BEAT Token Unlock Against a Thin Burn Rate

According to dmarketforces.com, whale wallets pulled more than $5 million from Gate.io ahead of the release, a pattern analysts read as accumulation rather than sell-side staging. The pre-unlock price action fits: BEAT touched $3.69 before retreating roughly 14% to trade near $3.16, with daily volume hitting $37.84 million, up 148% from the session before.

The 21.25 million BEAT entering circulation on 1 August represents 6.87% of the current circulating supply of 309.27 million, pushing the tradable float to approximately 330.52 million if every unlocked token moves. Tokenomics.com records that roughly 33.1% of all BEAT (330,516,666 tokens) had already unlocked prior to this event, with 66.9% still vesting across a schedule that runs to November 2029.

Audiera’s own burn data puts the unlock’s scale in context. The project reported burning 797,230 BEAT in the week of 13-20 July, bringing cumulative removals to 17.04 million tokens. The 1 August release is approximately 26.7 times that weekly burn rate and exceeds the entire cumulative burn total by 4.21 million tokens. At the July pace, one weekly burn cycle offsets just 3.75% of the incoming allocation, leaving more than 20 million newly unlocked BEAT without a corresponding demand sink.

The unlock valuation of $67.78 million equals roughly 1.8 times BEAT’s $37.84 million daily volume, though volume measures turnover rather than available buy-side depth. The release also represents about 7% of Audiera’s $965.6 million market cap at the checked price.

Market research account CrowdWisdom360 placed key levels around the unlock: ‘If BEAT holds above the $2.45 support, a retest of the $2.60 resistance is likely. A break below $2.45 risks a drop toward $2.30.’ The $3.69 weekly high is the first resistance above current price; a slide from $3.16 to the weekly low at $2.19 would erase about 31% of current value. A CoinGecko community poll recorded 60% bearish sentiment ahead of the event.

According to CoinMarketCap’s AI summary, BEAT actually surged over 16% on 1 August itself, with coordinated buying absorbing the new supply and triggering significant short liquidations. The same summary reports that BEAT subsequently crashed 50% on 11 August amid panic selling and a break below key technical support, suggesting the initial absorption was temporary.

The next scheduled BEAT unlock after 1 August does not arrive until 1 September 2026, when Tokenomics.com records a release of 11,249,896 tokens (1.1% of total supply), giving the market over a year of breathing room if this event passes without a structural breakdown.

EIGEN and ZETA: Already Pricing the Pain

EIGEN has shed 12.6% over seven days and 7.2% in 24 hours, trading near $0.203 ahead of its 1 August release. The token count is contested: DropsTab records 36.82 million EIGEN unlocking (19.75 million for investors, 17.07 million for early contributors), valued at approximately $6.25 million or 4.22% of market cap, while RootData puts the figure at 38.35 million EIGEN worth $7.87 million. DropsTab’s vesting data shows EigenLayer’s unlock schedule is 40.20% complete, with 414 days remaining and 515.48 million EIGEN still locked.

Per TokenInsight‘s EIGEN token analysis, investor and contributor allocations were subject to a one-year lock after community transferability, followed by 4% monthly unlocks, placing full vesting three years from that date. CoinLaunch notes that EigenLayer’s backers include Coinbase Ventures and Polychain Capital. At $16.09 million in daily volume, the DropsTab unlock estimate sits at roughly 39% of one day’s turnover.

ZETA is in worse shape on momentum. The token trades near $0.0319 after losing 9% over seven days and 5.1% in the last 24 hours. DeFiLlama‘s tracker breaks the release into six tranches: core contributors (13.13 million ZETA), protocol treasury (12.83 million), purchasers and advisers (9.33 million), ecosystem growth (5.25 million), user growth (2.63 million), and liquidity incentives (1.09 million), totalling approximately $1.3 million at DeFiLlama’s checked price. RootData’s figure of $1.42 million reflects a slightly higher price snapshot. Against DeFiLlama’s recorded circulating supply of 1.558 billion ZETA and a $45.79 million market cap, the release is a rounding error in value terms, but the contributor and purchaser tranches carry the most direct sell pressure. Tokenomist.ai puts ZetaChain’s total raise at $27 million, with the full vesting schedule extending into 2028.

What Recipients Do Next

For U.S. traders, all three events land on 31 July: ZETA at noon EDT, EIGEN at 5pm EDT, and BEAT at 9pm EDT. Exchange deposit activity in the hours following each release will be the clearest read on sell-side intent; continued custody or staking would limit immediate order-book impact.

The binary for BEAT is the $2.45 support. A hold there keeps the weekly structure intact; a break targets $2.30 and reopens the $2.19 floor as the next meaningful reference.

The post BEAT Token Unlock Leads $77M Wave as EIGEN and ZETA Slide In appeared first on CryptoNexa.

STRC, meanwhile, closed at $86.89 on 24 July after a 2.29% session gain, rising to $87.14 in after-hours trading. That still puts it 13.11% below par, a discount that directly compresses Strategy’s ability to raise capital from fresh STRC issuance.

How the variable-rate structure is supposed to work

Both SATA and STRC are variable-rate perpetual preferred shares engineered to trade around a $100 stated value. Strategy’s original STRC prospectus set the public offering price at $90.00 per share, with a stated amount and initial liquidation preference of $100 per share, across 28,011,111 shares.

The rate adjustment mechanism has a deliberate asymmetry. Per Strategy’s 2026 follow-on prospectus, STRC’s dividend rate cannot be cut by more than 25 basis points per month (plus a SOFR-linked component), and no reduction is permitted while any past dividends remain unpaid. Rate increases carry no such cap, giving Strategy room to move quickly when it needs to attract buyers.

Strategy exercised that upside lever on 29 June 2026. An SEC Form 8-K disclosed that the regular annual dividend rate on STRC would rise to 12.00%, effective for semi-monthly periods with record dates on or after 1 July 2026, with declared cash dividends of $0.50 per share for the periods ending 31 July and 15 August 2026. The Strategy investor page describes the monthly rate adjustment as designed to strip away price volatility and keep STRC near par.

Strive launched SATA in November 2025 under a comparable model. The SATA IPO priced at $80 per share on 5 November 2025, covering 2,000,000 shares after an upsizing of 750,000 shares over the amount originally announced, with settlement on 10 November 2025. The variable dividend allows Strive to raise the payout when SATA trades below $100, making it more attractive, and trim it as the price recovers.

STRC’s discount and what it costs Strategy

Mow’s case rests on a straightforward piece of market logic. ‘I think every action that Strategy has undertaken to strengthen their balance sheet and encourage STRC to go back to par is also working,’ he told Cointelegraph. He links the two products explicitly: ‘as SATA returns to par, you’re going to see STRC return to par too, because people say, “OK, this model’s not broken.” Everyone is capitalized for three or more years of dividend payments… there was no reason to panic all along.’

The discount matters operationally. Strategy issues STRC to finance Bitcoin purchases, and each share sold at $87 raises less capital than one sold at or near $100. With Strategy holding 843,775 BTC and continuing to accumulate, the efficiency of that funding channel is not a cosmetic concern.

Institutional positioning has moved materially regardless of the discount. On 24 July, Michael Saylor disclosed that STRC is now the largest single holding in BlackRock’s iShares Preferred and Income Securities ETF, Virtus InfraCap’s U.S. Preferred Stock ETF, and VanEck’s Preferred Securities ex Financials ETF. The three funds collectively hold $756 million of STRC. For context, CoinDesk reported that as of 16 January 2026, STRC was only the fourth-largest holding in BlackRock’s fund, with a $210 million allocation at a 1.47% weighting. The shift from fourth place at $210 million to the top position across three funds at a combined $756 million reflects how fast asset managers have rotated into the security, even as it continues to trade well below its stated value.

Strive, sitting seventh among corporate Bitcoin holders tracked by BitcoinTreasuries with 19,921 BTC, is a smaller operation with a different entry profile. Mow cited Lyn Alden’s Orange Juice treasury company, launched on 15 July, as an example of a newer entrant with a lower Bitcoin acquisition cost, suggesting the cohort of Bitcoin treasury companies is diversifying in structure and cost basis.

The binary from here is whether the 12.00% dividend rate, combined with SATA’s recovery to $97, is enough to compress STRC’s discount toward zero. If it does, Strategy regains a near-par issuance window for its next capital raise. If the gap holds, the funding economics of ‘digital credit’ face a harder test than a CT prediction can resolve.

The post Samson Mow Links SATA Rebound to STRC Return to Par appeared first on CryptoNexa.

Three people familiar with the private discussions told the original reporters that a direct sale, SPAC merger, and European listing are also on the table. No final decision has been made.

FX Revenue Buys LMAX Time on Crypto Market Timing

The $5 billion figure would be five times LMAX’s valuation from July 2021, when private equity firm J.C. Flowers acquired a 30% stake for $300 million. That transaction was a secondary share sale by LMAX employees, not a primary capital raise into the company, according to a deal note published by Sullivan & Cromwell, which advised J.C. Flowers on the deal. The snippet’s framing of the transaction as delivering “additional capital” to the company is not consistent with that characterisation.

Following the deal, CEO David Mercer retained a substantial stake alongside his management team, according to the original announcement on PR Newswire. At that point, LMAX operated five exchanges globally, served clients in more than 100 countries, and its LMAX Digital institutional spot crypto exchange, launched in 2018, counted over 500 institutional clients.

One person familiar with the current process said LMAX is not under pressure to move quickly. The group’s established foreign exchange operations generate revenue that insulates it from depending entirely on digital asset trading volumes, which have compressed alongside broader crypto market weakness.

Ripple, RLUSD, and the LMAX Group Nasdaq Listing Case

Ripple injected $150 million into LMAX in January in a strategic deal aimed at embedding the RLUSD stablecoin into LMAX’s trading and settlement network. At the time of that announcement, RLUSD carried a market capitalisation of approximately $1.4 billion, according to CoinDesk.

RLUSD is approved by both the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA), with each token backed one-to-one by US dollar deposits, US Treasuries, and cash equivalents, per Ripple’s product documentation. For LMAX’s institutional client base, a regulated, reserve-backed stablecoin available across its settlement layer is a tangible product differentiator in a market where post-trade infrastructure increasingly matters.

In February, LMAX launched a 24/7 multi-asset exchange covering foreign exchange, precious metals, digital assets, commodities, and tokenised securities. May brought Kiosk, a hosted portal letting institutional clients deposit digital assets into LMAX Custody and deploy them as collateral across multiple markets, including spot FX, crypto, contracts for difference, and perpetual futures.

People familiar with the strategic review also cited spot Bitcoin ETF approvals in the United States as a driver of renewed institutional demand for regulated crypto execution venues, a trend LMAX has positioned itself to capture.

Where a Nasdaq Debut Would Place LMAX

A Nasdaq listing would put LMAX alongside a growing cohort of crypto-adjacent infrastructure companies seeking US public market access. The competitive backdrop for any such move has shifted: Bullish, owner of CoinDesk, has announced a $4.2 billion deal to acquire Equiniti and expand into tokenisation and transfer agency services, while Kraken parent Payward has agreed to acquire derivatives platform Bitnomial.

Morgan Stanley and KBW will now run the ruler over a business that spans FX execution, institutional crypto, custody, and tokenised markets. If crypto conditions recover before a deal is forced, LMAX’s FX floor gives it the option to wait for a valuation that reflects the full breadth of that stack.

The post LMAX Group Nasdaq Listing Valued at Up to $5bn as Morgan Stanley Reviews Options appeared first on CryptoNexa.

The measures, part of the EU’s 21st Russia sanctions package, do not impose an asset freeze on HTX. Instead, the exchange faces transaction controls effective 23 August 2026, one month after adoption, according to VASPnet.

Fourteen Platforms Named, HTX Among the Largest

The Compliance Corylated breakdown of the package lists the 14 targeted crypto-related services as: Rapira; Aifory Pro (Sooty Ltd); ABCeX (Nueva Cryptologia SAS DE CV); WhiteBird; NoOnecrypto INC; Tradex (Brightum LLC); Monease Ltd; Bitpapa; Exnode and Exnode Pay (Arvix); HTX (Huobi Global SA); EXMO Ltd; A7 Nigeria; A7 Africa; and Pilot Finance Ltd. The services operate across Georgia, Panama, the UAE, the Marshall Islands, Kyrgyzstan and Belarus.

The headline figure of 18 companies cited by Reuters reflects how the EU counts distinct legal entities, some of which share a platform. The Council’s own figure is 14 services.

EXMO Exchange Limited, designated alongside HTX by UK authorities on 26 May 2026, has taken a different path: EXMO subsequently announced it is closing operations, while HTX has continued trading.

HTX EU Sanctions Follow a $1.5 Billion Flow Allegation

Chainalysis estimated that the A7 network, which sits at the centre of the UK designations, claimed to have moved $90 billion into Russia’s economy last year using crypto, a figure the firm described as exceeding half of Russia’s annual military budget. Chainalysis further assessed that HTX is suspected of channelling over $1.5 billion to Russia through flows from previously sanctioned entities including Grinex and Garantex.

TRM Labs blockchain data showed HTX as a persistent counterparty to nearly every entity in the UK’s May package, with the pattern of that activity shifting materially after Garantex’s March 2025 takedown.

The UK’s 26 May designation of Huobi Global S.A. was also the first time the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 had been used against a crypto exchange. British restrictions included an asset freeze and barred UK firms from processing payments for or maintaining financial relationships with the designated entities. HTX’s UK government designation grouped it alongside Nueva Cryptologia S.A.S. DE C.V. and individual Liran Cohen under entities facilitating funds or economic resources to the Russian financial sector.

An HTX spokesperson told Reuters: ‘Regulatory compliance remains our absolute top priority at HTX. We proactively monitor and strictly adhere to regulatory frameworks in all jurisdictions where we operate globally, including the UK.’ The exchange has issued no public response to the EU restrictions.

HTX had previously drawn enforcement attention from the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority over illegal financial promotions, before the Russia-related designation.

New Third-Country Ban Mechanism Established But Not Yet Deployed

The 21st package introduces, for the first time, a legal basis allowing the EU to prohibit dealings with crypto-asset service providers in third countries when those jurisdictions are found to be facilitating Russian sanctions evasion. According to Curtis Mallet-Prevost, no third country has been listed under this mechanism as part of the 21st package; the tool is established but not yet triggered.

Banking measures in the same package expand asset freezes to 94 Russian banks and extend transaction bans to 33 additional Russian credit and financial institutions, bringing the total subject to some form of ban to over 100. The package also restricts access to financial messaging services, directly targeting Russia’s capacity to route funds internationally, as Harneys noted.

The package contains 218 individual listings in total: 48 people and 170 entities. The Council described it as the EU’s largest batch of new listings in four years.

Belarus Ownership of MiCA Firms Restricted From August

A separate provision, running through Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847, prohibits Belarusian nationals and residents from owning, controlling or managing crypto-asset service providers regulated under the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, with that restriction applying from 25 August 2026. The decision entered into force on 24 July.

Prior restrictions focused on wallets, accounts and custody services. The expanded rules cover every MiCA service category: operating trading platforms, exchanging crypto assets, executing client orders, processing transfers, placing tokens, providing investment advice and managing portfolios. The timing sits one month after MiCA’s transition window closed on 1 July, leaving no gap for non-compliant operators to exploit.

With the transaction ban clock running to 23 August, HTX’s next material disclosure will be whether it restructures the jurisdictional footprint of Huobi Global S.A. or contests the designation through EU legal channels.

The post HTX EU Sanctions Package Targets Russia-Linked Crypto Flows appeared first on CryptoNexa.

How we compared them

Crypto adds its own variables on top of the usual prop-firm criteria. We weighed each firm on:

Crypto coverage — how many pairs, and whether it’s a specialist or multi-asset offering.

Drawdown model — a static limit is friendlier given crypto’s volatility.

Leverage and costs — appropriate leverage and transparent fees.

Payout reliability — a proven, scheduled payout record.

Terms and pricing change often — confirm each firm’s current crypto pairs and rules on its own site.

The 7 best crypto prop firms in 2026

1. Crypto Fund Trader — best for dedicated crypto traders

Crypto Fund Trader is a crypto specialist known for a very large selection of pairs and high leverage, making it the go-to for traders who live in digital assets. Best for: serious, crypto-first traders who want maximum choice.

2. FundedNext — best all-round value

FundedNext supports crypto alongside its high splits and no-time-limit flexibility, a strong choice for traders who want generous terms from a big name. Best for: flexible, high-reward funding.

3. Pivex — best for crypto alongside forex, with forgiving rules

Pivex earns a top-three spot for traders who want to trade major cryptocoins — BTC, ETH, and SOL — on MatchTrader alongside forex, indices, and metals, under unusually forgiving rules (Pivex). You get a one-step 10% target, a static (non-trailing) total drawdown (a real plus given crypto’s volatility), no time limit, an 80% split, and a refundable one-time fee (Pivex). For multi-asset traders who want crypto alongside forex, it’s one of the most forgiving ways to trade digital assets. Best for: traders who want major cryptocoins alongside forex in one forgiving account.

4. HyroTrader — best for budget crypto trading

HyroTrader is a crypto-native firm frequently ranked among the cheaper options, making funded crypto trading accessible for less. Best for: cost-conscious crypto traders.

5. Bitfunded — best crypto-first programs

Bitfunded focuses squarely on crypto, with programs built around digital-asset trading. Best for: traders who want a crypto-first firm.

6. Funded Trading Plus — best for rule freedom

Funded Trading Plus pairs crypto access with flexible rules and scaling, appealing to active traders who dislike restrictions. Best for: traders who want flexibility.

7. FTMO — best for trust

FTMO brings its 10+ year payout track record to crypto, offering the reassurance of a proven operator. Best for: traders who prioritise a proven firm.

How to choose a crypto prop firm

Decide first whether you want a specialist or a multi-asset firm. If crypto is your entire focus and you want hundreds of pairs and high leverage, a specialist like Crypto Fund Trader or Bitfunded fits. If you trade crypto alongside forex and value forgiving rules, a multi-asset firm like Pivex or FundedNext makes more sense. Then weigh the drawdown model — crypto’s volatility makes a static limit especially valuable — and confirm the payout record before you commit.

What to watch out for

Trailing drawdowns, which crypto volatility can breach quickly.

Leverage that’s too high for the volatility, tempting oversized positions.

Limited pair selection if you trade beyond the majors.

Weekend gaps and funding costs on crypto positions held over time.

Frequently asked questions

What is a crypto prop firm?

A firm that funds traders to trade cryptocurrencies with its capital, paying them a share of the rewards. Accounts are often simulated, with real payouts.

Which is better for crypto — a specialist or a multi-asset firm?

Specialists offer more pairs and leverage; multi-asset firms like Pivex let you trade major cryptocoins alongside forex with often more forgiving rules and a static drawdown. Verify current pairs on the firm’s site.

Does crypto volatility affect the drawdown?

Yes. Fast crypto moves can trigger a trailing drawdown quickly, which is why a static, end-of-day limit is more forgiving for crypto traders.

The bottom line

The best crypto prop firm depends on how deep you go: specialists like Crypto Fund Trader and Bitfunded for crypto-first traders, and a multi-asset firm like Pivex for trading major cryptocoins alongside forex with a forgiving static drawdown. Weigh coverage against rule quality, and confirm the pairs and payout record before you buy. Trading carries the risk of loss, and no program guarantees a payout. See Pivex’s crypto pairs and static drawdown →

The post 7 Best Crypto Prop Firms in 2026 (Compared) appeared first on CryptoNexa.

The pilot’s first cohort is freelancers, virtual assistants, and informal-economy workers receiving payroll from overseas, a segment that typically absorbs the highest proportional cost from legacy correspondent banking chains. BPI President and Chief Executive Officer Jose Teodoro Limcaoco framed the initiative as an extension of the bank’s digitalisation strategy, with faster access and lower transfer costs as the headline objectives. Meridian’s chief executive, Will Haering, positioned the partnership as evidence that stablecoin infrastructure can sit inside regulated banking without stripping out consumer protections.

How the BPI Stablecoin Remittance Pilot Works

The architecture keeps stablecoins off the recipient’s balance sheet entirely. Inbound foreign currency payments settle across the stablecoin rail between the sender’s side and BPI, and the bank converts the value to pesos before crediting the customer’s account. Recipients interact with conventional banking, while the settlement efficiency sits in the layer they never see.

A March 2026 Federal Reserve research note on payment stablecoins and cross-border payments identified exactly this structural advantage: stablecoin rails can reduce frictions that would otherwise require a bank to open a foreign branch or access correspondent services from a large international institution, which carry their own cost and latency overhead. The Fed note also flagged implications for central bank balance sheets and monetary policy, the kind of systemic consideration that explains why BSP wants coordination built into the pilot from the start.

BPI has set November as the next expansion milestone, timed to coincide with the 49th ASEAN Summit, when the bank expects to present the initiative as part of a broader digital banking showcase.

BSP’s Regulatory Framework and What It Requires

The pilot operates inside a tightening regulatory perimeter. The BSP’s June 2026 guidance directed licensed virtual asset service providers (VASPs) to assess issuer background, market maturity, reserve transparency, liquidity, legal compliance, and redemption mechanics before listing any digital asset. For fiat-backed and asset-backed stablecoins specifically, providers must examine reserve composition and burning mechanisms to confirm users can redeem tokens under normal market conditions, as confirmed by the Elliptic Philippines country guide.

Privacy coins remain prohibited for licensed VASPs under BSP rules, with continuous asset monitoring mandated and internal thresholds set so that a material drop in a coin’s value or trading activity automatically triggers a review or delisting process.

Travel Rule obligations apply to all cryptoasset transfers treated as cross-border wire transfers. Under current BSP rules, VASPs must exchange originator and beneficiary information for transfers at or above P50,000 (approximately $850), with enhanced due diligence required above P500,000 (approximately $8,500), according to Notabene’s Philippines compliance guide. Any stablecoin-settled remittance flowing through BPI that clears those thresholds sits squarely inside that reporting chain.

Minimum capital requirements for VASPs under BSP Circular No. 1108 stand at 50 million Philippine pesos for custodial entities and 10 million Philippine pesos for non-custodial entities, with additional obligations covering liquidity risk, IT risk, outsourcing controls, and financial consumer protection. Meridian, operating as BPI’s settlement counterparty rather than a retail-facing VASP, will need its role defined against these classifications as the pilot scales.

Separately, the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission has continued running its Strategic Regulatory Sandbox, known as StratBox, with four companies already admitted. BlockShoals Technologies received approval to test crypto services with Binance as its global partner, though the BSP subsequently clarified that neither entity holds a Philippine VASP licence and that sandbox participation does not substitute for BSP licensing.

The BPI stablecoin remittance pilot is not an isolated experiment. In 2024, Coins.ph expanded its peso-backed PHPC stablecoin to the Ronin blockchain for domestic gaming-economy payments. BPI’s corridor targets a different flow: regulated inbound international payroll, kept inside the banking system at every step visible to the recipient.

Whether the model scales beyond the freelancer cohort depends on the BSP’s read of the pilot data on consumer protection, reserve transparency, and settlement finality. If regulators are satisfied ahead of the November ASEAN showcase, the framework could become a template for other Philippine lenders watching from the sidelines.

The post BPI Stablecoin Remittance Pilot Targets Freelancer Payroll Corridor appeared first on CryptoNexa.

The IOU Overhang That Triggered the Filing

Singapore-registered Poolin Technology Pte. Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiaries, Lonestar Dream Inc. and Lonestar Taproot LLC, filed voluntary petitions under Case No. 26-18325, according to a U.S. Trustee solicitation issued 24 July 2026 seeking interest in forming an official unsecured-creditors committee.

Of the $173.1 million in prepetition obligations declared by Chief Restructuring Officer Michael DuFrayne, roughly $163.7 million traces to unsecured IOUs distributed to Poolin Wallet customers after withdrawals were suspended in September 2022. Around 11,700 users held balances above $100 when those tokens were issued.

The sequence that produced that liability is laid out in the Chapter 11 declaration. Poolin transferred customer collateral to Antalpha Technologies and borrowed approximately $213 million against cryptocurrency then valued at around $355.8 million, using the proceeds to build the Texas facilities, buy mining machines and fund withdrawals. When prices kept falling, Antalpha liquidated the collateral in November 2022, at which point bitcoin had dropped below approximately $16,800, according to case filings cited by Bondoro. Management estimated at the time that the company owed about $260 million against digital assets valued at roughly $265 million.

Lonestar Dream and Lonestar Taproot accumulated losses of approximately $45.9 million since their formation. Remaining assets are thin: roughly $1.2 million in a New Jersey bank account, an office lease and an intercompany claim.

Poolin Chapter 11 Creditors Face a Long Queue

Kevin Pan, who co-founded Poolin in China in 2017, holds 100% of the equity in both Poolin Technology Pte. Ltd. and Lonestar Dream Inc., with Lonestar Taproot wholly owned by Lonestar Dream, according to equity-holder filings cited by The Block. That structure means Pan sits at the bottom of any recovery waterfall.

DuFrayne was appointed CRO on or about 14 November 2025, with DuFrayne LLC retained as investment banker from around 3 February 2026. The marketing process ran for roughly three months, reaching more than 335 prospective buyers across mining, AI infrastructure, hyperscale data centre operators, private equity and REITs.

That outreach produced 28 signed NDAs and seven letters of intent covering individual sites and the combined portfolio. Before the Pyote and Tarbush facilities ceased operations on 10 July 2026, Elektron Energy was Lonestar Dream’s primary hosting client under four hosting agreements. A settlement dated 22 June 2026 resolved billing disputes between the debtors and Elektron; recalculated power-usage-effectiveness figures leave a $1,344,788.13 balance owed to Lonestar Dream for the March 2025 to March 2026 period, held in escrow pending release conditions, according to a case summary published by ElevenFlo.

Mining Sites Draw AI Buyers

The stalking-horse agreements with Thor CALAP LLC set the auction floor at $52 million: a $15 million offer for the Pyote property including power rights and equipment, and a separate $37 million bid for Tarbush’s power rights and equipment (excluding the surface-use agreement). Each site can be sold independently under U.S. Bankruptcy Court Section 363 procedures if separate bids produce better creditor recoveries.

The declaration notes that AI infrastructure operators drove meaningful interest during marketing because of the sites’ existing grid connections and electrical capacity, even as Poolin’s own mining and hosting business had become unprofitable. That demand pattern is visible across the sector: Ionic Digital recently secured SEC approval for a Nasdaq listing after repositioning toward AI infrastructure, and IREN acquired Spain’s Nostrum Group in June to add roughly 490 megawatts of grid-connected power for AI cloud expansion in Europe.

Poolin’s path is different. It is liquidating rather than pivoting, and IOU holders will only see distributions if the auction clears enough to cover administrative costs and a liquidation plan wins court approval. The unsecured-creditors committee, if formed, will be the one body with standing to push for a higher price.

The post Poolin Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Puts $52m Texas Auction in Play appeared first on CryptoNexa.

The trigger for the timing is blunt: Coinbase says software-generated traffic exceeded human traffic on its Base documentation pages for the first time in June, suggesting the agentic economy has outgrown the payment rails built for people clicking buttons.

How Coinbase x402 Agent Payments Work

The x402 protocol repurposes the long-dormant HTTP 402 “Payment Required” status code. An online service returns a 402 response to an AI agent, the agent signs a stablecoin payment, and retries with proof of payment, no human in the loop, no chargeback mechanism, no card rails. Coinbase Developer Platform launched the open standard in May 2025 alongside AWS, Anthropic, Circle, and NEAR as early collaborators.

The protocol has scaled quickly. According to Sherlock.xyz, x402 processed 75 million transactions worth $24 million in paid API calls and agent interactions through to December 2025. By March 2026, transaction count on Base alone had crossed 119 million, with daily on-chain volume running at approximately $28,000 (up 20x in a single month) and annualised payment volume across the ecosystem sitting at roughly $600 million.

On 2 April 2026, x402 joined the Linux Foundation with Google, AWS, Microsoft, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, KakaoPay, and more than 20 others as founding members, per Pebblous. That backing meaningfully reduces the protocol’s governance risk for enterprises evaluating it as infrastructure rather than a Coinbase-proprietary product.

Three Releases, Three Different Audiences

The July rollout addresses each layer of the stack separately.

For businesses, Coinbase Business users can now receive USDC payments initiated by AI agents, with Coinbase Payments handling the settlement layer and native x402 support managing the pay-per-use request flow. Businesses track and reconcile agent payments from the same account used for other activity, and idle USDC balances earn a current reward rate of 3.35% annually, though Coinbase notes rates vary by region and are subject to change.

The fine print on those rewards matters for US operators. According to Coinbase’s CDP developer documentation, the 3.35% rate applies to USDC held in CDP non-custodial wallets, requires an average daily balance of at least 1 USDC, and pays out weekly. Supported chains include Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Optimism, Avalanche, and Solana. US businesses should also note that Coinbase will issue a Form 1099-MISC if total rewards exceed $2,000 in 2026 or later years, per Coinbase’s help documentation.

For users directing financial agents, Coinbase for Agents now streams a live order list showing each open position’s status, price, and size in real time, as CoinDesk reported. Users can attach conditional triggers (sell when BTC drops below a threshold, cancel an order after a fixed window) with guardrails they define. The agent executes; the user controls the parameters.

For developers, the new CDP x402 SDK lets builders drop agent payment acceptance into an API, Model Context Protocol server, or web service with minimal configuration. Coinbase ships it preconfigured with preferred infrastructure and extensions, cutting out the middleware selection that previously ate setup time.

Coinbase Business currently operates in the US and Singapore. Individual feature availability and USDC reward rates differ by market, and the company has not disclosed projected payment volumes for the new product lines.

The protocol’s institutional backing and raw throughput growth are already established. The question now is whether Coinbase’s business-layer tooling can capture the settlement share before competing L2s and payment protocols cut their own paths into the same agentic traffic.

The post Coinbase x402 Agent Payments Open to Businesses as AI Traffic Surges appeared first on CryptoNexa.

The buy was split across three actively managed ETFs: the ARK Innovation ETF took 159,517 shares, the ARK Next Generation Internet ETF added 42,400, and the ARK Fintech Innovation ETF contributed the remaining 18,095. The math checks: 159,517 plus 42,400 plus 18,095 equals 220,012.

CRCL fell 4.20% on the session, printing a high of $65.41 and a low of $61.49 before closing at $63.38, according to the TradingView daily chart. Circle listed its Class A common stock following an IPO that closed on 6 June 2025 per the company’s 8-K filed with the SEC. The stock has shed more than half its value from a May peak near $140.

ARK Invest Circle Purchase: Buying Into a Downtrend

The chart picture is unambiguous. CRCL sits below its 20-day simple moving average at $65.68, its 50-day at $84.24, its 100-day at $95.02, and its 200-day at $92.14. A rebound earlier this month reached the $70–$72 range and failed to hold, leaving that zone as the first meaningful resistance above current price.

Reclaiming the 20-day at $65.68 is the minimum requirement before any recovery narrative becomes credible. A daily close above $72 would be the next test. The 50-day at $84.24 is a distant obstacle from here.

On the downside, the 23 July intraday low marks immediate support near $61.50. Below that sits a demand area between $58 and $60, where buyers previously slowed the decline. A sustained break below $58 would extend the sequence of lower lows.

Momentum has offered a minor concession. The daily MACD line has risen to minus 4.74, above its signal line at minus 6.10, with the histogram turning positive at 1.36 as of the 23 July chart. Both lines remain below zero, so the reading indicates easing sell-side momentum, not a reversal.

ARK’s strategy here mirrors a purchase it made earlier in the week, when four of its funds bought 170,634 SpaceX shares for roughly $20.45 million while that stock traded below its IPO price. The pattern: accumulate selected high-conviction names after steep drawdowns rather than waiting for chart confirmation.

CLARITY Act Progress and What It Means for Circle

Circle’s near-term outlook has become partly a function of US legislative progress. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, designated H.R. 3633 per Senator Lummis’s July 2026 release, would create a federal framework dividing regulatory authority over digital-asset markets between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The updated text merges work products from both the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees. The Banking Committee passed it by a 15-to-9 bipartisan vote in May 2026, with Senate Banking Chairman Tim Scott, Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, and Senate Majority Leader Thune all listed as supporters in Lummis’s release. Boozman argued the proposal would give consumers, companies, and markets clearer rules while adding safeguards for digital-asset activity.

Circle, whose USDC stablecoin is embedded across DeFi protocols, centralised exchanges, and payment rails, stands to benefit directly if the bill reduces regulatory ambiguity around stablecoin issuers. Passage would make it easier for institutional counterparties to assess USDC-based products without worrying about classification risk.

The path is not straightforward. The bill needs 60 votes to advance in the Senate, and some Democrats have reportedly objected to the proposal’s treatment of crypto-related conflicts involving government officials. That opposition could stall the timeline regardless of Republican support. Circle’s full S-1/A registration statement on SEC EDGAR gives a detailed picture of how the company itself characterises regulatory risk to its business.

Until CRCL closes back above $65.68 and then clears the $70–$72 rejection zone, ARK’s latest ARK Invest Circle purchase is a bet against an established downtrend. The CLARITY Act vote count and the 50-day moving average at $84.24 are the two numbers worth watching from here.

The post ARK Invest Circle Purchase Bets Against CRCL’s Established Downtrend appeared first on CryptoNexa.

The founding cohort spans the institutional Bitcoin stack: spot ETF issuers, custodians, payments infrastructure, and treasury companies. The scale of what they collectively secure has grown sharply. According to Galaxy Research, spot ETFs, publicly traded treasury companies, custodians and exchanges now collectively hold hundreds of billions of dollars of BTC, a concentration of institutional exposure that did not exist three years ago.

Strategy CEO Phong Le framed the consortium in straightforward terms: ‘As long-term holders, we have every incentive to see Bitcoin remain secure for generations. Funding the people who do this work, and helping inform the conversation around it, is a natural way for us to contribute,’ he said, as reported by FX Street.

Inside the Bitcoin Security Consortium’s Structure

The $15 million will not pool under a central fund. Each founding member controls its own allocation and directs grants to whichever developers, researchers, or organisations it selects. The model allows differentiated funding across the ecosystem while the consortium coordinates strategy.

Mike Schmidt, Executive Director of open-source Bitcoin developer nonprofit Brink, will coordinate daily operations on a volunteer basis, receiving no compensation from any member. Schmidt co-founded Brink in 2020, after joining the Bitcoin ecosystem in 2018 as a product manager at Blockstream and as a contributor to Bitcoin Optech. He stated on X that he sees the coordinating role as a rotating seat and intends to hand it to other participants over time.

On protocol governance, the consortium has drawn a firm line. Per reporting by Bob’s Guide, the group will not write protocol code, influence consensus decisions, mandate development roadmaps, or attempt to speak on behalf of the developer community. Members fund independently; developers proceed through Bitcoin’s existing review process.

Galaxy’s Parallel Quantum Programme Adds $5m

Galaxy had already moved separately before the consortium announcement. The firm launched a Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative with grants of up to $5 million, a dedicated research and publishing programme through Galaxy Research, and a Quantum Advisory Council of experts in quantum computing and post-quantum cryptography to review proposals and guide research, according to the Galaxy newsroom.

Grant priority areas include implementation of quantum-resistant transaction proposals, post-quantum signature scheme development and integration into Bitcoin, wallet and custodian migration tooling, and formal security audits of proposed implementations. Grants are evaluated individually on a rolling basis.

The two programmes are separate. Combined, they put $20 million behind disclosed quantum-readiness efforts: the $15 million consortium pledge and Galaxy’s $5 million initiative.

The policy backdrop has sharpened. A June executive order from US President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to migrate certain high-value systems to post-quantum protection by 2030 or 2031, depending on classification, per the Bitcoin Foundation. Separately, custody firm BitGo rolled out quantum risk scoring for institutional wallets and Blockstream named post-quantum cryptography a top engineering priority for 2026.

The Exposure That Makes This Urgent

Current quantum machines cannot break elliptic curve cryptography. Most researchers do not expect an imminent threat. The concern is the migration lag: deploying new protections across Bitcoin’s entire stack could take years, so preparation needs to begin well before a capable machine exists.

CryptoQuant research cited by Galaxy estimated that around 6.9 million BTC could become exposed if a sufficiently powerful quantum computer broke existing cryptography, valued at approximately $461 billion at the time of Galaxy’s announcement. Citi reached a similar figure, calculating that between 6.5 million and 6.9 million BTC may already have public keys visible on-chain, representing coins researchers consider more vulnerable to a future attack.

Lost wallets compound the problem: their owners cannot migrate coins to addresses protected by updated cryptography, leaving those holdings with no practical migration route if quantum development accelerates faster than current estimates suggest.

The discount has already entered valuation models. Capriole Investments founder Charles Edwards estimated in early June that Bitcoin was trading at a 28% quantum discount relative to his projected path toward $120,000. Bitcoin was near $62,099 when he presented the model, with the discount attributed to perceived slow progress among Bitcoin Core developers on post-quantum signature planning.

Polymarket data placed the probability of quantum computing breaking Bitcoin by December 2027 at 14%, suggesting prediction-market participants are not pricing an immediate threat.

The consortium’s first genuine test is whether independently directed grants, with no central coordination of technical output and no protocol authority, actually produce usable quantum-resistance tooling before the threat window narrows.

The post Bitcoin Security Consortium Launches With $15m Pledge to Fund Quantum Defence appeared first on CryptoNexa.