Actualités financières en direct

The post Every Dated Event That Could Impact Bitcoin and XRP Before 2027 appeared first on 24/7 Wall St.. Between October 6 and December 9, 2026, eleven significant events could influence Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC), …

The post Every Dated Event That Could Impact Bitcoin and XRP Before 2027 appeared first on 24/7 Wall St.. Between October 6 and December 9, 2026, eleven significant events could influence Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC), XRP (CRYPTO: XRP), and the broader crypto market… The post Every Dated Event That Could Impact Bitcoin and XRP Before 2027 appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..Between October 6 and December 9, 2026, eleven significant events could influence Bitcoin (CRY…

Binance is implementing new requirements for Brazilians trading crypto with counterparts outside the country. These new requirements will apply to certain international crypto transactions by Brazilians starting Nov. 1, 2026, including documentation about the …

Binance is implementing new requirements for Brazilians trading crypto with counterparts outside the country. These new requirements will apply to certain international crypto transactions by Brazilians starting Nov. 1, 2026, including documentation about the nature of the trade and the counterpart, as well as the relationship between the two parties, if any. Read More: He Says His Binary Options Strategy Brings In $2,000 a Week—Watch Him Trade Live The updates were made under Resolution BCB No. 521/2025, which included certain virtual-asset services in the Brazilian foreign exchange regime. The updates affect individuals and firms using Binance services in Brazil for transactions with nonresidents. Transactions between Brazilian residents are not subject to the new procedures. Binance Brazil Users Face New International Transfer Checks For international transfers, clients must fill out a questionnaire before making a transfer. According to Binance, questions include asking the client to provide information about the counterparty, such as whether the counterparty is an individual, corporation, bank, exchange, investment fund, charity, or other type. Corporate clients may be asked whether the counterparty is in the same economic group. Binance to Block Brazil Cross-Border Crypto Transfers From Nov. 1 Without Purpose and Counterparty Details Binance will require Brazilian users to disclose the purpose and counterparty of cross-border crypto transfers from Nov. 1, CryptoSlate reported. Withdrawals cannot be… pic.twitter.com/KoBG5Cx0n4 — Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) October 5, 2026 Purpose types vary based on asset transfer amount. The number of transfer purposes for amounts up to $50,000 is 10. The number of transfer purposes for transfers over $50,000 is 96. You must select a purpose that matches the real purpose of the transfer, as Binance will share this information with Brazil’s central bank. International deposit applications can be pending until more information is provided. Binance may refund international deposits to the investor in some cases when requested information is not received. API users are protected and must update API endpoints to include new regulatory fields. Read More: Binance Faces Fresh U.S. Iran Sanctions Probe as Prosecutors Scrutinize Crypto Trades Transfers between accounts owned by the customer in a foreign currency are international transfers. The customer acts as the counterparty and confirms that the accounts involved belong to the same owner. Self-Custody and Transfer Limits Get Separate Treatment Transfers to other self-hosted wallets owned by the customer are handled separately. According to Binance, no purpose for the transfer is required, but the customer will need to verify their identity. Binance will report the transfer to regulators according to appropriate regulatory definitions. Another limitation applies if a foreign counterparty cannot do business in Brazil’s foreign exchange market. Under Resolution BCB No. 277, virtual asset service providers are limited to transfers or payments of up to $100,000 equivalent involving foreign parties who cannot do business in Brazil’s foreign exchange market. This is not a general limit on all cross-border virtual asset transactions. 🇧🇷 BINANCE BLOCKS BRAZIL TRANSFERS! From Nov 1, @binance will stop cross-border crypto transfers for Brazil. Transfers will only be allowed when users provide the purpose of the transfer and counterparty details. pic.twitter.com/uF4wPoYxPb — Crypto Aman (@cryptoamanclub) October 5, 2026 Binance said the Nov. 1 initiative is unrelated to the Travel Rule for crypto transactions in Brazil. A Binance spokesperson said that implementation of the Travel Rule is expected to occur at a different pace, with domestic crypto transfers starting in 2027 and international ones starting in 2028. Read More: Binance Launches Agent OS: AI Agents Can Now Trade Crypto With ChatGPT, Claude and Codex The additional checks provide more information to Binance about certain international transfers. Standard transfers between Brazilian residents are not affected. Binance has informed users that the additional information will be reported to the Central Bank of Brazil on a monthly basis.

This article examines how recent events may relate to prediction market pricing. It reflects interpretive analysis of publicly available information and is provided for informational purposes only. Markets will likely monitor subsequent USDC payments …

This article examines how recent events may relate to prediction market pricing. It reflects interpretive analysis of publicly available information and is provided for informational purposes only. Markets will likely monitor subsequent USDC payments and their impact on HYPE buybacks, which could sway sentiment and pricing. Any additional announcements regarding partnerships or further financial inflows might reinforce market confidence. Key developments in Hyperliquid’s strategic initiatives or market listings could further influence the probability of reaching price targets by the end of 2026. Hyperliquid has received its first $14.58 million USDC payment, marking a significant step in funding HYPE token buybacks through the AQAv2 protocol. This development is part of Hyperliquid’s strategy to enhance its HYPE token value, leveraging the AQAv2 protocol activated in August 2026. This protocol directs about 90% of eligible USDC reserve yield into buybacks, indicating a shift from relying solely on fees. The infusion of USDC is expected to provide a recurring revenue stream, aligning with market expectations of improved liquidity and demand for HYPE. Disclaimer This article contains analysis of publicly available information and market data and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any asset or contract. Content may include AI-assisted interpretation and may be incomplete or subject to change. Market conditions may evolve rapidly, and the timing of information may affect how it is interpreted. Market participants may act on similar information at or around the time it becomes available. You are solely responsible for any decisions made based on this content. For additional details, please review our full Disclaimer & Risk Disclosure.

Two US fund applications tied to the INJ token have moved forward with fresh SEC amendments, one of them built around staking Two applications are carrying ETF expectations for the INJ token: the 21Shares …

Two US fund applications tied to the INJ token have moved forward with fresh SEC amendments, one of them built around staking Two applications are carrying ETF expectations for the INJ token: the 21Shares Injective ETF and the Canary Staked INJ ETF. Both have recently been updated with fresh filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Two funds, two different pitches On September 18, 2026, 21Shares filed S-1 Amendment No. 1 for its spot Injective ETF. The fund is slated to trade on Nasdaq under the ticker TINJ. Gloria Thousands of headlines moved markets today. Gloria Finance shows you the three that matter most to your portfolio. See what matters → That amendment revises the original registration statement 21Shares submitted in October 2025. It expands on how the fund plans to hold INJ directly and explains how the issuer would keep discretion over whether to stake those tokens. Canary Capital submitted Amendment No. 3 for its staked INJ ETF around September 25-28, 2026. That product is proposed to list on Cboe BZX under the ticker INJS. Advertisement Canary’s filing targets staking at least 90% of the fund’s holdings. BitGo is named as the INJ custodian, and CoinDesk is set to provide the pricing benchmark. The filings also name traditional custody and banking providers. BitGo appears alongside BNY Mellon and US Bank as service providers across the documents. The news moving money, markets, and the world—before your day starts. Daily. Free. Join 34,000+ readers across crypto, finance, and policy. Email address Subscribe free We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime. Why Injective, and why now The chain has processed more than 3 billion total transactions. Roughly 42 million of those came in the past month, as of late September 2026. INJ is also not new to regulated wrappers. A European exchange-traded product tied to INJ already exists. US-listed INJ futures are available too. Injective has registered with the SEC as a transfer agent for RWAs. The staking question Canary’s structure commits at least 90% of holdings to staking, meaning the fund’s appeal depends heavily on those rewards. It also means the fund carries the operational complexity of staking, from validator selection to custody arrangements. 21Shares is keeping discretionary staking as an option rather than committing to it, letting the issuer adapt if rules, market conditions or operational risks shift.

Bitcoin bulls renewed pressure on range highs with the 2026 yearly open forming the next key resistance to break through. Bitcoin (BTC) is eyeing a key level as BTC/USD is on the cusp of …

Bitcoin bulls renewed pressure on range highs with the 2026 yearly open forming the next key resistance to break through. Bitcoin (BTC) is eyeing a key level as BTC/USD is on the cusp of turning the 2026 yearly candle green. Key points: Bitcoin bulls have briefly revisited $87,000 on some exchanges, but the 2026 yearly open at $87,570 will provide ongoing resistance. Traders are turning their attention to the bond market ahead of Wednesday’s 10-year note auction and Fed meeting minutes. BTC/USD brushes off a traditionally weak start to the month. October upside has historically averaged 18.7% since 2013. 2026 yearly open becomes Bitcoin’s next resistance hurdle Bitcoin continues to battle range highs after sealing its highest weekly close since late January at $86,532 on Bitstamp. Data from TradingView shows brief wicks to $87,000 after the weekly close, as part of Bitcoin’s fourth attempt to break higher since Sept. 21. Bulls have so far failed to reclaim the yearly open at $87,570. BTC/USD one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView On lower time frames, liquidity hunts continue to dictate price action. Similar to last week, BTC/USD saw liquidations of nearby short positions around $85,500, while walls of bids and asks thickened around spot price, keeping volatility constricted. Data from CoinGlass shows concentrations at $83,700 in addition to the yearly open. BTC three-day liquidation heatmap. Source: CoinGlass “Bitcoin continues to be sandwiched between the ~ $82500 key support and the ~ $86700 resistance ahead,” trader and analyst Rekt Capital wrote in his latest X analysis. Rekt Capital sees $82,500 as key support to avoid revisiting the previous 2026 range between $60,000 and $80,000. A decisive move above $86,700, meanwhile, would open up the path to a higher range with $93,700 as its ceiling. BTC/USD one-week chart. Source: Rekt Capital on X.com Bond market in focus after 24-year highs A comparatively light week of macro data in the US will put bond markets at the forefront as traders have discounted the odds of the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates. Last week, both the 10-year and 30-year bond yields hit 5.34% and 5.69%, respectively — levels not seen since 2002. They dropped only modestly on weak nonfarm payrolls data before rebounding to erase most of the decline. At the time of writing on Monday, the 10-year yield stood at 5.25%. US 10-year bond yield one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView “The bond market is in the spotlight this week,” trading resource The Kobeissi Letter summarized in an X post on Sunday. On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve will publish the minutes of the September Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, in which officials voted to increase interest rates by 0.25%. Since then, market expectations of further policy tightening have whipsawed. Data from CME Group’s FedWatch Tool shows that a week ago, odds of another 0.25% hike at the October FOMC meeting reached 70% before dropping to current levels of just 18%. Fed target-rate probability comparison for October FOMC meeting (screenshot). Source: CME Group With consensus still favoring a December hike, however, analysts also see the Fed staying hawkish through year end, with headwinds for crypto and risk assets staying in place as a result. “I think that’s the right move because I don’t think this report necessarily changes the story for the Fed,” Timothy Chubb, chief investment officer at Girard Advisory Services, told CNBC about the post-payrolls yield rebound. Chubb saw the Fed continuing to keep rates “higher for longer” going forward, with inflation sticky and oil prices still volatile thanks to the Middle East conflict. The August print of the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, known as the Fed’s “preferred” inflation gauge, did little to impact markets’ assessment of inflation trends despite coming in lower than expected. Changes in the way the index is calculated likely accounted for a portion of the drop, Kobeissi argued at the time. The next key inflation print will be the Consumer Price Index (CPI), due for release on Oct. 14. BTC price begins historically strong month for bulls Seasonality remains a focus among Bitcoin market participants as October has commenced with BTC price upside. Related: Here’s what happened in crypto today Onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant reports that Bitcoin has already weathered a traditionally difficult period at the start of the month. “Bitcoin’s first three days of October have historically been its weakest three-day stretch of the month, averaging a 0.66% decline. 2026 has already held up better,” contributor Andrew Kamsky wrote on Sunday. BTC/USD gained 1.4% in the first three days of October, with current month-to-date upside at 2.7%. From the Oct. 1 close to the Oct. 3 close, the pair avoided losses, whereas the historical average for the period has been -0.66%, Kamsky reported. BTC/USD October returns comparison (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant CoinGlass data shows that on average since 2013, Bitcoin has ended October 18.7% higher, giving a 2026 target of just under $100,000. Over the past 13 years, there have been just three “red” October months, with the largest downside figure of -13% seen in 2014. BTC/USD monthly returns (screenshot). Source: CoinGlass Previously, Cointelegraph reported on Bitcoin’s unusually strong Q3 performance, which saw quarterly gains in excess of 40% — the best Q3 result since the 2017 bull market.

Over 1,000 addresses tied to the LIBRA memecoin's Hayden Davis now hold a sliver of their former value A little over a thousand crypto wallets once held nearly $300 million. Today, according to Arkham …

Over 1,000 addresses tied to the LIBRA memecoin's Hayden Davis now hold a sliver of their former value A little over a thousand crypto wallets once held nearly $300 million. Today, according to Arkham Intelligence, they hold around $2 million. The wallets belong to Kelsier Ventures, the Hayden Davis-led firm at the center of the LIBRA memecoin saga. That is the token Argentine President Javier Milei promoted before it collapsed. From a nine-figure stash to pocket change Arkham first tagged the addresses on February 19, 2025. It identified more than 1,000 wallets linked to Kelsier Ventures and Davis. At that point, the combined holdings sat at nearly $300 million. Most of that value was denominated in LIBRA, the token Kelsier helped bring to market. A meaningful chunk was not LIBRA at all. About $100 million sat in USDC and SOL that had been pulled from liquidity pools during the token’s launch. Advertisement Fast forward to the latest on-chain snapshot. Arkham now shows the Kelsier-linked entity holding around $2 million, spread across approximately 1,200 addresses. Who is Kelsier Ventures Kelsier Ventures was registered in Delaware and established in 2021. It is a family operation, led by Hayden Davis, with his father Tom Davis and brother Gideon Davis holding significant roles. The news moving money, markets, and the world—before your day starts. Daily. Free. Join 34,000+ readers across crypto, finance, and policy. Email address Subscribe free We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime. On paper, the firm pitched itself as a venture capital outfit focused on Web3 technology. In practice, it operated more like a market maker and token-launching shop. That second role is what put Kelsier in the spotlight. The firm was deeply involved in LIBRA, a memecoin that Milei promoted heavily. The token reached a multi-billion-dollar market cap before plunging by approximately 95%. The crash came amid allegations of insider trading and liquidity extraction. The lawsuit that did not stick After LIBRA’s collapse, Kelsier faced a class-action lawsuit. Investors brought fraud allegations against Kelsier and related parties, including claims under RICO, the federal racketeering statute often aimed at organized schemes. In October 2026, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the Southern District of New York dismissed the case. The ruling rejected the fraud allegations, including the RICO claims. What this means for memecoin traders and investigators The story also shows what blockchain analytics firms like Arkham can and cannot do. Tagging more than 1,000 addresses to a single entity is serious detective work. It lets the public follow a firm’s footprint long after it stops issuing press releases. Tracking funds is a different task from recovering them, though. Arkham can show where the money is sitting today. It cannot force anyone to give it back, and the court dismissal shows that legal remedies for burned investors can be thin. Kelsier presented itself as a venture capital firm and allegedly behaved like a market maker. That kind of mismatch is exactly what disclosure rules exist to catch, and the LIBRA episode may give policymakers a ready-made example. Watch whether the remaining roughly $2 million moves, and whether any further legal or regulatory action follows the dismissal. With approximately 1,200 addresses now tagged, Arkham’s dashboards will make any movement visible to everyone, including the investors still waiting for answers.

The post Bitcoin Peaked at $126,080 on October 6 Last Year. How Long Does It Take to Surpass a Peak? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St.. Bitcoin (CRYPTO:BTC) hit an all-time high of $126,080 …

The post Bitcoin Peaked at $126,080 on October 6 Last Year. How Long Does It Take to Surpass a Peak? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St.. Bitcoin (CRYPTO:BTC) hit an all-time high of $126,080 on October 6, 2025. As we approach the first anniversary of this peak o… The post Bitcoin Peaked at $126,080 on October 6 Last Year. How Long Does It Take to Surpass a Peak? appeared first on 24/7 Wall St..Bitcoin (CRYPTO:BTC) hit an all-time high of $126,080 on October 6…

Reason to trust Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality Created by industry experts and meticulously reviewed The highest standards in reporting and publishing How Our News is Made Strict editorial …

Reason to trust Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality Created by industry experts and meticulously reviewed The highest standards in reporting and publishing How Our News is Made Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality Ad discliamer Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio. Mutsamudu, Comoros, October 5, 2026, MEXC, a pioneer in 0-fee digital asset trading, and Payward, the parent company of Kraken, are in discussions to explore a collaboration as both platforms look at how exchanges can better serve users across evolving global markets. The two companies will bring the conversation to TOKEN2049 Singapore, where MEXC CEO Vugar Usi Zade and Payward Co-CEO Arjun Sethi will join a panel on the MEXC Stage to discuss the next phase of trading platforms and share further perspectives on collaboration between exchanges. The discussion comes as trading platforms respond to several shifts happening at the same time. Users are seeking broader access across crypto and traditional markets, AI is changing how investors research and interact with trading tools, and social trading is creating new ways to discover and participate in market opportunities. Against this backdrop, exchanges are increasingly looking beyond individual products toward how market access, infrastructure, liquidity and user experience can work together more effectively. As platforms evolve, exchange security and user asset protection will also remain an important part of the conversation. As the exchange industry evolves, platforms are building different strengths across user experience, market access, infrastructure and trading capabilities. MEXC has focused on retail user experience, deep liquidity and perpetual trading across crypto and TradFi assets, while Payward brings global compliant financial infrastructure, professional trading capabilities and a strong U.S. market presence. These different strengths create room to explore where broader collaboration could add value for users. “Users increasingly expect broader market access without more complexity,” said Vugar Usi Zade, CEO of MEXC. “The next stage of trading will require strong user experience, liquidity, infrastructure and market access to work more closely together. As exchanges continue to evolve, there is growing room to explore where collaboration across the industry can create more value for users.” The TOKEN2049 panel will take place on October 7 from 12:30 to 13:00 at the MEXC Stage, and will explore the trends reshaping trading, how exchanges are preparing for changing user expectations, and where greater collaboration between platforms could create value. The conversation will also look at the convergence of crypto and TradFi, the growing role of AI in trading, and how global trading platforms may evolve as markets and infrastructure become more connected. About MEXC Founded in 2018, MEXC is a leading global multi-asset trading platform built as your 0-fee gateway to infinite opportunities. Serving users across 170+ markets, MEXC provides simple and efficient access to crypto, stocks, tokenized assets, derivatives, and a growing range of TradFi-linked opportunities through one account and one gateway. With 0 trading fees, deep liquidity, broad asset coverage, and a high-performance trading experience, MEXC is designed for retail users who want to discover earlier, act faster, and trade with fewer barriers. As crypto and traditional finance continue to converge, MEXC is committed to making global opportunities more accessible, helping users trade freely and MEXCmize every opportunity. MEXC Official Website｜ X ｜ Telegram ｜How to Sign Up on MEXC For media inquiries, please contact MEXC PR team: media@mexc.com source Risk Disclaimer: This content does not constitute investment advice. Given the volatility of financial markets, including digital assets, tokenized assets, and traditional financial products, investors should carefully assess market conditions, underlying asset fundamentals, and potential financial risks before making any investment or trading decisions.

Belshe warns that market structure risk looms over the US cryptocurrency market, as crypto companies offer exchanges, brokerage, and custody services in a single platform, increasing counterparty risk and creating points of failure. Read …

Belshe warns that market structure risk looms over the US cryptocurrency market, as crypto companies offer exchanges, brokerage, and custody services in a single platform, increasing counterparty risk and creating points of failure. Read More: He Says His Binary Options Strategy Brings In $2,000 a Week—Watch Him Trade Live The CLARITY Act’s failure in the Senate has left many questions about the future regulation of the US crypto market. As the industry prepares for the 2027 deadline, experts are concerned that the current framework leaves the market vulnerable to structural risks. Related: Crypto Tax Bill Just Changed: What the New US Rules Could Mean for Bitcoin, Stablecoins and Staking What Happened to the CLARITY Act The CLARITY Act failed to progress in the Senate on Sept. 15, 2026, after a vote on a motion to invoke cloture for H.R. 3633. The measure got 49 votes in favor and 50 votes against the cloture motion, according to the vote tally. The outcome was well below the 60-vote threshold needed to bring the act to the floor. Why Did the CLARITY Act Fail in the Senate? Senator Republicans, Democrats, and others could not resolve the various disagreements over the contents of the measure. Ethics-related issues, which were a point of contention between Democrats and Republicans, were complicated further by debates over stablecoin rewards and bank regulation. A number of revisions were suggested and then rejected, but not enough bipartisan agreement was reached for the bill. How Did the Senate Vote on the CLARITY Act? The final vote on the CLARITY Act Senate motion was 49-50 against invoking cloture, with one senator abstaining. The outcome meant that not a single Republican senator who voted for the passage of the bill could offset Democratic opposition and Tillis’s switch to the ‘no’ camp. The vote was sometimes presented as a 50-49 outcome in the U.S. Senate, because of how the procedure vote was modified. Tillis switched his position to keep the reconsideration rights open. In the end, the Senate recorded a 49-50 vote on the motion to invoke cloture. Why Did the Bill Need 60 Votes to Advance? It should be noted that the vote related to the motion to proceed, and not the final approval of the bill. By virtue of the way the U.S. Senate works, a three-fifths vote is needed to invoke cloture and end debate. With 100 senators, that means a minimum of 60 senators need to vote for cloture. A simple majority would not be sufficient for passing the motion. Which Republican Senators Voted Against the CLARITY Act? The four senators who voted against the bill were Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran, and Thom Tillis. Why does it matter that Tillis switched his vote in the final Senate vote on the bill? Tillis switched to the ‘no’ camp for procedural reasons and to allow for reconsideration. He voted for the passage of the bill, but switched his vote to respect the option of reconsideration. Is the CLARITY Act Dead or Could It Return? The bill’s failed vote prevents it from moving forward before Congress leaves Washington ahead of the midterm elections. However, the U.S. Senate still has a chance to reconsider the motion. A lame-duck session could be a possibility for crypto-related legislation after the elections. Alternatively, Congress can revisit the issue of crypto market structure later in 2027, depending on the outcome of the election. Why BitGo CEO Mike Belshe Is Warning About the CLARITY Act Failure Belshe expressed support for the CLARITY Act’s passage, arguing that market structure rules are critical to the proper functioning of the financial system, especially for digital assets. His concern is that firms that combine trading and custody functions do not have sufficient safeguards in place. What Did Mike Belshe Say About the CLARITY Act? Mike Belshe said the CLARITY Act’s failure left U.S. capital markets vulnerable to unresolved structural risks. He warned that crypto companies can increasingly offer a one-stop shop for trading, brokerage functions, and custody services. According to Belshe, the absence of rules around integrated financial structures can lead to concentrated risks. Why Does Belshe Say the Failure Leaves US Crypto Exposed? In traditional financial markets, major economic functions are split between multiple firms to avoid the dangers of counterparty concentration. In crypto, companies are offering a one-stop shop to minimize costs and provide a more convenient experience. Belshe argues that convenience comes at the expense of systemic risk, especially if a firm combines exchange-trading operations with brokerage capabilities. If a business fails, the combined effects and ripple effects of a single default would be felt throughout the financial system. The same would be true in the event of a security breach, liquidity crisis, or any other emergency in which institutional investors rely on the firm’s services. Why Does Belshe Compare the Risk to Lehman Brothers? Belshe uses Lehman Brothers as an example of counterparty concentration and the systemic risks that a default can inflict on the financial system. The failure of the investment bank triggered wider losses due to the interconnectedness of its counterparties. In Belshe’s view, a similar outcome can occur if the functions currently available on a single crypto platform were to become consolidated under one counterparty. Topic Current Situation Why It Matters CLARITY Act Status The bill failed to advance in the Senate US crypto regulation remains uncertain Senate Vote Supporters failed to reach the 60-vote threshold The bill could not move forward Main Concern Crypto firms combine exchange, brokerage, and custody This can concentrate operational and counterparty risk Mike Belshe’s Warning BitGo CEO Mike Belshe sees structural risks in one-stop crypto platforms A major platform failure could affect several services at once Crypto Custody Customer assets may sit with the same company that handles trading Failure could disrupt both withdrawals and market access SEC and CFTC Both agencies continue regulating crypto through existing authority Agency rules cannot fully replace federal legislation Market Concentration Large platforms can absorb compliance costs more easily Smaller firms may face a competitive disadvantage Investor Risk Users may depend on one company for trading, storage, and lending Counterparty risk increases when services are concentrated Lehman Comparison Belshe compares integrated crypto platforms to interconnected financial institutions A major failure could trigger broader market stress What Happens Next Congress could reconsider or rewrite the bill US crypto regulation could change again in 2027 The Crypto One-Stop-Shop Problem Crypto companies have been offering a one-stop shop for exchanges, brokerage services, and custody operations. Some are also looking to introduce derivatives trading, lending and borrowing products, and settlement services through their platform in order to make participation more convenient. Read More: CLARITY Act Failed. Now SEC and CFTC Could Rewrite U.S. Crypto Rules Why Are Crypto Companies Combining Exchange, Brokerage and Custody? The integrated approach reduces costs and increases adoption by making it possible to perform all financial operations under one account. Users benefit from simplified interactions with their counterparties and do not have to worry about the logistics of multiple counterparties. The one-stop shops help businesses capture more value from their operations by combining the different functions and incorporating multiple fees. At any given point in time, a company can provide services that charge a fee for trading, custody, or lending, as well as one-time charges for derivatives trading. How Can One Company Control Trading, Brokerage and Custody? A large crypto company can have separate units for exchange operations, custody, and brokerage services. All units are owned by the same parent company and operate under the same brand. Why Does Belshe See Vertical Integration as a Systemic Risk? Vertical integration can increase the likelihood of systemic risks if the integrated functions suffer defaults or disruptions. If one trading or custody unit goes insolvent or experiences an operational disruption, all other units will feel the ripple effects of the failure. Could One Crypto Company Become a Single Point of Failure? A major crypto company can become a critical node in the U.S. crypto market infrastructure. The dangers arise from the fact that the same company controls a significant portion of the trading operations and custody services. Such concentration of power does not necessarily lead to failure, but can intensify the consequences of a default or disruption. Why Crypto Custody Matters After the CLARITY Act Failure Crypto custody is the focal point of the debate, as many digital assets are based on a simple fact — private key possession equals ownership, and the inability to possess or control a private key results in a permanent loss of the asset. This characteristic is especially important for institutional markets. What Is Crypto Custody? Crypto custody refers to the practice of keeping private keys or the authorizations needed to control specific crypto assets. The custodians offer a professional infrastructure that aims to mitigate the risks of theft, loss, and unauthorized withdrawal of assets. Institutional custody may involve cold storage, risk management policies, insurance policies, authorization protocols, and settlement and reporting infrastructures for financial institutions. Why Should Trading and Custody Be Separated? Trading and custody separation can help reduce risks associated with single-point failures and ensure the segregation of operations between the two involved parties. The separated infrastructure can help ensure that a crypto trading platform and custodian are independent but can still operate together. An example illustrates the potential benefits of such an approach, where a crypto trading company defaults, but the custodian holding the user’s assets outside the company remains available for deposits and withdrawals. The separated version can also be easier to regulate since traditional financial markets already utilize a similar model. What Happens When One Company Controls Customer Assets and Trading? When a crypto business holds customer assets and operates as a counterparty to their trades, it creates a concentration of risk and places customers’ funds at risk. A default of such a business creates liquidity risks for the customers and the crypto market as a whole. Liquidity risks emerge as the crypto company’s default lowers the ease of selling or withdrawing funds from the business. Additionally, the default may create counterparty credit risks for other financial institutions and market infrastructures, with reduced customer collateralization. How Could a Custody Failure Spread Across the Crypto Market? A default scenario of a large custodian may impact the crypto market and many different types of market participants. The custodian can hold assets on behalf of crypto exchanges, institutional investors, market makers, funds, and regular investors. The default event may hinder the ability of these investors to access their collateral on the custody platform. This default can create cascading defaults in the crypto market as some parties may need to liquidate their positions to pay off the custodian’s debts, and others may experience missed collateralization events. This creates liquidity pressures for these investors, and the market infrastructure counterparties respond by reducing their exposure and collateralization risks, which can cause liquidity issues in the market. What the CLARITY Act Would Have Changed for US Crypto The CLARITY Act 2026 would give the U.S. crypto market a more durable and predictable legal foundation. It would establish a framework for the regulation of the digital assets industry by outlining the responsibilities of policymakers and introducing guidelines for intermediaries in the digital commodity market. How Would the CLARITY Act Have Regulated Crypto Market Structure? The CLARITY Act would establish statutory requirements for the digital asset markets by laying out the requirements for companies authorized to perform functions related to digital commodities. The bill would cover all key aspects of intermediation, including market oversight and disclosure requirements. Proponents of the bill say that it would encourage adoption by crypto-native companies. How Would the Bill Have Defined the SEC and CFTC Roles? A key part of the CLARITY Act is the determination of how the responsibilities of the SEC and CFTC would be divided. The act would establish a clear distinction between crypto tokens that qualify as securities and those that do not. The bill would make it possible for the regulator with the appropriate authority to supervise the functions performed by market participants. How Would the CLARITY Act Have Affected Crypto Exchanges and Brokers? Exchanges and brokerage firms would benefit from the clarity provided by the bill, which would establish a federal oversight system. Companies would be able to structure their operations around the specified requirements for digital commodities intermediaries. The rules around customer assets and trading would also provide the guidance institutional investors needed to get involved in the U.S. crypto market. How Would the Bill Have Changed Crypto Custody Rules? The bill contains several important provisions for the crypto custody industry. The CLARITY Act crypto custody provisions would give intermediaries a more predictable legal framework. Proponents say that this would reduce the barriers to institutional participation in the market. Critics argue that the level of protection for integrated firms is insufficient. The dispute has fuelled the debate over the appropriate U.S. crypto market structure. What Happens to US Crypto Regulation After the CLARITY Act Failure? The failure of the CLARITY Act does not mean that the U.S. crypto market is completely unregulated. The existing securities, commodities, banking, and anti-money laundering laws would continue to apply. What Crypto Rules Remain in Place? Existing federal statutes would continue to apply to the U.S. crypto market. Some of the states have also issued licensing requirements for crypto companies. The stablecoin legislation and banking regulations also set forth requirements that crypto firms have to follow. How Are the SEC and CFTC Responding? The SEC and CFTC would continue to develop guidance for the crypto market in accordance with their authority and the applicable statutes. The agencies can issue regulations, guidance letters, and enforcement directives without the need for Congressional approval. Read More: Crypto Legislation in Trouble? Experts React After CLARITY Act Vote Can SEC and CFTC Rules Replace the CLARITY Act? The actions of the agencies can partially address the issues but cannot fully replace the role of legislation in establishing a uniform framework. The SEC, CFTC, and other agencies do not have the capacity to establish the type of multi-jurisdictional requirements that the CLARITY Act would provide for. Why Are Agency Rules Less Durable Than Federal Legislation? Current rules can be repealed and replaced by subsequent agencies, while court challenges can also limit their scope. Legislation establishes requirements under the direct authority of Congress. It can be repealed only by another act of Congress. This makes it much more difficult for agencies to modify legislation, which is why rules passed by Congress are viewed by crypto companies as preferable to executive orders. What the CLARITY Act Failure Means for Crypto Companies Crypto companies are likely to continue to operate in a state of uncertainty as they navigate the risks posed by inconsistent rules. At the same time, major exchanges are likely to continue to expand their offerings, despite the challenges that can arise at the implementation stage. Will Crypto Exchanges Continue Expanding Their Services? Large crypto exchanges have strong incentives to adopt a one-stop-shop approach. They not only want to facilitate trading, but also want to make it possible for investors to lend or borrow funds. In addition, they want to provide custody services to institutional investors and facilitate derivatives trading. Could Regulatory Uncertainty Increase Market Concentration? Regulatory uncertainty can limit the growth of individual exchanges, but the trend toward expansion will continue because of the benefits that such companies can provide. The most successful exchanges are likely to have the resources required to comply with the requirements. What Does the Failure Mean for Crypto Custodians? Regulatory uncertainty can increase market concentration because it imposes high fixed costs on potential entrants. Small companies can be disadvantaged compared to large exchanges that can afford to hire specialized experts. Concentration will also be reinforced by the fact that exchanges can get an additional competitive advantage through licensing. Could Smaller Crypto Firms Be Put at a Disadvantage? The failure of the bill has indirect implications for investors by influencing where their assets are kept and how they can access their assets. What the CLARITY Act Failure Means for Crypto Investors One-stop crypto platforms can increase the counterparty risk for investors by providing custody services and facilitating trading operations for the same customer. The combined exposure can create dangerous levels of concentration, especially for investors who keep the majority of their assets with the exchange. Could One-Stop Crypto Platforms Increase Counterparty Risk? Independent custody can reduce the counterparty risk by allowing investors to store their assets with an independent custodian. However, such custody would also entail additional risks, as the custodian would have to be compensated for the services. What Happens to Customer Assets if a Major Crypto Firm Fails? The legal status of customer assets held by a crypto company would dictate what happens to them in the event of default. Assets that are held separately from the liabilities of the firm have the best chances of surviving the failure of a crypto company. Poor record-keeping procedures can complicate the separation of assets. If investors want to retain their assets, they will have to go through a protracted legal procedure to reclaim them. Crypto bankruptcies have shown that the process can take months or even years. Why Does Separation of Trading and Custody Matter for Investors? The separation of trading and custody reduces the number of risks that investors are exposed to by concentrating their assets with a counterparty. Separation allows investors to choose two different counterparties that can provide the necessary services without exposing themselves to the risks that would be entailed if they chose to use the same counterparty. Could a Crypto Collapse Be Worse Than Lehman? The scale and nature of the collapse would dictate whether and to what extent the consequences would be felt by the market. For now, crypto companies are small compared to the size of the financial system. What Mike Belshe Means by a Lehman-Style Risk Lehman’s risk refers to the danger that the collapse of a major financial institution would cause systemic defaults in a wide range of counterparties. The risk arises from the fact that the same institution has multiple counterparties that would be unable to recover their assets upon failure. How Would a Major Crypto Platform Failure Spread? The initial stages could result in the freezing of withdrawals and the disruption of trading. One potential aftermath is the selling by the platforms of their assets to raise liquidity. In the meantime, market makers might decrease their exposure, while lenders are demanding higher collateralization. The contraction of liquidity may lead to increased volatility. Subsequently, these effects could spill over into other exchanges, even those with no direct connection to the initial incident. Why Could Combined Exchange, Brokerage and Custody Increase Systemic Risk? Each component entails different dimensions of risk, and consolidation creates interdependencies among them. One significant default could disrupt all aspects of trading in a business. Exchanges carry trading and operational risks, while broker-dealers introduce counterparty exposure. At the same time, custody consolidates assets, offering protection. How Is Crypto Different From the 2008 Financial System? Crypto assets are significantly smaller in scale compared to the banking system before the crisis. Moreover, major crypto exchanges utilize settled transactions differently from securities settlement in traditional markets. Furthermore, crypto-exchanges allow perpetual contracts and derivatives, where either long or short positions can be closed at any given time. There are also assets in crypto-markets that entail a permanent loss of funds if private keys are lost, as opposed to cash or securities. Finally, crypto-markets operate continuously across borders with no interruptions. What Happens Next for the CLARITY Act? The future of the CLARITY Act depends critically on Congress in the wake of the elections. Supporters of the bill have several options, but they need to understand how the political winds have changed. Could the Senate Reconsider the CLARITY Act? Yes, the CLARITY Act is still alive in the U.S. Senate. The procedural changes mean that there is an option to reconsider it in the future. The outcome will depend critically on whether there would be sufficient support for it. Could Congress Rewrite the Bill After the Senate Failure? Congress can always revisit the issue of crypto market structure. The bill’s proponents would have to work towards passing a new version of the legislation, which could see changes to ethics provisions, banking provisions, stability provisions, and others. Could the CLARITY Act Return During the Lame-Duck Session? Yes, the lame duck session is a possibility. Lawmakers tend to revisit old issues in the wake of an election. If political circumstances change, the new Congress can reconsider the bill. What Could Happen to US Crypto Regulation in 2027? Congress can revisit the issue if the bill fails again. The SEC and CFTC can continue to issue rules and directives as the situation requires. A new Congress can also introduce new legislation to address the situation. BitGo CEO Mike Belshe’s Warning Explained Belshe’s warning is significant because it indicates that he thinks that lawmakers have underestimated the risks associated with concentrated structures. He has reason to believe that integrated companies will play an increasing role in the U.S. crypto market. Why Does Belshe Think US Crypto Markets Are Vulnerable? Belshe thinks U.S. crypto markets are vulnerable because companies are becoming more concentrated and Congress does not have a statutory market structure in place. What Are the Risks of Crypto One-Stop Shops? A crypto one-stop shop offers convenience to customers who want to both trade and custody assets without dealing with multiple counterparties. Such an option is associated with the risk of concentrated operational and financial exposure to the same entity, with the danger of cybersecurity breaches affecting the assets and the trading system, insolvency causing liquidity freezes in both accounts and execution systems, and credit exposure to the same counterparty across different business lines. Could the CLARITY Act Failure Increase Systemic Risk? The failure of the act on its own most likely does not pose a significant systemic risk to the crypto economy, as many regulatory and internal controls are applied to limit exposure to any single crypto business. Nonetheless, Belshe argues that the absence of regulatory control and the tendency toward the same institutional structures will increase the likelihood of a large-scale default if one such crypto-business fails severely.

Performance-based warrants tied to massive GPU purchase commitments could expand AMD's share count by roughly 19.6% if fully exercised Advanced Micro Devices has handed two of the biggest names in AI a remarkable deal: …

Performance-based warrants tied to massive GPU purchase commitments could expand AMD's share count by roughly 19.6% if fully exercised Advanced Micro Devices has handed two of the biggest names in AI a remarkable deal: the right to buy up to 320 million AMD shares for one cent apiece. The catch is that OpenAI and Meta Platforms have to earn them. They do it by buying staggering amounts of AMD hardware, and by watching AMD’s stock climb to targets that would have sounded like fan fiction a few years ago. How the penny-share deals work AMD issued the first warrant to OpenAI on October 5, 2025. Meta received a matching one on February 23, 2026. Each warrant covers up to 160 million shares at an exercise price of $0.01 per share. Both expire in five years. A warrant is essentially a coupon for stock. The holder can redeem it at a fixed price, but only if certain conditions are met. Here, the conditions are tied to compute. Each customer has committed to purchase up to 6 gigawatts of AMD’s Instinct MI450-series GPUs over roughly five years. The first 1 gigawatt tranche is expected to start shipping in the second half of 2026. Advertisement Vesting happens in stages. Shares unlock as the customers hit purchase milestones and as AMD’s stock price clears a series of rising targets, the last of which sits at $600. As of AMD’s mid-2026 SEC filings, none of the warrants had vested. So for now, the penny shares remain a promise rather than a transfer. AI, tech, and the markets they move—in one daily briefing. Daily. Free. Join 34,000+ readers across crypto, finance, and policy. Email address Subscribe free We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime. What it does to the share count AMD had about 1.63 billion shares outstanding as of late July 2026. The company has 4 billion authorized shares in total, so there is plenty of room under the ceiling. If both warrants were fully exercised, the 320 million new shares would boost the outstanding count by roughly 19.6%. The cash AMD would collect for those shares is almost comically small. Full exercise would bring in approximately $3.2 million. With AMD trading between $600 and $630 in September 2026, the exercisable shares would carry a paper value of approximately $192 billion to $202 billion, contingent on the purchase milestones being met. Why AMD would give away this much equity AMD wants a bigger share of the AI accelerator market, where Nvidia has long been the incumbent. Winning that fight requires anchor customers willing to commit to multi-year, multi-gigawatt deployments. The stock-price targets also protect existing shareholders to a degree. The final tranche only unlocks if AMD reaches $600, which means the dilution arrives alongside a much larger company. That target is no longer hypothetical. AMD’s run to the $600 to $630 range in September 2026 pushed its market capitalization past $1 trillion. What this means for investors and the AI chip race For AMD shareholders, they accept a smaller ownership percentage in return for what could be a much bigger and more durable business. Two customers each committing to as much as 6 gigawatts of capacity represents a level of locked-in demand that few chipmakers can point to. Vesting depends on execution, both AMD’s ability to deliver MI450-series chips on schedule and the customers’ ability to deploy them. Any delays to the first 1 gigawatt tranche slated for the second half of 2026 would be watched closely. Investors should keep an eye on AMD’s future SEC filings for the first signs of vesting. That will be the clearest indication that the hardware is shipping, the milestones are landing, and the penny shares are turning from a contractual promise into actual dilution.