crypto-payment processor, but a blockchain infrastructure provider backed by a broad product ecosystem and a dedicated R&D and software-development team. This changes the compliance lens. A 120+ engineer infrastructure unit is not a small technical support department. It suggests a substantial technology layer. Whether this layer served only CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing or also supported the broader SoftSwiss ecosystem is a key question for regulators, banks, PSPs and counterparties. The Polish Entity: Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o. Public Polish company-data sources identify the new entity as: Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o.KRS: 0001228357NIP: 7831949638REGON: 544257545Registered office: Poznań, PolandRegistration date: March 2026Share capital: PLN 5,000 The listed shareholders are: ShareholderReported holdingBitcapital Ltd40%PrimeFuture Ltd40%WRU Investments Ltd20% Public company-data sources also list Ivan Montik as a beneficial-owner entry for Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o. For FinTelegram, this is the most important new v2 signal. It does not necessarily answer who owns Dream Finance OÜ. But it does show that the newly separated engineering layer around Coinspaid Dev is tied to the same SoftSwiss / Montik founder and holding-vehicle ecosystem that FinTelegram has already mapped in earlier reporting. Riedinger Register Layer Meets Montik Engineering Layer The core issue in v2 can be summarized as follows: Dream Finance OÜ remains the documented Estonian operating entity behind CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing, with Alexander Horst Riedinger appearing as the registered beneficial owner. Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o., however, introduces a separate Polish engineering and infrastructure layer in which Ivan Montik appears as a beneficial-owner entry. That distinction matters. The question is no longer only: Who owns the licensed operating entity? The question is also: Who controls the technology, infrastructure, IP, wallet systems, settlement logic, R&D, payment modules and compliance tooling on which the operating entity depends? For regulated crypto-payment and iGaming-adjacent infrastructure, that distinction is material. A registered operating entity may hold the licence. But the operational control layer may sit elsewhere — in software, infrastructure, access rights, IP ownership, engineering contracts, wallet systems, settlement scripts, transaction-monitoring tools, and production-environment control. That is the v2 issue. Why the 120+ Engineers Matter The claimed 120+ engineer headcount is a significant signal. If Coinspaid Dev were only a narrow internal support function for CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing, such a headcount would raise questions. It appears more consistent with a broader infrastructure role across a wider ecosystem. FinTelegram does not claim, as an established fact, that every Coinspaid Dev engineer worked for the wider SoftSwiss group. That would require employment records, service agreements, project documentation and organisational charts. However, the scale of the engineering unit supports a legitimate compliance question: Was Coinspaid Dev already functioning as a broader engineering and infrastructure layer for the SoftSwiss / CoinsPaid ecosystem before its public separation? This question is particularly relevant because SoftSwiss is not merely a passive investor story. SoftSwiss is a major iGaming software and casino-platform ecosystem, while CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing operate crypto-payment infrastructure. The intersection of casino technology, payment processing, wallet systems, crypto settlement and compliance tooling is exactly where engineering control becomes compliance control. MiCA Context: Why Timing Matters The timing of the Coinspaid Dev split is also relevant. Dream Finance UAB in Lithuania has been publicly presented as having suspended crypto-asset-related services, including onboarding, transaction execution and new agreements. At the same time, the operating focus remains on Dream Finance OÜ in Estonia, which continues to be listed with the older Estonian virtual-asset authorisation FVT000166. This is important because the MiCA regime changes the compliance logic for crypto-asset service providers in the EU. FinTelegram does not claim that the Coinspaid Dev split was caused by MiCA. That would require internal documents or regulatory correspondence. However, the timing makes the split MiCA-relevant. If a crypto-payment ecosystem is moving from Lithuanian suspension toward an Estonian operating base while simultaneously separating a Polish engineering layer, regulators and counterparties should ask: is Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o. a material outsourcing provider? does it control production systems? does it own or maintain payment-processing code? does it manage wallet, key, settlement or blockchain-connectivity systems? does it provide transaction-monitoring or compliance tooling? was this structure disclosed to relevant regulators or counterparties? how does it fit into MiCA, DORA and operational-resilience expectations? These are standard compliance questions, not accusations. CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing as Part of the SoftSwiss-Linked Ecosystem The v2 update also strengthens FinTelegram’s existing assessment that CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing are functionally embedded in the SoftSwiss / Ivan Montik founder ecosystem. Public materials identify Ivan Montik as SoftSwiss founder and as a founder-level figure linked to CoinsPaid and Merkeleon. SoftSwiss itself has publicly described Montik as founder and as adviser / mentor at CoinsPaid. Coinspaid Dev now adds a further link: the Polish engineering entity’s shareholder and beneficial-owner signals point back to the same founder and holding-vehicle environment. This does not, by itself, prove a single consolidated legal group or common equity ownership of every entity. But it does materially strengthen the conclusion that the CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing infrastructure cannot be assessed in isolation from the broader SoftSwiss-linked ecosystem. What Changed in v2.0 v2 UpdateCompliance SignificanceCoinspaid Development sp. z o.o. added as a new entityEstablishes a separate Polish engineering / infrastructure layer behind Coinspaid Dev.Ivan Montik appears as beneficial-owner entry in public Polish company-data sourcesAdds a new register-level signal linking the CoinsPaid engineering layer to the SoftSwiss founder ecosystem.Bitcapital Ltd, PrimeFuture Ltd and WRU Investments Ltd listed as shareholdersConnects the Polish engineering entity to holding-vehicle names already relevant in FinTelegram’s SoftSwiss / Montik mapping.Coinspaid Dev claims 120+ engineersSuggests a substantial infrastructure function, potentially broader than a narrow CoinsPaid support team.Engineering, IP and operational-outsourcing risk addedRaises new questions about production systems, wallet logic, R&D, compliance tooling and operational resilience.MiCA context expandedPlaces the Polish engineering split alongside Dream Finance UAB’s Lithuanian suspension and Dream Finance OÜ’s continued reliance on the Estonian VASP authorisation.Ownership analysis refinedSeparates operating-entity ownership from engineering-layer control and avoids overstating either. What v2 Does Not Assert FinTelegram does not assert that the Polish Coinspaid Dev structure proves criminal wrongdoing. FinTelegram does not assert that the Riedinger register entry for Dream Finance OÜ is false. FinTelegram does not assert that Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o. was created because of MiCA. FinTelegram does not assert that Coinspaid Dev serves every SoftSwiss-related entity unless contracts, internal records or service documentation prove that relationship. The v2 report does assert that the new Polish engineering-layer structure materially changes the compliance analysis and strengthens the need for regulators, banks, PSPs and counterparties to look beyond the operating entity and examine the infrastructure-control layer. Key Questions for Regulators and Counterparties FinTelegram believes the following questions now require answers: What is the legal relationship between Dream Finance OÜ, Coinspaid Solutions, CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing and Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o.? Does Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o. own, develop, maintain or operate any software used by CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing? Does the Polish entity control production systems, wallet infrastructure, key-management systems, blockchain nodes, settlement logic or transaction-monitoring tools? Are Bitcapital Ltd, PrimeFuture Ltd and WRU Investments Ltd merely passive shareholders, or do they exercise influence over the engineering and infrastructure layer? How does Ivan Montik’s beneficial-owner entry in the Polish entity relate to his public SoftSwiss and CoinsPaid founder roles? Was the engineering-layer separation disclosed to relevant regulators, PSPs, banks or counterparties as a material outsourcing or operational dependency? Does the structure have implications for MiCA readiness, DORA operational resilience, AML/CFT controls and customer-asset safeguarding? Does Coinspaid Dev support only CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing, or does it serve the broader SoftSwiss / iGaming infrastructure ecosystem? Right of Reply FinTelegram again invites SoftSwiss, Stable Aggregator Limited, Dream Finance OÜ, Dream Finance UAB, CoinsPaid, CryptoProcessing, Coinspaid Dev, Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o., FinteqHub, Ivan Montik, Max Krupyshev, Alexander Horst Riedinger, Bitcapital Ltd, PrimeFuture Ltd, WRU Investments Ltd and any relevant representative to provide a factual statement. We are particularly interested in clarification on: the ownership and control of Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o.; the relationship between Coinspaid Dev and Dream Finance OÜ; any service agreements between Coinspaid Development and CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing; whether Coinspaid Dev provides services to the broader SoftSwiss ecosystem; ownership of IP, source code, wallet infrastructure, payment modules and compliance tools; MiCA, DORA and outsourcing-disclosure implications; whether the Polish engineering structure changes the operating model previously disclosed to counterparties or regulators. FinTelegram remains prepared to publish concise, factual and non-defamatory right-of-reply statements and to correct demonstrably inaccurate factual assertions. Call for Information FinTelegram invites current and former employees, engineers, contractors, compliance officers, payment providers, PSPs, acquirers, banks, regulators and insiders with knowledge of Coinspaid Dev, Coinspaid Development sp. z o.o., Dream Finance OÜ, CoinsPaid, CryptoProcessing, SoftSwiss or related entities to provide information. We are particularly interested in: employment-transfer records; engineering-team structure; IP assignment agreements; software-development contracts; source-code ownership records; production-access controls; wallet and key-management documentation; settlement-system architecture; transaction-monitoring and compliance-tooling documentation; outsourcing agreements; MiCA / DORA readiness documents; regulatory correspondence; service agreements between Coinspaid Development and Dream Finance / CoinsPaid / CryptoProcessing / SoftSwiss-related entities; evidence showing whether Coinspaid Dev served only CoinsPaid or the wider SoftSwiss ecosystem. Information can be submitted securely via Whistle42.com. All submissions will be treated confidentially. Anonymous submissions are welcome, but documents, contracts, screenshots, emails, registry extracts, technical diagrams, code-ownership records, payment data and other verifiable evidence are especially valuable. FinTelegram Assessment The Coinspaid Dev split is not a cosmetic update. It is a structural event. It moves the investigation from the question of who owns the operating entity to the deeper question of who controls the infrastructure. In modern crypto-payment ecosystems, infrastructure is control: code, wallet systems, settlement rails, compliance engines, APIs, access rights and operational dependencies can be as important as share registers. Version 1 of the SoftSwiss / Dream Finance Compliance Report identified the ownership divergence. Version 2 adds a new engineering-layer signal. Share Information via Whistle42

Robert Pemble has been named head of US equity trading at Invesco, stepping up to the role after 22 years at the asset manager.  He initially joined the firm in 2004 as a senior equity trader, working for Oppenheimer Funds before the company was acquired by Invesco in 2019. The new position marks a promotion for New York-based Pemble, who most recently spent two years as head of quantitative equity trading at the firm. Pemble has worked extensively across capital markets for more than two decades, and prior to his time at Invesco, held various equity trading roles at firms spanning Caldwell & Orkin Funds, Bulldog Capital, Hovde Capital Advisors and William R. Hough & Co.  Pemble confirmed his appointment in an announcement on social media.  Invesco had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.  The appointment follows further significant senior promotions for Invesco, with Samuel Henderson stepping into the role of head of EMEA equity trading in January 2026.  Henderson’s promotion followed the departure of the firm’s head of trading – EMEA and APAC equities, Paul Squires in November 2025, as revealed by The TRADE at the time.  The post Invesco promotes internally for new US equity trading head appeared first on The TRADE.