About
J
Ended--
Last price (USDT)
491.27K
24h total (USDT)
1.05M
Total vol (USDT)
2025-01-15 15:00:00 ~ 2025-01-22 09:30:00
Trading time (UTC+0)
2025-01-22 11:00:00 ~ 2025-01-22 23:00:00
Delivery time (UTC+0)
Total supply1.00B
Resources
Introduction
Jambo is building a global on-chain mobile network, powered by the JamboPhone — a crypto-native mobile device starting at just $99. Jambo has onboarded millions on-chain, particularly in emerging markets, through earn opportunities, its dApp store, a multi-chain wallet, and more. Jambo’s hardware network, with 700,000+ mobile nodes across 120+ countries, enables the platform to launch new products that achieve instant decentralization and network effects. With this distributed hardware infrastructure, the next phase of Jambo encompasses next-generation DePIN use cases, including satellite connectivity, P2P networking, and more. At the heart of the Jambo economy is the Jambo Token ($J), a utility token that powers rewards, discounts, and payouts.
Bitcoin sees ‘significant step forward’ as $97K BTC price targets return
Bitcoin ( BTC ) avoided US selling pressure Thursday as US Thanksgiving provided bulls with key relief. Key points: Bitcoin retains $90,000 as support into the Thanksgiving weekend after hitting weekly highs. BTC price expectations flip bullish, with even $100,000 on the cards again. Futures markets show a leverage washout laying the foundations for a more sustainable rebound. BTC price bull targets bring back six figures Data from Cointelegraph Markets Pro and TradingView showed BTC price support holding at $90,000. BTC/USD four-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView After reaching weekly highs near $92,000 earlier in the day, BTC/USD enjoyed a respite thanks to the lack of a Wall Street trading session. Commenting, traders agreed that a crucial resistance battle was now around the corner in the form of the 2025 yearly opening level above $93,000. “If this levels breaks, Bitcoin is back up to $100K,” crypto trader, analyst and entrepreneur Michaël van de Poppe wrote in a post on X . “All in all, a pretty strong bounce upwards. I want to see some consolidation here before we break through this resistance level.” BTC/USD one-day chart. Source: Michaël van de Poppe/X Analyzing exchange order-book liquidity, trader Daan Crypto Trades identified the area around $97,000 as a particular interest point for an upside target. “The $97K-$98K is stacked after seeing that consistent and heavy sell off 1-2 weeks back. This created a ton of marginally lower highs, creating such a big liquidity pocket,” he told X followers alongside data from monitoring resource CoinGlass. “The $97K-$98K area is also in line with a clear horizontal price level. So overall, a good area to watch.” BTC liquidation heatmap. Source: Daan Crypto Trades/X Van de Poppe added that he “wouldn’t mind” a retest of $88,000 first, describing the overall crypto bull cycle as “far from over.” Bitcoin markets take “significant step” to recovery Elsewhere, J. A. Maartunn, a contributor to onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant, had more good news for Bitcoin bulls. Related: Death cross vs. $96K rebound: 5 things to know in Bitcoin this week Spot markets were entering recovery mode, he announced, with taker cumulative volume delta (CVD) edging back to neutral from negative territory. “That’s a significant step forward!” he commented. Bitcoin spot taker CVD. Source: Maartunn/X As Cointelegraph reported , the negative spot taker CVD had formed one of multiple areas of concern for analysts at the start of November, while BTC/USD was still trading above $100,000. “The Bitcoin market is showing clearer signs—across futures, spot, and on-chain data—that the recent “leveraged phase” is ending and longer-term capital is returning,” fellow CryptoQuant contributor XWIN Research Japan continued in one of its “ Quicktake ” blog posts Wednesday. The post referenced CryptoQuant’s dedicated indicator covering retail investor activity on Bitcoin futures, now copying “past market turning points” by flipping green. Bitcoin futures retail investor indicator (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant
Meme Traders Aren’t Going Anywhere: How GameStop and Crypto Created a Retail Revolution
Once upon a time, let’s call it the Age of Madness, retail investors crashed the stock market party like a wild pack of meme-loving rebels. Fueled by crypto chaos and the siren call of prediction markets, the little guys went from sidelines to center stage. And there’s no backing out now. Stay ahead in the crypto world – follow us on X for the latest updates, insights, and trends!🚀 Booming opportunities The legend began in 2021 when a renegade trader named Keith Gill, a former CFA turned meme oracle, led a retail stampede to GameStop, sending its stock prices into orbit. Think of it as David versus Goliath, except David had a smartphone and a cult following. This single event shattered the old-school market snooze-fest and invited everyone to play. Now, experts say since then, these meme investors have bulked up their market game, swapping reckless gambles for strategies that actually make sense, like grown-up reboot of a wild childhood. But this time is different. This isn’t some flash-in-the-pan gamble fueled by FOMO and TikTok trends. Retail investors, heavily influenced by the tech sector’s booming opportunities and lessons learned from the chaotic crypto market, are actively managing portfolios like seasoned pros. 21% of U.S. equity trading According to a 2025 J.P. Morgan Chase report, retail trading activity took off again post-pandemic, hitting levels not seen since the bullish frenzy of 2020-21. Bloomberg data shows retail players now constitute nearly 21% of U.S. equity trading, closing in fast on institutions’ 30%. The plot thickens as retail traders adopt more sophisticated moves, derivatives, options, and even risky zero-day options that are basically bets on what Wall Street will do tomorrow (or today, or tonight). Retail’s influence here is unmissable, nearly 30% of options volume comes from individual investors, and they’re responsible for over half the S&P 500 options frenzy. The retail presence has transformed the market Around-the-clock trading is the new norm, too. After all, cryptos never sleep, so why should stocks? Now, experts highlighted that 9% of equity trades happen outside regular market hours, nine times what it was in 2019. Global investors and locals squeezing in trades during free time are rewriting the rules. Even IPOs like Figma and Circle are feeling the retail retail-volcano effect, with younger, meme-savvy investors sniffing out value and hype alike. The retail revolution has transformed the market from a sleepy insiders’ club to an electrified arena where memes, money, and madness merge. So buckle up. The GameStop story was likely just the beginning, or at least, this is the industry experts’ opinion. Meme traders and crypto crusaders aren’t going anywhere, they’ve arrived, evolving with each market twist, and giving Wall Street a run for its money. Written by András Mészáros Cryptocurrency and Web3 expert, founder of Kriptoworld LinkedIn | X (Twitter) | More articles With years of experience covering the blockchain space, András delivers insightful reporting on DeFi, tokenization, altcoins, and crypto regulations shaping the digital economy.
XRP News Today: Ripple Builds Blockchain "Backbone" for Next-Gen Global Finance
Ripple is ramping up its initiatives to strengthen the XRP Ledger (XRPL) by growing its engineering workforce. This strategy is intended to boost scalability, efficiency, and programmability, paving the way for institutional adoption of blockchain-powered financial solutions. The company has announced openings for experienced software engineers with expertise in C++ and Rust, focusing on building robust infrastructure and expanding smart contract functionalities. J. Ayo Akinyele, who leads engineering at RippleX, emphasized the significance of these new hires on social media, noting that XRPL is being developed as the foundation for the next era of global value transfer. " We are architecting the core of on-chain financial building blocks — and redefining what a sustainable, high-speed blockchain can offer to institutions, developers, and millions of users," he remarked. This effort is part of Ripple's larger mission to upgrade financial systems through decentralized technologies, incorporating WebAssembly to support advanced decentralized applications. This recruitment drive highlights Ripple’s dedication to overcoming institutional hurdles in blockchain implementation, such as improving settlement speed and minimizing operational bottlenecks. The company points out that XRPL’s minimal transaction fees and strong performance can help optimize global settlement, though it also recognizes that regulatory challenges remain a factor for stakeholders. Advocates believe the platform’s features — including instant settlement and lessened reconciliation times — make it an attractive solution for financial institutions looking to digitize their processes. This expansion signals Ripple’s ongoing commitment to XRP as a key part of its cryptocurrency strategy, following recent steps to reinforce its ecosystem. By focusing on technological advancement and onboarding institutions , Ripple seeks to cement XRPL’s position in the changing world of global finance.
JPMorgan Closed His Accounts, But You Don’t Throw Out a Bitcoin CEO by Accident
Strike CEO and Twenty One Capital co-founder Jack Mallers says JPMorgan Chase abruptly shut down his personal bank accounts and refused to explain why. The move has sparked new concerns over the “debanking” of crypto executives at a time when Wall Street banks are facing mounting pressure over their relationships with digital-asset firms. Mallers Says JPMorgan Gave No Reason: “We Aren’t Allowed to Tell You” In a series of posts on X (Twitter), Mallers revealed that Last month, JPMorgan Chase threw him out of the bank, citing a bizarre incident that disregarded his family’s three-decade-long relationship with the bank. Allegedly, each time he asked for an explanation, the bank reportedly repeated the same line: “We aren’t allowed to tell you.” Mallers also shared an image of a letter he claims came from JPMorgan, stating that the bank had identified “concerning activity” and warning that it may not open new accounts for him in the future. Alleged letter from JPMorgan to Jack Mallers. Source: The incident has since triggered speculation online, with many users suggesting that “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” may still be active. Notably, this rhetoric suggests that banks are under quiet pressure to sever ties with cryptocurrency businesses. According to Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino, the move was likely for the best, with Mallers advocating for freedom from centralized entities. His comments added fuel to the broader debate about whether traditional banks can coexist with Bitcoin-native leaders who view decentralization as a form of resistance, not disruption. Debanking Flashpoint Comes as JPMorgan Faces MicroStrategy Fallout The timing of Mallers’ account closure is notable. JPMorgan is currently under scrutiny for its research surrounding a potential MSCI reclassification that could result in MicroStrategy being expelled from major equity indexes. MSCI is considering a rule that excludes companies whose digital assets comprise more than 50% of total assets, placing MicroStrategy, which holds 649,870 BTC at an average price of $74,430, directly in its crosshairs. JPMorgan analysts estimate this could trigger $2.8 billion in passive fund outflows tied to MSCI alone, and up to $8.8 billion if other index providers adopt similar criteria. The backlash intensified following new Senate findings showing JPMorgan under-reported suspicious Jeffrey Epstein transactions for years. Senator Ron Wyden accused the bank of enabling Epstein’s crimes, renewing calls for criminal investigation. For critics, Mallers’ treatment fits into a pattern of questionable judgment and selective enforcement. It also reflects the reality that when Bitcoin CEOs are pushed out of banks without explanation, the implications extend far beyond a single closed account.
Cardano Network Split After Software Bug – FBI Gets Involved
The Cardano (ADA) ecosystem faced an unexpected shock when the network briefly split into two parallel chains due to a rare software flaw. A staking-pool operator triggered a previously unknown bug, causing nodes to disagree on chain validity and temporarily fragmenting the blockchain. While the issue has been resolved through rapid node upgrades, the incident escalated dramatically when Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson announced that the FBI had been notified. By TradingView - ADAUSD_2025-11-23 (5D) What Actually Happened? A Delegation Transaction Broke Consensus The disruption began when a staking pool operator known as “Homer J” submitted a delegation transaction crafted with the help of an AI-generated code snippet. The transaction was technically valid under Cardano rules. But, it triggered a long-standing, dormant bug that had never been hit before. As a result: Some nodes accepted the transaction Others rejected it The blockchain forked into two active versions The consensus temporarily broke This type of issue is extremely rare and represents one of the most serious possible failures for any blockchain. How Serious Was the Cardano Network Split? A temporary chain split can lead to: Conflicting transaction histories Orphaned or invalidated transactions In extreme cases, double-spending According to early analyses, a few double debits may have occurred, but the incident was quickly contained as operators were instructed to upgrade to the new, fixed software. The core network has since reconverged onto a single chain. Hoskinson Calls It a Criminal Act – FBI Notified Charles Hoskinson escalated the situation by stating that the event constitutes a serious crime, describing it as a deliberate attack on the security of the network. He also announced that the FBI was contacted to investigate potential malicious intent behind the triggering of the bug. While the operator “Homer J” has accepted responsibility and claims it was unintentional, Hoskinson is treating it as a legal matter that goes beyond a simple technical mistake. Who Triggered the Bug and Why? “Homer J,” a known Cardano staking-pool operator, stated that: He used an AI-generated code snippet He did not expect the transaction to trigger a systemic vulnerability He did not intend to attack the network This raises new concerns about the role of automated code tools and whether individuals fully understand the consequences of complex blockchain transactions. Impact on ADA Price Despite the severity of the issue, Cardano's market reaction was mild: ADA dropped from $0.44 → $0.40 , But no major panic sell-off occurred Investors appear confident that the issue is contained Still, the event has raised questions about Cardano’s robustness and whether other hidden bugs might exist. By TradingView - ADAUSD_2025-11-23 (1D) Why This Incident Matters: Lessons for the Blockchain Industry This event highlights several critical points for blockchain networks: 1. Even Mature Blockchains Can Break A single overlooked bug can split a global network. 2. AI-generated code introduces new risks Developers increasingly rely on automated tools, often without full protocol-level understanding. 3. Governance and transparency matter Rapid coordination among node operators prevented a larger disaster. 4. Legal frameworks are evolving Hoskinson contacting the FBI shows how blockchain incidents are now treated as possible cybercrimes. Is Cardano Safe Now? Yes — the network has stabilized. Node operators have already upgraded, restoring full consensus. However: Further audits and stress testing are expected Developers will examine whether similar dormant bugs exist Exchanges and staking providers may review delegation logic Cardano will likely publish a full post-mortem soon. Conclusion The Cardano network split is one of the most significant events in the blockchain’s history — a reminder that even top-tier chains can face unpredictable vulnerabilities. With the FBI now involved and the ecosystem back to normal, the focus shifts to long-term stability, code review, and preventing similar incidents in the future.
Federal Reserve’s Rate Policy Raises Inflation Concerns
Key Points: Main event, market impacts, expert insights. Rate cuts risk inflating markets. Crypto reactions to Fed signals. Rate cuts by the Federal Reserve could prolong high inflation, as warned by Fed Governor Christopher J. Waller. The caution emphasizes maintaining financial stability and affects both traditional and crypto markets, exemplified by SOL’s recent 14% drop. Federal Reserve official Christopher J. Waller recently warned that further rate cuts might prolong high inflation, affecting financial stability across markets. Market focus has sharpened on the Federal Reserve’s interest rate trajectory , weighing its effects on both traditional and crypto markets. Christopher J. Waller, a Federal Reserve Governor, emphasized the risk of easing too soon, potentially endangering inflation progress. Increased caution prevails among institutional allocators, with capital on hold for clearer rate and inflation signals. The Fed’s announcement caused a 14% drop in Solana, mirrored by a 6% temporary decrease in DeFi’s total value locked; stablecoin swaps increased. These movements highlight the crypto market’s sensitivity to Federal Reserve decisions . Institutional investors await clearer Federal Reserve signals for greater capital movement into Web3. Stablecoins remain stable despite potential regulation shifts. “Participants generally noted the risk that easing too soon could endanger progress on inflation.” — Christopher J. Waller Raoul Pal noted that market hypersensitivity to Fed words demands inflation clarity before crypto capital influx. Arthur Hayes suggested that unchanged US rates create unpredictability for Bitcoin advances until political pressures modify Fed policy. Brian Armstrong highlighted Fed hesitancy as a barrier for Web3 capital entry. The Federal Reserve’s recent warnings reiterate the importance of balanced rate policies to avoid destabilizing market conditions , with significant implications for institutional and cryptocurrency markets globally, echoed in past monetary policy impacts.
Samourai Wallet co-founder William Lonergan Hill sentenced to four years in crypto mixing service case
Samourai Wallet co-founder William Lonergan Hill was sentenced to four years in prison for his role in operating a crypto mixing service that prosecutors said helped criminals "wash millions in dirty money," according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Hill was sentenced on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York about two weeks after his former colleague Keonne Rodriguez, who was sentenced to the maximum five-year penalty by the same district court. Rodriguez served as chief executive officer of Samourai, and Hill was chief technology officer. The pair pleaded guilty in July after initially denying the charges last year. "The sentences the defendants received send a clear message that laundering known criminal proceeds — regardless of the technology used or whether the proceeds are in the form of fiat or cryptocurrency — will face serious consequences,” said Attorney for the United States Nicolas Roos in the statement. Rodriguez, 37, and Hill, 67, were also each sentenced to three years of supervised release and ordered to each pay a fine of $250,000. Both have paid over $6.3 million in forfeitures, prosecutors said on Wednesday. In August, prosecutors said that Samourai was an app "designed and operated as a service for transmitting criminal proceeds" and that Hill and Rodriguez were aware it was being used to hide the funds. Crypto mixing services have come into the spotlight for prosecutors over the past few years. Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm was charged in 2023 with money laundering, conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, and sanctions violations. In August, a jury was unable to reach a verdict on money laundering and sanctions charges, but found Storm guilty on the money transmitting charge. In August, Matthew J Galeotti, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, said that "writing code" is not a crime. In the meantime, crypto advocates have been raising money to donate to legal funds for Storm and have been urging lawmakers to protect software developers as they deliberate how the digital asset industry is regulated.
JPMorgan Chase Warns Fed Independence May Erode As US Government Attempts to ‘Inflate Debt Away’: Report
America’s biggest bank just issued a warning on the future of the Federal Reserve. In a new report, JPMorgan Private Bank tells investors to prepare for a potential structural shift as the US grapples with its massive debt burden. “In the most extreme scenario, the Treasury holds an auction and buyers are nowhere to be found. We see a more subtle risk. In this scenario, instead of a sudden spike in yields, policymakers make a deliberate shift. They tolerate stronger growth and higher inflation, allowing real interest rates to fall and the debt burden to shrink over time.” JPMorgan says that this strategy, known as financial repression, could compromise the independence of the central bank by effectively allowing inflation to erode the real value of the debt over time. The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee (FOMC) is mandated to keep inflation at just 2%. “We could see a less straightforward path to reduce the U.S. government’s debt load. Policymakers could erode Fed independence and effectively inflate the debt away by driving a stronger nominal growth environment characterized by higher inflation and, over the near term at least, lower real interest rates.” Generated Image: Midjourney
The $300 billion backdoor threat that Europe didn’t see coming
Stablecoins originated as crypto plumbing, tokens pegged to fiat currencies that enable traders to move in and out of volatile assets without relying on traditional banking systems. That narrow use case now sits on a market capitalization of more than $303 billion, up roughly 75% year-over-year, with Tether commanding about 56% of the market and Circle’s USDC holding approximately 25%. Nearly 98% of all stablecoins are pegged to the US dollar, while the euro’s share amounts to less than €1 billion. For the European Central Bank (ECB), those numbers transform what was once a crypto-native curiosity into a new channel for importing American financial stress. Stablecoins no longer live solely on-chain. They’ve woven themselves into custody arrangements with banks, derivatives markets, and tokenised settlement systems. That entanglement creates pathways for contagion that didn’t exist five years ago, and European monetary authorities are now explicitly building crisis scenarios around them. From niche to systemic risk The Bank of Italy’s Fabio Panetta, who sits on the ECB’s Governing Council, has directly highlighted the scale problem: stablecoins have reached a size where their collapse could have significant implications beyond the crypto sector. The ECB’s Jürgen Schaaf made the case even more bluntly in a blog post titled “From hype to hazard.” Schaaf argues that stablecoins have moved from their crypto niche into tighter links with banks and non-bank financial institutions. A disorderly collapse “could reverberate across the financial system,” particularly if fire sales of the safe assets backing these tokens spill into bond markets. The Bank for International Settlements provides the global framing. The BIS Annual Economic Report 2025 warned that if stablecoins continue to scale, they could undermine monetary sovereignty, trigger capital flight from weaker currencies, and lead to the sale of safe assets when pegs break. Schaaf cites projections that global stablecoin supply could jump from around $230 billion in 2025 to approximately $2 trillion by the end of 2028. The mechanism runs through reserve composition. The largest dollar-pegged stablecoins back their tokens primarily with US Treasuries, and at $300 billion, those holdings represent a significant portion of Treasury demand. At $2 trillion, they would rival some of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds. A confidence shock triggering mass redemptions would force issuers to liquidate Treasuries quickly, injecting volatility into the global benchmark for risk-free rates. When a stablecoin run becomes an ECB problem Olaf Sleijpen, Governor of De Nederlandsche Bank and an ECB policymaker, has outlined the transmission mechanism in interviews with the Financial Times. His warning carries weight because he’s describing something the ECB would actually have to respond to. Sleijpen’s scenario unfolds in two stages. First, a classic run: holders lose confidence and rush to redeem tokens for dollars. The issuer must dump Treasury holdings to meet redemptions. Second, the spillover: forced liquidation pushes up global yields and sours risk sentiment. Euro-area inflation expectations and financial conditions suddenly move in ways the ECB’s models didn’t anticipate. That second stage forces the ECB’s hand. If Treasury yields spike and risk spreads widen globally, European borrowing costs rise regardless of what the ECB intended. Sleijpen has said publicly that the ECB might need to “rethink” its monetary policy stance, not because the euro area has done anything wrong, but because dollar-stablecoin instability has rewired global financial conditions. He frames this as stealth dollarization. Heavy reliance on dollar-denominated tokens makes Europe look like an emerging market that must live with the Federal Reserve’s choices. An old-school emerging-market problem, imported dollar shocks, re-enters Europe through an on-chain back door. Europe’s run scenarios European authorities haven’t waited for a crisis to start modeling what one would look like. The European Systemic Risk Board, chaired by Christine Lagarde, recently highlighted multi-issuer stablecoins as a specific vulnerability. These arrangements involve a single operator issuing tokens across multiple jurisdictions while managing reserves as a single global pool. The ESRB’s latest crypto report warns that non-compliant stablecoins, such as USDT, continue to trade heavily among EU investors and “may pose risks to financial stability” through liquidity mismatches and regulatory arbitrage. In a stress event, holders might rush to redeem preferentially in the EU, where MiCA provides stronger protections, draining local reserves fastest. A VoxEU/CEPR piece by European central bank economists describes multi-issuer stablecoins as a macroprudential issue. Their scenario models focus on jurisdictions with more favorable rules, which accelerate outflows and spread stress to banks that hold reserves. The Dutch markets regulator, AFM, has published scenario studies that incorporate stablecoin instability as a standard tail risk. One “plausible future” combines loss of trust in the dollar, cyberattacks, and stablecoin instability to show how quickly systemic stress could propagate. This isn’t speculative fiction, but rather the work supervisors do when they consider a risk plausible enough to warrant contingency plans. Europe’s counter-strategy The alarmist framing has a regulatory counterweight. The European Banking Authority has recently pushed back on calls to rewrite crypto rules, arguing that MiCA already includes safeguards against stablecoin runs, including full-reserve backing, governance standards, and caps on large tokens. Simultaneously, a consortium of nine major European banks, including ING and UniCredit, announced plans to launch a euro-denominated stablecoin under EU rules. The launch comes even as the ECB voices scepticism over stablecoins, with Lagarde warning that privately issued tokens pose risks to monetary policy and financial stability. Schaaf’s blog outlines the broader strategy: to encourage euro-denominated, tightly regulated stablecoins while advancing the digital euro as an alternative to central bank digital currencies. The goal is to reduce reliance on offshore dollar-denominated tokens and maintain the ECB’s control over the monetary rails. If Europeans use on-chain money, it should be money the ECB can supervise, denominated in euros, and backed by assets that don’t require liquidating Treasuries in a crisis. Crisis talk versus market reality The dramatic language consisting of “global financial crisis” and “shock scenarios” contrasts with present conditions. Stablecoins at $300 billion remain small compared to global bank balance sheets. There hasn’t been a truly systemic stablecoin run, even when Tether faced skepticism or when Terra’s collapse occurred. But the ECB isn’t warning about 2025. It’s a warning about 2028, when projections place the stablecoin market cap at $2 trillion and entanglement with traditional finance is expected to be far deeper. The real story is that European monetary authorities now treat stablecoins as a live channel for importing US shocks and losing monetary-policy autonomy. That perception means more stress tests, including stablecoin-run scenarios, more regulatory fights over MiCA’s scope, and faster pushes to get European money on-chain through domestic alternatives. The $300 billion market, which began as crypto plumbing, has evolved into a front in the contest over who controls the future of money, and whether Europe can insulate itself from dollar shocks that arrive through blockchain transactions rather than bank wires.
Dormant Bitcoin supply wakes up with 4,668 BTC on the move
Key Takeaways A total of 4,668 BTC held dormant for 3–5 years has been moved, worth approximately $440 million. This activity by long-term holders is notable and can signal shifts in market sentiment or investment strategy. Dormant Bitcoin aged three to five years, totaling 4,668 BTC, was recently spent, according to CryptoQuant analyst J.A. Maartunn. The movement represents approximately $440 million worth of Bitcoin at current market prices. Such activity from holders typically draws attention from market analysts who view it as a potential indicator of shifting investment strategies. Blockchain data shows a recent uptick in movement of Bitcoin that has been held for several years, which could reflect profit-taking, caution about market trends, or preparation for future actions. Increased activity from dormant Bitcoin wallets is often monitored as it may signal changing sentiment or strategy among long-term holders.
Bitcoin miners can lower your power bill — if energy grids let them plug in
Power markets are starting to price Bitcoin mining that can switch on and off as a grid service. Curtailment remains elevated in regions with high renewable penetration, and short scarcity bursts continue to set value for fast demand reduction, which creates room for load that soaks midday surplus and idles during tight hours. According to the California Independent System Operator, 179,640 megawatt-hours (MWh) of wind and solar energy were curtailed in September 2025. Market data in Europe and Asia show wider windows of negative or low daytime prices, which strengthens the case for flexible demand to complement storage and transmission buildouts. Even after the recent crash, today’s spot hashprice is roughly $39/PH/day, and mining revenue continues to exceed typical power costs for well-managed fleets using efficient hardware and favourable power contracts. This suggests the economic lane for demand-response (i.e., flexibly scaling operations around power pricing) remains open rather than closing. That said, fleets with higher power costs or less efficient machines will face tighter margins, especially given the recent drop in BTC prices. According to Hashrate Index, the six-month forward average is expected to dip to around $35 by April next year. Bitcoin hashprice (Source: Hashprice Index) More intuitively, a 17.5 J/TH machine draws roughly 17.5 kW per PH. That means each PH consumes about 0.42 MWh per day, so a $39 hashprice equates to roughly $93/MWh in gross revenue. That breakeven band sets the “max price to run” (before accounting for ancillary payments or hedging strategies that may justify running above that level.) Loads can run below the threshold and should sell flexibility or switch off above it. To make the comparison explicit, the table below shows a simplified view of miner gross revenue per MWh across two reference hashprices at a common modern efficiency. Efficiency (J/TH) Hashprice ($/PH·day) Gross revenue ($/MWh) Implied breakeven power price ($/MWh) before opex 17.5 39 ≈93 ≈93 17.5 35 ≈83 ≈83 After accounting for typical site overhead, cooling losses, and pool fees, the practical cutoff for many miners is closer to $70–$85 per MWh. Above that band, fleets begin shutting down unless they have unusually efficient hardware or hedged power. Flexible load is not only an energy buyer, but it can also be a reliability product. ERCOT allows qualified Controllable Load Resources to participate in real-time and ancillary markets, paying the same clearing price as generation for Regulation, ECRS, and Non-Spin services. That framework pays mines for fast load reductions during scarcity in addition to the avoided cost of not running at high prices. ERCOT’s market design keeps scarcity events sharp but bounded, with a system-wide offer cap at $5,000 per MWh and an Emergency Pricing Program that lowers the cap to $2,000 per MWh after 12 hours at the high cap within 24 hours. This preserves acute price signals while limiting tail risk, which supports the economics of price-responsive curtailment. Policy is shifting from permissive to performance based, and Texas is the test case. Texas Senate Bill 6, enacted in 2025, directs PUCT and ERCOT to tighten interconnection and require participation in curtailment or demand management for specific large loads of 75 MW and above, and to review netting when large loads co-locate with generation. According to McGuireWoods, rulemakings are underway, and the direction is toward clearer expectations for response capability, telemetry, and interconnection staging. Baker Botts notes that behind-the-meter netting and generator–load co-location will draw added scrutiny, which matters for sites paired with gas peakers that seek rapid curtailment and faster interconnection timelines. The practical response may be modular footprints and staged buildouts that either remain below the statutory threshold or deploy capacity in tranches with explicit demand-response commitments. Operations will also change as market plumbing evolves. ERCOT plans to move real-time to RTC+B on Dec. 5, 2025, which improves dispatch granularity and should benefit fast load that can follow sub-hourly signals. Potomac Economics has documented how ORDC scarcity adders and brief real-time spikes concentrate a large share of economics into a small set of hours. That is where controllable demand can earn by dropping when prices climb and by selling ancillary capability across the rest of the day. The global picture points in the same direction. Japan’s renewable curtailments rose 38% year over year to 1.77 TWh in the first eight months of 2025 as nuclear restarts reduced flexibility. China’s first-half 2025 curtailment rates climbed to 6.6% for solar and 5.7% for wind as new builds outpaced grid integration. Gridcog’s analysis shows the spread and depth of negative prices across European midday hours, reinforcing that the “duck-curve dividend” is no longer a California-only feature. In the United States, wholesale averages trend higher in 2025 in most regions, yet volatility persists. That leaves value in price-responsive curtailment even where energy-only averages appear tame. Project archetypes reflect these incentives. A roughly 25 MW modular mining site powered by flared gas reached full energization in April 2025, according to Data Center Dynamics, illustrating a waste-to-work pathway that converts otherwise flared gas into power for curtailable demand. CAISO’s recurring midday curtailment strengthens the case for renewable co-location with load that runs through surplus hours and idles at evening peaks. Gas-peaker co-location remains relevant in markets with rapid ramping needs, although SB6 requires projects to plan for telemetry and netting requirements during interconnection. Hardware and environmental policy shape the capex and off-grid thesis from another angle. The United States doubled Section 301 tariffs on certain Chinese semiconductors to 50% in 2025, raising the prospect that ASIC import costs rise materially depending on classification. The Inflation Reduction Act’s Waste Emissions Charge for methane ramps from $900 per ton in 2024 to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 in 2026, although implementation has been contested. Regional hashrate placement will reflect these cross-currents. Cambridge’s 2025 industry report shows the United States as the center of gravity, with surveyed firms representing nearly half of implied network hashrate. New ultra-large sites in ERCOT face higher process overhead and explicit performance obligations, which can steer incremental growth toward modular builds, SPP and MISO South, Canada, or off-grid gas until interconnection timelines and rule clarity catch up. For miners and grids, the math is simple, then the details matter. Revenue per MWh is a function of hashprice and efficiency, so the run-price threshold moves with Luxor’s curve and fleet mix. Uptime becomes a choice variable, not a constraint, as long as curtailment aligns with high-price intervals and ancillary capacity offers are qualified and dispatched. The operational playbook is to submit load as a controllable resource, earn when the grid is tight by dropping, and run when energy is cheap enough to beat the marginal run price. In markets where midday surplus is routine, curtailment stops being waste and becomes the runway for demand that can be dispatched like generation. The post Bitcoin miners can lower your power bill — if energy grids let them plug in appeared first on CryptoSlate.
European Central Bank Official Warns About the Impact of a Potential Stablecoin Sell-Off
A mass redemption of stablecoins could force the European Central Bank (ECB) to adjust its monetary policy, a senior official warns. Concerns are mounting about the risks posed by stablecoins, which have experienced strong growth, with their market cap exceeding $300 billion in 2025. European Central Bank Raises Concerns Over Stablecoins Olaf Sleijpen, President of De Nederlandsche Bank and a member of the European Central Bank’s Governing Council, has warned that the rapid expansion of stablecoins could have serious implications for Europe’s economy. Speaking about the accelerating growth of dollar-based stablecoins, he noted that if their adoption continues at the current pace, they could eventually reach a level where they become systemically important. Furthermore, he emphasized that a wave of large-scale redemptions, essentially a run on stablecoins, could trigger market turbulence that extends far beyond the crypto sector. “If stablecoins are not that stable, you could end up in a situation where the underlying assets need to be sold quickly,” Sleijpen told the Financial Times. In such a scenario, he said that the ECB might be forced to reconsider its monetary policy stance. According to Sleijpen, the central bank could be pushed to adjust interest rates. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether that would mean tightening or loosening policy. He emphasized that authorities would first rely on financial stability tools before turning to interest rate changes. Hypothetically, if investors rush to redeem stablecoins, issuers might need to liquidate Treasury holdings quickly. Sharp sell-offs could drive up US government debt yields, leading to spillover effects in Europe’s bond markets. When bond yields rise, financial conditions tighten, which can slow economic activity and affect inflation. The ECB might then have to adjust rates not for domestic reasons, but to counter instability from the crypto sector. Previously, Jürgen Schaaf, an adviser in the ECB’s Market Infrastructure and Payments Division, issued a similar warning. He cautioned that if stablecoins become widely used in the euro area for payments, savings, or settlement, they could gradually weaken the ECB’s ability to steer monetary conditions. Schaaf noted that this shift could mirror the dynamics seen in dollarised economies, where users gravitate toward the dollar for perceived safety or better returns. According to Schaaf, a dominant role for dollar stablecoins would ultimately reinforce America’s financial and geopolitical position, enabling cheaper debt financing and expanding its global influence. Meanwhile, Europe would face relatively higher borrowing costs, reduced monetary policy flexibility, and greater strategic dependence. “The associated risks are obvious – and we must not play them down. Non-domestic stablecoin’s challenges range from operational resilience, the safety and soundness of payment systems, consumer protection, financial stability, monetary sovereignty, data protection, to compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulations,” he added. Stablecoin Adoption Accelerates Amid Market Expansion The warnings from European officials come at a time when the stablecoin industry is experiencing rapid expansion amid major regulatory shifts. According to data from DefiLlama, the sector’s market capitalization has grown by nearly 48% this year alone. It now sits at over $300 billion. Stablecoin Market Performance. Source: DefiLlama Tether continues to dominate the market with a market capitalization of approximately $183.8 billion. Its investment footprint has also grown significantly. The firm is the 17th-largest holder of US government debt worldwide — ahead of countries such as South Korea. Additionally, stablecoin usage has accelerated. Monthly settlement volumes increased from $6 billion in February to $10.2 billion in August, a rise of approximately 70%. Business-to-business activity has been particularly strong. It doubled to $6.4 billion per month and now represents almost two-thirds of all payment flows in the sector. Forecasts suggest the expansion is far from over. Citigroup estimates that the global stablecoin market could swell to around $3.7 trillion by 2030. The US Treasury Department projects the market could reach $2 trillion as early as 2028. If these projections materialize, stablecoins would become deeply integrated into global finance, amplifying both their economic relevance and the regulatory challenges surrounding them. Read the article at BeInCrypto
Hong Kong launches tokenized deposit pilot with real-value transactions
Hong Kong has launched the pilot phase of Project Ensemble, testing real-value transactions using tokenized deposits and digital assets, as the city continues its drive to become a crypto hub. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the de facto central bank, said Thursday that the phase transitions the initiative from a sandbox experiment to live, value-bearing settlement — a move the HKMA described as "pivotal" in Hong Kong's crypto roadmap. In August 2024, the HKMA initiated a sandbox for Project Ensemble, which aims to integrate tokenization into the traditional banking industry through the e-HKD. The sandbox has allowed participating banks and industry partners to test end-to-end digital-asset settlement using experimental tokenized deposits. The new pilot is expected to operate through 2026, and will initially focus on tokenized money-market fund transactions and real-time liquidity and treasury management. Under the pilot, interbank settlement is expected to first be supported by the HKD Real Time Gross Settlement system. Over time, the environment would be upgraded to support 24/7 settlement in tokenized central bank money, according to the HKMA. "It is where innovation meets implementation, and the concepts and details tested in the Ensemble Sandbox are now applied in real-value transactions, delivering tangible benefits to market participants," said Eddie Yue, chief executive of the HKMA. "To scale tokenization of investment products, interoperability is key," said Julia Leung, chief executive officer of the Securities and Futures Commission. "A critical step in that direction is today’s initiative announced by the HKMA which will gradually allow interbank settlement of tokenized deposits in real time 24/7," Leung added. Hong Kong's pilot came as Asia's major financial centers intensify their focus on tokenized deposits and onchain settlement infrastructure. Last week, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said it plans to trial tokenized MAS bills settled with a central bank digital currency, with details to be released next year. Singapore's DBS and Kinexys by J.P. Morgan also said last week that they are developing an interoperability framework to facilitate tokenized deposit transfers between different blockchain networks.
Chainlink Hits $322B in Tokenized RWAs as J.P. Morgan and Fidelity Expand Onchain Integrations
Chainlink saw sharp growth in tokenized asset use as major institutions expanded on-chain efforts. LINK gained added functions through the Reserve launch and wider program rewards across markets. Chainlink recorded a major rise in tokenized asset activity, reaching $322.3 billion, according to a Messari report. That figure placed the network at the center of a fast-growing segment supported by major financial groups such as J.P. Morgan and Fidelity. The shift from early single-chain tools toward a spread of multichain activity raised new expectations for shared standards. Institutions pursuing tokenized assets wanted consistent rules for data, execution, and privacy, and Chainlink expanded its suite in response. Its stack now covers data feeds, data streams, SmartData, CCIP for cross-chain settlement, Automated Compliance Engine, privacy tools such as Confidential Compute and the Blockchain Privacy Manager, and the Chainlink Runtime Environment for secure workflow execution. Chainlink isn’t just powering price feeds anymore; it’s becoming the backbone of onchain finance. With $322B+ in tokenized RWAs and major institutions like J.P. Morgan, Fidelity, UBS, and Swift building on its stack, @chainlink is evolving into a full-stack platform for onchain… https://t.co/hjGtYlkSyE — Messari (@MessariCrypto) November 14, 2025 Institutional Adoption Strengthens Onchain Activity J.P. Morgan applied Chainlink capabilities through Kinexys for a cross-chain Delivery versus Payment process. Kinexys connected an interbank payment network with Ondo Chain, plus a tokenized U.S. Treasuries fund known as OUSG. The action showed cross-chain settlement across permissioned and public systems without disruptions. Fidelity International linked its Institutional Liquidity Fund with Chainlink for on-chain NAV distribution. Fund size stands at $6.9 billion. NAV information flows onto zkSync, enabling transparent fund-share tracking on-chain. Fidelity flagged real-time fund-data availability as a core benefit. Apex Group partnered with Chainlink to build a stablecoin structure using CCIP, ACE, and Proof of Reserve. The group continued adding Chainlink services to support tokenization processes and liquidity functions across a client asset base of $3.5 trillion. Tokenized RWA markets need strict rules for data handling, privacy protection, compliance checks, and interoperability across chains. Chainlink infrastructure already supplies unified standards in each area, encouraging broader participation from established financial firms. LINK Token Gains New Roles in Network Expansion The network’s token, LINK , continued to serve as a payment unit for oracle functions , staking, and node rewards. The token’s role grew further as new revenue streams and value structures entered the network. On Aug. 7, 2025, the network established a Chainlink Reserve. The fund collects LINK from on-chain service fees and off-chain enterprise income. Since launch, the Reserve has exceeded $9 million in value and is expected to grow as participation across capital markets and enterprise integrations increases. The platform also introduced Chainlink Rewards, enabling Build program projects to allocate portions of their native token allocations to ecosystem participants, including eligible LINK stakers. Build partnerships to support early- and mature-stage projects by providing access to services and technical assistance, with participating teams allocating part of the total token supply to the network’s economy. At present, LINK trades at $14.14 with a 0.71% rise over the past day. Recommended for you: Chainlink (LINK) Wallet Tutorial Check 24-hour LINK Price More Chainlink News What is Chainlink?
Latest Speech by US SEC Chairman: Farewell to a Decade of Chaos, Crypto Regulation Enters an Era of Clarity
US SEC Chairman further elaborates on the "Project Crypto" initiative, delineating new boundaries for token classification and regulation. Written by: Paul S. Atkins, Chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission Translated by: Luffy, Foresight News Ladies and gentlemen, good morning! Thank you for the warm introduction and for inviting me here today as we continue to explore how the United States can lead the next era of financial innovation. Recently, when discussing America’s leadership in the digital financial revolution, I described "Project Crypto" as a regulatory framework we have established to match the vitality of US innovators. (Note: The US Securities and Exchange Commission launched the Project Crypto initiative on August 1 this year, aiming to update securities rules and regulations so that US financial markets can achieve on-chain transformation.) Today, I want to outline the next steps in this process. At its core, this step is about adhering to the principles of fundamental fairness and common sense when applying federal securities laws to crypto assets and related transactions. In the coming months, I expect the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) to consider establishing a token classification system based on the long-standing Howey investment contract securities analysis, while also acknowledging the boundaries of our laws and regulations. What I am about to elaborate on is largely based on the pioneering work carried out by the crypto special task force led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Commissioner Peirce has built a framework aimed at coherent and transparent securities law regulation of crypto assets based on economic substance rather than slogans or panic. I want to reiterate that I share her vision. I value her leadership, hard work, and persistent advocacy on these issues over the years. Having worked with her for a long time, I am very pleased she agreed to take on this task. My remarks will focus on three themes: First, the importance of a clear token classification system; second, the logic of the Howey test and the recognition that investment contracts may terminate; third, what this means in practice for innovators, intermediaries, and investors. Before I begin, I want to reiterate: Although SEC staff are diligently drafting rule amendments, I fully support Congress’s efforts to incorporate a comprehensive crypto market structure framework into statutory law. My vision aligns with the bills currently under consideration by Congress, aiming to supplement, not replace, Congress’s critical work. Commissioner Peirce and I have made supporting Congressional action a priority and will continue to do so. It has been a pleasure working with Acting Chair Pham, and I wish CFTC Chairman nominee Mike Selig, nominated by President Trump, a smooth and swift confirmation. My experience working with Mike over the past few months has convinced me that we are both committed to helping Congress quickly advance bipartisan market structure legislation and submit it for President Trump’s signature. Nothing is more effective at preventing regulatory abuse than sound statutory law enacted by Congress. A Decade Full of Uncertainty If you’re tired of hearing the question, "Are crypto assets securities?" I completely understand. The confusion arises because "crypto asset" is not a term defined in federal securities law; it is a technical description that only explains the method of record-keeping and value transfer, but says little about the legal rights attached to a specific instrument or the economic substance of a particular transaction—precisely the key factors in determining whether an asset is a security. In my view, most cryptocurrencies traded today are not securities in themselves. Of course, a specific token may be sold as part of an investment contract in a securities offering—this is not a radical view, but a direct application of securities law. The statutory definition of a security lists common instruments such as stocks, notes, and bonds, and adds a broader category: "investment contract." The latter describes the relationship between parties, not a permanent label attached to an item. Unfortunately, the statute does not define it either. Investment contracts can be fulfilled or terminated. One cannot simply assume that an investment contract remains valid forever just because the underlying asset continues to trade on the blockchain. However, in recent years, too many have advocated the view that if a token was ever the subject of an investment contract, it is forever a security. This flawed view even further presumes that every subsequent transaction of the token (regardless of where or when) is a securities transaction. I find it difficult to reconcile this view with the statutory text, Supreme Court precedent, or common sense. Meanwhile, developers, exchanges, custodians, and investors have been groping in the fog, lacking SEC guidance and instead facing obstacles. The tokens they see serve as payment tools, governance tools, collectibles, or access keys, while others are hybrid designs that are hard to fit into any existing category. Yet for a long time, the regulatory stance has treated all these tokens as securities. This view is neither sustainable nor practical. It brings huge costs with little benefit; it is unfair to market participants and investors, inconsistent with the law, and has triggered a wave of entrepreneurs moving offshore. The reality is: if the US insists on making every on-chain innovation run the gauntlet of securities law, these innovations will migrate to jurisdictions more willing to distinguish between asset types and set rules in advance. Instead, we will do what regulators should do: draw clear boundaries and explain them in plain language. Core Principles of Project Crypto Before I explain my views on the application of securities law to cryptocurrencies and their transactions, I want to clarify two basic principles that guide my thinking. First, whether a stock is represented by a paper certificate, a Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) account record, or a token on a public blockchain, it is still fundamentally a stock; a bond does not cease to be a bond just because its payment flow is tracked via smart contract. Securities are always securities, regardless of form. This is easy to understand. Second, economic substance trumps labels. If an asset essentially represents a claim on a company’s profits and is issued with a promise dependent on the core managerial efforts of others, then calling it a "token" or "non-fungible token (NFT)" does not exempt it from current securities law. Conversely, just because a token was once part of a financing transaction does not mean it magically transforms into a company’s stock. These principles are not novel. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the substance of a transaction, not its form, determines the applicability of securities law. What’s new is the scale and speed of asset type evolution in these new markets. This pace requires us to respond flexibly to market participants’ urgent need for guidance. A Coherent Token Classification System Against this backdrop, I want to outline my current views on various types of crypto assets (please note, this list is not exhaustive). This framework is based on months of roundtables, hundreds of meetings with market participants, and hundreds of written public comments. First, with respect to the bills currently under consideration by Congress, I believe "digital commodities" or "network tokens" are not securities. The value of these crypto assets is fundamentally related to the programmatic operation of a "fully functional" and "decentralized" crypto system, and arises from that, not from the expected profits generated by the critical managerial efforts of others. Second, I believe "digital collectibles" are not securities. These crypto assets are intended for collection and use, and may represent or grant the holder rights to digital expressions or references to works of art, music, videos, trading cards, in-game items, or internet memes, figures, current events, and trends. Purchasers of digital collectibles do not expect to profit from the day-to-day managerial efforts of others. Third, I believe "digital utilities" are not securities. These crypto assets have practical functions, such as membership, tickets, credentials, proof of ownership, or identity badges. Purchasers of digital utilities do not expect to profit from the day-to-day managerial efforts of others. Fourth, "tokenized securities" are, and will remain, securities. These crypto assets represent ownership of financial instruments listed in the definition of "securities," maintained on a crypto network. The Howey Test, Promises, and Termination Although most crypto assets themselves are not securities, they may be part of or subject to investment contracts. Such crypto assets often come with specific statements or promises, requiring the issuer to perform managerial duties, thus meeting the requirements of the Howey test. The core of the Howey test is: investing money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits derived from the essential managerial efforts of others. The purchaser’s expectation of profit depends on whether the issuer has made statements or promises to undertake core managerial efforts. In my view, these statements or promises must clearly and unambiguously specify the core managerial efforts the issuer will undertake. The next question is: How can non-security crypto assets be separated from investment contracts? The answer is simple yet profound: the issuer either fulfills the statement or promise, fails to do so, or the contract is terminated for other reasons. To help everyone better understand, I want to talk about a place in the rolling hills of Florida. I am very familiar with it from childhood; it was once the site of William J. Howey’s citrus empire. In the early twentieth century, Howey bought over 60,000 acres of undeveloped land, planting orange and grapefruit groves beside his mansion. His company sold orchard plots to individual investors and managed the planting, harvesting, and sale of fruit for them. The Supreme Court reviewed Howey’s arrangement and established the test for defining investment contracts, a standard that has influenced generations. But today, Howey’s land has changed dramatically. The mansion he built in Lake County, Florida, in 1925 still stands a century later, hosting weddings and other events, but most of the surrounding citrus groves have disappeared, replaced by resorts, championship golf courses, and residential communities—now an ideal retirement area. It’s hard to imagine anyone standing on these fairways and cul-de-sacs today thinking they constitute securities. Yet over the years, we have seen the same test rigidly applied to digital assets that have undergone similarly profound transformations, still bearing the label from their issuance as if nothing has changed. The land around the Howey mansion was never a security in itself; it became the subject of an investment contract through a specific arrangement, and when that arrangement ended, it was no longer subject to the investment contract. Of course, despite the complete change in the business on the land, the land itself remained unchanged. Commissioner Peirce’s observation is absolutely correct: a project’s token issuance may involve an investment contract in its early stages, but these promises are not valid forever. Networks mature, code is deployed, control becomes decentralized, and the issuer’s role diminishes or disappears. At some point, purchasers no longer rely on the issuer’s core managerial efforts, and most token transactions are no longer based on the reasonable expectation that "a particular team is still in charge." In short, a token does not remain a security forever just because it was once part of an investment contract transaction, just as a golf course does not become a security simply because it was once part of a citrus grove investment plan. When an investment contract can be deemed fulfilled or terminated according to its terms, the token may continue to trade, but these trades do not become securities transactions merely because of the token’s origin story. As many of you know, I strongly support super apps in finance, which allow custody and trading of multiple asset classes under a single regulatory license. I have asked SEC staff to prepare recommendations for SEC consideration: to allow tokens related to investment contracts to trade on platforms not regulated by the SEC, including intermediaries registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or subject to state regulatory regimes. While financing activities should still be regulated by the SEC, we should not stifle innovation and investor choice by requiring that underlying assets can only be traded in a single regulatory environment. Importantly, this does not mean that fraudulent behavior suddenly becomes acceptable or that the SEC’s attention is diminished. Anti-fraud provisions still apply to false statements and omissions related to the sale of investment contracts, even if the underlying asset itself is not a security. Of course, to the extent these tokens are commodities in interstate commerce, the CFTC also has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority and can take action against misconduct in these asset trades. This means our rules and enforcement will align with the economic reality that "investment contracts may terminate and networks can operate independently." Crypto Regulatory Actions In the coming months, as envisioned by the bills currently under consideration by Congress, I hope the SEC will also consider a series of exemptions to establish tailored issuance regimes for crypto assets that are part of or subject to investment contracts. I have asked staff to prepare recommendations for SEC consideration, aimed at facilitating financing, fostering innovation, and ensuring investor protection. By streamlining this process, innovators in the blockchain space can focus on development and user engagement rather than navigating the maze of regulatory uncertainty. Moreover, this approach will foster a more inclusive and vibrant ecosystem, allowing smaller and less-resourced projects to experiment and thrive. Of course, we will continue to work closely with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), banking regulators, and relevant Congressional committees to ensure that non-security crypto assets have an appropriate regulatory framework. Our goal is not to expand the SEC’s jurisdiction, but to ensure that financing activities flourish while investors are protected. We will continue to listen to all voices. The crypto special task force and related departments have held multiple roundtables and reviewed a large number of written comments, but we need more feedback. We need input from investors, developers concerned about code delivery, and traditional financial institutions eager to participate in on-chain markets but unwilling to violate rules designed for the paper era. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, we will continue to support Congress’s efforts to incorporate a sound market structure framework into statutory law. Although the SEC can provide reasonable views under current law, future SECs may still change direction. This is why tailored legislation is so important, and why I am happy to support President Trump’s goal of enacting a crypto market structure bill by the end of the year. Integrity, Comprehensibility, and the Rule of Law Now, I want to make clear what this framework does not include. It is not a promise by the SEC to relax enforcement—fraud is fraud. While the SEC protects investors from securities fraud, there are many other federal agencies capable of regulating and preventing illegal conduct. That said, if you raise funds by promising to build a network and then abscond with the money, we will find you and take the harshest action permitted by law. This framework is a commitment to integrity and transparency. For entrepreneurs who want to start businesses in the US and are willing to comply with clear rules, we should not respond with shrugs, threats, or subpoenas; for investors trying to distinguish between buying tokenized stocks and buying game collectibles, we should not offer only a complex web of enforcement actions. Most importantly, this framework reflects a humble recognition of the SEC’s own jurisdictional boundaries. Congress enacted securities laws to address a specific problem—people entrusting their money to others based on promises made on the strength of others’ integrity and ability. These laws were not intended to be a universal charter for regulating all new forms of value. Contracts, Freedom, and Responsibility Let me conclude with a historical reflection from Commissioner Peirce’s speech this May. She invoked the spirit of an American patriot who risked great personal danger, even death, to defend the principle that free people should not be subject to arbitrary decrees. Fortunately, our work does not require such sacrifice, but the principle is the same. In a free society, the rules that govern economic life should be knowable, reasonable, and properly constrained. When we extend securities law beyond its intended scope, when we presume every innovation is guilty, we stray from this core principle. When we acknowledge the boundaries of our own authority, when we recognize that investment contracts may terminate and networks can operate independently on their own merits, we uphold this principle. The SEC’s reasonable regulatory approach to crypto will not itself determine the fate of the market or any particular project—that will be decided by the market. But it will help ensure that the US remains a place where people can experiment, learn, fail, and succeed under firm and fair rules. This is the meaning of Project Crypto, and the goal the SEC should pursue. As Chairman, I make this commitment to you today: we will not let fear of the future trap us in the past; we will not forget that behind every token-related debate are real people—entrepreneurs striving to build solutions, workers investing in the future, and Americans seeking to share in the nation’s prosperity. The SEC’s role is to serve these three groups. Thank you all, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with you in the coming months.
ETH experiences sharp volatility: Technical overselling and policy shifts jointly drive market reversal
Event Review 📜 Recently, ETH experienced dramatic price fluctuations within a very short period. Signs of bottom-fishing from lows and a surge of leveraged long positions quickly shifted market sentiment from extreme fear to short-term chasing of gains. Around 22:24, reversal signals began to appear at the market bottom, with many whales and well-known gamblers switching from short to long positions. A typical case is address 0x7B7b, which opened a leveraged long position of about 25,000 ETH with 25x leverage, totaling nearly $78.63 million in position value. Meanwhile, other whales built large positions around $3,166, laying the foundation for subsequent support. Soon after, capital flowed in rapidly, and the tug-of-war between longs and shorts pushed ETH price from about $3,106 to $3,216 within 16 minutes, a rise of about 3.51%. Subsequently, from 22:30 to 22:50, the price further increased from $3,133 to $3,220, indicating a strong concentration of buying power. After the rapid surge, the price adjusted to $3,183.09 at 23:15, with the market oscillating between technical rebounds and profit-taking. Timeline ⏰ 22:24 – The market bottom initially appears, with some institutions and whales starting to bottom-fish. Well-known gambler addresses switch from short to long and significantly increase their positions. 22:30 – ETH price quickly climbs from about $3,106 to $3,216, with leveraged trading effects clearly boosting the short-term market. 22:30 to 22:50 – Price continues to rise from $3,133 to $3,220, showing strong willingness for capital inflow. 23:15 – After the rapid rise, the market sees a pullback, with the price at $3,183.09. The short-term volatility reflects technical overbought risks and expectations of profit-taking. Reason Analysis 🔍 Two key factors have driven the recent sharp volatility in ETH: Technical Oversold and Leverage Effect Against the backdrop of previous market panic and shrinking trading volume, there was a clear divergence between bulls and bears. When some funds concentrated on bottom-fishing at lows, traders using high leverage quickly pushed up the price, creating an overbought state in a short time. The leverage effect further amplified the price increase, but also increased the risk of a pullback. Macroeconomic Policy and Rapid Shift in Market Sentiment The end of the US government shutdown and reopening, coupled with Federal Reserve officials’ discussions on rate cuts and liquidity policies, shifted market expectations from risk aversion to risk asset allocation. In an atmosphere of extreme fear, sudden policy and economic data improvement signals quickly changed capital flows, fueling a sharp rebound in ETH and other digital assets. Technical Analysis 📈 This technical analysis is based on Binance USDT perpetual contract ETH/USDT 45-minute candlestick data: Moving Average System Short-term Signals: EMA5 crossing above EMA10 forms a golden cross, suggesting increased buying power in the short term; however, the J indicator is already in an extremely overbought state, indicating a high risk of a pullback. Mid- to Long-term Trend: Although trading volume has increased by 24.86% compared to recent days and short-term moving averages are bullishly aligned, MA5, MA10, and MA20 are bearishly aligned, and the price remains below the EMA20/50/120 moving averages, indicating that the long-term downward trend has not fundamentally changed. Trading Volume and Liquidation Situation In the past hour, total liquidations across the network were about $9 million, with shorts accounting for 70%. Net inflow of major funds was about $30 million, indicating that some institutions are still using technical rebounds to capture short-term opportunities. Support and Resistance The current price is receiving technical support near MA20, but the long-term moving average system (EMA24/52 and longer-term moving averages) is trending downward. If capital outflows or large-scale profit-taking occur, the market may turn downward again. Market Outlook 🔮 In the short term, ETH is expected to continue consolidating after a technical rebound. Traders can focus on the following aspects: Short-term Operations: If the price can stabilize near MA20 or form a new support area, it may provide some flexibility for further minor upward moves. However, in the short term, beware of sharp volatility caused by the overbought J value and leveraged long positions. It is recommended to maintain risk control and gradually build positions on dips. Mid- to Long-term Trend: Although recent heavy institutional buying sends a certain bullish signal, the long-term moving average layout shows the market is still in a downward trend overall. Continued capital inflow and changes in macro policies will be important drivers for the future market. Risk Warning: Against the backdrop of high leverage and technical overbought, if market sentiment changes or negative macro news suddenly appears, a rapid pullback may be triggered. Investors should make rational judgments and avoid going all-in during periods of high volatility. In summary, the recent sharp volatility in ETH is both an immediate reflection of technical oversold and leverage effects, as well as a result of structural capital flow changes triggered by shifts in macro policy expectations. In such a volatile market environment, cautious operations and timely position adjustments are particularly important.
Latest Speech by US SEC Chairman: Farewell to a Decade of Chaos, Crypto Regulation Enters an Era of Clarity
Written by: Paul S. Atkins, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Translated by: Luffy, Foresight News Ladies and gentlemen, good morning! Thank you for your warm introduction, and thank you for inviting me here today as we continue to explore how the United States can lead the next era of financial innovation. Recently, when discussing America's leadership in the digital financial revolution, I described "Project Crypto" as a regulatory framework established to match the vitality of American innovators (Note: On August 1 of this year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission launched the Project Crypto initiative to update securities rules and regulations, enabling U.S. financial markets to achieve on-chain transformation). Today, I would like to outline the next steps in this process. At the core of this step is adhering to the principles of fundamental fairness and common sense in the process of applying federal securities laws to crypto assets and related transactions. In the coming months, I expect the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) to consider establishing a token classification system based on the long-standing Howey investment contract securities analysis, while recognizing the boundaries of applicability in our laws and regulations. What I am about to elaborate on is largely based on the pioneering work carried out by the Crypto Special Task Force led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Commissioner Peirce has built a framework aimed at coherent and transparent securities law regulation of crypto assets based on economic substance rather than slogans or panic. I want to reiterate here that I share her vision. I value her leadership, hard work, and persistent efforts over the years in advancing these issues. I have worked with her for a long time and am very pleased that she agreed to take on this task. My speech will revolve around three themes: First, the importance of a clear token classification system; second, the logic of applying the Howey test, acknowledging the fact that investment contracts may terminate; third, what this means in practice for innovators, intermediaries, and investors. Before I begin, I would also like to reiterate: Although SEC staff are diligently drafting rule amendments, I fully support Congress's efforts to incorporate a comprehensive crypto market structure framework into statutory law. My vision is consistent with the bills currently under consideration by Congress, aiming to supplement rather than replace Congress's critical work. Commissioner Peirce and I have made supporting Congressional action a priority and will continue to do so. It has been a pleasure working with Acting Chair Pham, and I wish CFTC Chairman nominee Mike Selig, nominated by President Trump, a smooth and swift confirmation. My experience working with Mike over the past few months has convinced me that we are all committed to assisting Congress in quickly advancing a bipartisan market structure bill and submitting it to President Trump for signature. Nothing is more effective at preventing regulatory abuse than sound statutory provisions enacted by Congress. To reassure my compliance team, I hereby make the usual disclaimer: My remarks represent only my personal views as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Commissioners or the SEC as a whole. A Decade Full of Uncertainty If you are tired of hearing the question "Are crypto assets securities?", I completely understand. The reason this question is so confusing is because "crypto assets" is not a term defined in federal securities law; it is a technical description that only explains the method of record-keeping and value transfer, but says little about the legal rights attached to a specific instrument or the economic substance of a particular transaction—precisely the key factors in determining whether an asset is a security. In my view, most cryptocurrencies traded today are not securities themselves. Of course, a specific token may be sold as part of an investment contract in a securities offering; this is not a radical view but a direct application of securities law. The statutory definition of securities lists common instruments such as stocks, notes, and bonds, and adds a broader category: "investment contracts." The latter describes the relationship between parties, not a permanent label attached to an item. Unfortunately, the statute does not define it either. Investment contracts can be fulfilled or terminated. One cannot simply assume that an investment contract remains valid forever just because the underlying asset continues to trade on the blockchain. However, in recent years, too many have advocated the view that if a token was ever the subject of an investment contract, it is always a security. This flawed view even further presumes that every subsequent transaction of that token (regardless of where or when) is a securities transaction. I find it difficult to reconcile this view with the statutory text, Supreme Court precedent, or common sense. Meanwhile, developers, exchanges, custodians, and investors have been groping in the fog, lacking SEC guidance and instead facing obstacles. The tokens they see may serve as payment tools, governance tools, collectibles, or access keys, while others are hybrid designs that are hard to fit into any existing category. Yet, for a long time, the regulatory stance has treated all these tokens as securities. This view is neither sustainable nor practical. It brings enormous costs with little benefit; it is unfair to market participants and investors, inconsistent with the law, and has triggered an exodus of entrepreneurs offshore. The reality is: If the U.S. insists on forcing every on-chain innovation through the minefield of securities law, these innovations will migrate to jurisdictions more willing to distinguish between different types of assets and to set rules in advance. Instead, we will do what regulators should do: draw clear boundaries and explain them in plain language. Core Principles of Project Crypto Before elaborating on my views regarding the application of securities law to cryptocurrencies and transactions, I want to clarify two basic principles that guide my thinking. First, whether a stock is represented by a paper certificate, a Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) account record, or a token on a public blockchain, it is still essentially a stock; a bond does not cease to be a bond simply because its payment flow is tracked via smart contract. Securities are always securities, regardless of their form. This is easy to understand. Second, economic substance trumps labels. If an asset essentially represents a claim on a business's profits and is issued with a promise of reliance on others' core managerial efforts, then calling it a "token" or "non-fungible token (NFT)" does not exempt it from existing securities law. Conversely, just because a token was once part of a financing transaction does not mean it magically transforms into the stock of an operating company. These principles are not novel. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the substance, not the form, of a transaction determines the applicability of securities law. What is new is the scale and speed of asset type evolution in these new markets. This pace requires us to respond flexibly to market participants' urgent need for guidance. A Coherent Token Classification System Based on the above, I would like to outline my current views on various types of crypto assets (please note, this list is not exhaustive). This framework is the result of months of roundtable discussions, over a hundred meetings with market participants, and hundreds of public written comments. First, in terms of the bills currently under consideration by Congress, I believe "digital commodities" or "network tokens" are not securities. The value of these crypto assets is essentially related to and arises from the programmatic operation of a "fully functional" and "decentralized" crypto system, rather than from the expected profits generated by the critical managerial efforts of others. Second, I believe "digital collectibles" are not securities. These crypto assets are intended for collection and use, and may represent or grant the holder rights to digital expressions or references to works of art, music, videos, trading cards, in-game items, or internet memes, characters, current events, and trends. Purchasers of digital collectibles do not expect to profit from the day-to-day managerial efforts of others. Third, I believe "digital utilities" are not securities. These crypto assets have practical functions, such as memberships, tickets, vouchers, proofs of ownership, or identity badges. Purchasers of digital utilities do not expect to profit from the day-to-day managerial efforts of others. Fourth, "Tokenized securities" are, and will continue to be, securities. These crypto assets represent ownership of financial instruments listed in the definition of "securities," maintained on a crypto network. The Howey Test, Promises, and Termination Although most crypto assets themselves are not securities, they may become part of or be subject to investment contracts. Such crypto assets often come with specific statements or promises, requiring the issuer to perform managerial duties, thus meeting the requirements of the Howey test. The core of the Howey test is: investing money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits derived from the efforts of others. The purchaser's expectation of profit depends on whether the issuer has made statements or promises to undertake core managerial efforts. In my view, these statements or promises must clearly and unambiguously specify the core managerial efforts the issuer will undertake. The next question is: How can non-security crypto assets be separated from investment contracts? The answer is simple yet profound: The issuer either fulfills the statements or promises, fails to do so, or the contract is terminated for other reasons. To help everyone understand better, I want to talk about a place in the rolling hills of Florida. I am very familiar with it from my childhood; it was once the site of William J. Howey's citrus empire. In the early twentieth century, Howey purchased more than 60,000 acres of undeveloped land and planted orange and grapefruit groves beside his mansion. His company sold orchard plots to individual investors and took responsibility for planting, harvesting, and selling the fruit for them. The Supreme Court reviewed Howey's arrangement and established the test for defining investment contracts, a standard that has influenced generations. But today, Howey's land has changed dramatically. The mansion he built in Lake County, Florida, in 1925 still stands a century later, hosting weddings and other events, but most of the citrus groves that once surrounded it have disappeared, replaced by resorts, championship golf courses, and residential communities—an ideal retirement area. It is hard to imagine anyone standing on these fairways and cul-de-sacs today thinking they constitute securities. Yet, over the years, we have seen the same test rigidly applied to digital assets that have undergone equally profound transformations, still bearing the label from their issuance as if nothing has changed. The land around the Howey mansion was never a security itself; it became the subject of an investment contract through a specific arrangement, and when that arrangement ended, it was no longer subject to the investment contract. Of course, although the business on the land changed completely, the land itself remained unchanged. Commissioner Peirce's observation is absolutely correct: The initial issuance of a project's token may involve an investment contract, but these promises are not valid forever. Networks mature, code is deployed, control becomes decentralized, and the issuer's role diminishes or disappears. At some point, purchasers no longer rely on the issuer's core managerial efforts, and most token transactions are no longer based on the reasonable expectation that "a team is still in charge." In short, a token does not remain a security forever just because it was once part of an investment contract transaction, just as a golf course does not become a security simply because it was once part of a citrus grove investment scheme. When an investment contract can be deemed fulfilled or terminated according to its terms, tokens may continue to be traded, but these transactions do not become securities transactions merely because of the token's origin story. As many of you know, I strongly support the concept of super apps in finance, which allow the custody and trading of multiple asset classes under a single regulatory license. I have asked SEC staff to prepare recommendations for SEC consideration: to allow tokens related to investment contracts to be traded on platforms not regulated by the SEC, including intermediaries registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or subject to state regulatory regimes. While financing activities should still be regulated by the SEC, we should not hinder innovation and investor choice by requiring that underlying assets can only be traded in a particular regulatory environment. Importantly, this does not mean that fraudulent behavior suddenly becomes acceptable or that the SEC's attention is diminished. Anti-fraud provisions still apply to false statements and omissions related to the sale of investment contracts, even if the underlying asset itself is not a security. Of course, to the extent these tokens are commodities in interstate commerce, the CFTC also has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority and can take action against misconduct in these asset transactions. This means that our rules and enforcement will be consistent with the economic reality that "investment contracts may terminate and networks can operate independently." Crypto Regulatory Actions In the coming months, as envisioned by the bills currently under consideration by Congress, I hope the SEC will also consider a series of exemptions to establish tailored issuance regimes for crypto assets that are part of or subject to investment contracts. I have asked staff to prepare recommendations for SEC consideration, aimed at facilitating financing, fostering innovation, and ensuring investor protection. By streamlining this process, innovators in the blockchain space can focus their energy on development and user engagement, rather than groping through the maze of regulatory uncertainty. Moreover, this approach will foster a more inclusive and vibrant ecosystem, allowing smaller and less-resourced projects to experiment and thrive freely. Of course, we will continue to work closely with the CFTC, banking regulators, and relevant Congressional committees to ensure that non-security crypto assets have appropriate regulatory frameworks. Our goal is not to expand the SEC's jurisdiction, but to ensure that financing activities flourish while investors are protected. We will continue to listen to all voices. The Crypto Special Task Force and related departments have held multiple roundtables and reviewed a large number of written comments, but we need more feedback. We need input from investors, developers concerned about code delivery, and traditional financial institutions eager to participate in on-chain markets but unwilling to violate rules designed for the paper era. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, we will continue to support Congress's efforts to incorporate a sound market structure framework into statutory law. Although the SEC can provide reasonable views under current law, future SECs may change direction. This is why tailored legislation is so important, and why I am happy to support President Trump's goal of enacting a crypto market structure bill by the end of the year. Integrity, Comprehensibility, and the Rule of Law Now, I want to make it clear what this framework does not include. It is not a promise by the SEC to relax enforcement—fraud is fraud. While the SEC protects investors from securities fraud, there are many other federal regulatory agencies capable of overseeing and preventing illegal conduct. That said, if you raise funds by promising to build a network and then abscond with the money, we will find you and take the most severe legal action. This framework is a commitment to integrity and transparency. For entrepreneurs who wish to start businesses in the U.S. and are willing to comply with clear rules, we should not respond only with shrugs, threats, or subpoenas; for investors trying to distinguish between buying tokenized stocks and buying game collectibles, we should not provide only a complex web of enforcement actions. Most importantly, this framework reflects a humble recognition of the SEC's own jurisdictional boundaries. Congress enacted securities laws to address a specific problem—people entrusting funds to others based on their promises, integrity, and ability. These laws were not intended to be a universal charter for regulating all new forms of value. Contracts, Freedom, and Responsibility Let me conclude with a historical reflection from Commissioner Peirce's speech in May of this year. She evoked the spirit of an American patriot who, at great personal risk and even at the brink of death, defended the principle that free people should not be subject to arbitrary decrees. Fortunately, our work does not require such sacrifice, but the principle is the same. In a free society, the rules that govern economic life should be knowable, reasonable, and properly constrained. When we extend securities law beyond its intended scope, when we presume every innovation is guilty, we stray from this core principle. When we recognize the boundaries of our own authority, when we acknowledge that investment contracts may terminate and networks can operate independently based on their own value, we are upholding this principle. The SEC's reasonable regulatory approach to crypto will not itself determine the fate of the market or any particular project—that will be decided by the market. But it will help ensure that the United States remains a place where people can experiment, learn, fail, and succeed under firm and fair rules. This is the meaning of Project Crypto and the goal the SEC should pursue. As Chairman, I make this commitment to you today: We will not let fear of the future trap us in the past; we will not forget that behind every token debate are real people—entrepreneurs working to build solutions, workers investing for the future, and Americans striving to share in the nation's prosperity. The SEC's role is to serve these three groups. Thank you all, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with you in the coming months.
SEC Chairman: Proposes Establishing Four Types of Token Regulatory Frameworks to End the "One-Size-Fits-All" Era
Author: Paul S. Atkins, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Translation: Luffy, Foresight News Original Title: Latest Speech by U.S. SEC Chairman: Farewell to "One-Size-Fits-All", Four Token Regulatory Standards to Be Established Ladies and gentlemen, good morning! Thank you for your warm introduction and for inviting me here today as we continue to explore how the United States can lead the next era of financial innovation. Recently, when discussing America's leadership in the digital financial revolution, I described "Project Crypto" as a regulatory framework we have established to match the vitality of American innovators (Note: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission launched the Project Crypto initiative on August 1 this year, aiming to update securities rules and regulations so that U.S. financial markets can achieve on-chain transformation). Today, I would like to outline the next steps in this process. At the core of this step is adhering to the principles of fundamental fairness and common sense in the process of applying federal securities laws to crypto assets and related transactions. In the coming months, I expect the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) to consider establishing a token classification system based on the long-standing Howey investment contract securities analysis, while recognizing the boundaries of applicability in our laws and regulations. The content I am about to elaborate on is largely based on the pioneering work carried out by the Crypto Special Working Group led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Commissioner Peirce has built a framework aimed at coherent and transparent securities law regulation of crypto assets based on economic substance rather than slogans or panic. I want to reiterate here that I agree with her vision. I value her leadership, hard work, and persistent efforts over the years in advancing these issues. Having worked with her for a long time, I am very pleased that she agreed to take on this task. My speech will revolve around three themes: First, the importance of a clear token classification system; second, the logic of applying the Howey test and recognizing the fact that investment contracts may terminate; third, what this means in practice for innovators, intermediaries, and investors. Before I begin, I also want to reiterate: Although SEC staff are diligently drafting rule amendments, I fully support Congress's efforts to incorporate a comprehensive crypto market structure framework into statutory law. My vision is consistent with the bills currently under consideration in Congress, aiming to supplement rather than replace Congress's critical work. Commissioner Peirce and I have made supporting Congressional action a priority and will continue to do so. It has been a pleasure working with Acting Chair Pham, and I wish CFTC Chairman nominee Mike Selig, nominated by President Trump, a smooth and swift confirmation. My experience working with Mike over the past few months has convinced me that we are both committed to helping Congress quickly advance bipartisan market structure legislation and submit it to President Trump for signature. Nothing is more effective in preventing regulatory abuse than sound legal provisions enacted by Congress. A Decade Full of Uncertainty If you are tired of hearing the question "Are crypto assets securities?", I completely understand. The confusion arises because "crypto assets" is not a term defined in federal securities law; it is a technical description that only explains the method of record-keeping and value transfer, but says little about the legal rights attached to a specific instrument or the economic substance of a specific transaction—precisely the key factors in determining whether an asset is a security. In my view, most cryptocurrencies traded today are not securities in themselves. Of course, a specific token may be sold as part of an investment contract in a securities offering—this is not a radical view, but a direct application of securities law. The statutory definition of securities lists common instruments such as stocks, notes, and bonds, and adds a broader category: "investment contracts." The latter describes the relationship between parties, not a permanent label attached to an item. Unfortunately, the statute does not define it either. Investment contracts can be fulfilled or terminated. One cannot simply assume that an investment contract is always valid just because the underlying asset continues to trade on the blockchain. However, in recent years, too many have advocated the view that if a token was ever the subject of an investment contract, it is forever a security. This flawed view even further presumes that every subsequent transaction of the token (regardless of where or when) is a securities transaction. I find it difficult to reconcile this view with the statutory text, Supreme Court precedent, or common sense. Meanwhile, developers, exchanges, custodians, and investors have been groping in the fog, lacking SEC guidance and instead facing obstacles. The tokens they see serve as payment tools, governance tools, collectibles, or access keys, while others are hybrid designs that are hard to fit into any existing category. Yet, for a long time, the regulatory stance has treated all these tokens as securities. This view is neither sustainable nor practical. It brings huge costs with little benefit; it is unfair to market participants and investors, inconsistent with the law, and has triggered a wave of entrepreneurs moving offshore. The reality is: If the U.S. insists on making every on-chain innovation navigate the minefield of securities law, these innovations will migrate to jurisdictions more willing to distinguish between different types of assets and more willing to set rules in advance. Instead, we will do what regulators should do: draw clear boundaries and explain them in clear language. Core Principles of Project Crypto Before elaborating on my views regarding the application of securities law to cryptocurrencies and transactions, I want to clarify two fundamental principles that guide my thinking. First, whether a stock is represented by a paper certificate, a Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) account record, or a token on a public blockchain, it is still essentially a stock; a bond does not cease to be a bond just because its payment flow is tracked by a smart contract. Securities are always securities, regardless of their form. This is easy to understand. Second, economic substance prevails over labels. If an asset essentially represents a claim on a company's profits and is issued with a promise of reliance on others' core managerial efforts, then calling it a "token" or "NFT" does not exempt it from current securities law. Conversely, the fact that a token was once part of a financing transaction does not magically transform it into the stock of an operating company. These principles are not novel. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the substance of a transaction, not its form, determines whether securities law applies. What is new is the scale and speed at which asset types evolve in these new markets. This pace requires us to respond flexibly to market participants' urgent need for guidance. A Coherent Token Classification System Based on the above, I would like to outline my current views on various types of crypto assets (please note, this list is not exhaustive). This framework is the result of months of roundtables, hundreds of meetings with market participants, and hundreds of public written comments. First, regarding the bills currently under consideration in Congress, I believe that "digital commodities" or "network tokens" are not securities. The value of these crypto assets is essentially related to and arises from the programmatic operation of a "fully functional" and "decentralized" crypto system, rather than from the expectation of profits derived from others' key managerial efforts. Second, I believe that "digital collectibles" are not securities. These crypto assets are intended for collection and use, and may represent or grant the holder rights to digital expressions or references to artworks, music, videos, trading cards, in-game items, or internet memes, people, current events, and trends. Buyers of digital collectibles do not expect to profit from others' day-to-day managerial efforts. Third, I believe that "digital utilities" are not securities. These crypto assets have practical functions, such as memberships, tickets, vouchers, proofs of ownership, or identity badges. Buyers of digital utilities do not expect to profit from others' day-to-day managerial efforts. Fourth, "tokenized securities" are, and will continue to be, securities. These crypto assets represent ownership of financial instruments listed in the definition of "securities", maintained on a crypto network. The Howey Test, Commitments, and Termination Although most crypto assets themselves are not securities, they may be part of or subject to investment contracts. These crypto assets often come with specific statements or commitments, requiring the issuer to perform managerial duties, thus meeting the requirements of the Howey test. The core of the Howey test is: investing money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others. The purchaser's expectation of profit depends on whether the issuer has made statements or commitments to undertake core managerial efforts. In my view, these statements or commitments must clearly and unambiguously specify the core managerial efforts the issuer will undertake. The next question is: How can non-security crypto assets be separated from investment contracts? The answer is simple yet profound: The issuer either fulfills the statements or commitments, fails to do so, or the contract is terminated for other reasons. To help everyone better understand, I want to talk about a place in the rolling hills of Florida. I am very familiar with it from my childhood; it was once the site of William J. Howey's citrus empire. In the early 20th century, Howey purchased over 60,000 acres of undeveloped land, planting orange and grapefruit groves beside his mansion. His company sold orchard plots to individual investors and was responsible for planting, harvesting, and selling the fruit for them. The Supreme Court reviewed Howey's arrangement and established the test for defining investment contracts, which has influenced generations. But today, Howey's land has undergone dramatic changes. The mansion he built in Lake County, Florida, in 1925 still stands a century later, hosting weddings and other events, while most of the citrus groves that once surrounded it have disappeared, replaced by resorts, championship golf courses, and residential communities—now an ideal retirement community. It is hard to imagine anyone standing on these fairways and cul-de-sacs today would consider them securities. Yet, over the years, we have seen the same test rigidly applied to digital assets that have undergone equally profound transformations, still bearing the label from their issuance as if nothing had changed. The land around the Howey mansion was never a security itself; it became the subject of an investment contract through a specific arrangement, and when that arrangement ended, it was no longer subject to the investment contract. Of course, despite the complete change in the business on the land, the land itself remained unchanged. Commissioner Peirce's observation is very accurate: A project's token issuance may initially involve an investment contract, but these commitments are not valid forever. Networks mature, code is deployed, control becomes decentralized, and the issuer's role diminishes or disappears. At some point, purchasers no longer rely on the issuer's core managerial efforts, and most token transactions are no longer based on a "reasonable expectation that a team is still in charge." In short, a token does not remain a security forever just because it was once part of an investment contract transaction, just as a golf course does not become a security simply because it was once part of a citrus grove investment plan. When an investment contract can be deemed fulfilled or terminated according to its terms, tokens may continue to be traded, but these transactions do not become securities transactions merely because of the token's origin story. As many of you know, I strongly support super apps in the financial sector—applications that allow custody and trading of multiple asset classes under a single regulatory license. I have asked SEC staff to prepare recommendations for SEC consideration: to allow tokens related to investment contracts to be traded on platforms not regulated by the SEC, including intermediaries registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or subject to state regulatory regimes. While financing activities should still be regulated by the SEC, we should not stifle innovation and investor choice by requiring that underlying assets can only be traded in a specific regulatory environment. Importantly, this does not mean that fraudulent behavior suddenly becomes acceptable or that the SEC's attention is diminished. Anti-fraud provisions still apply to false statements and omissions related to the sale of investment contracts, even if the underlying asset itself is not a security. Of course, to the extent these tokens are commodities in interstate commerce, the CFTC also has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority and can take action against misconduct in these asset trades. This means our rules and enforcement will align with the economic reality that "investment contracts may terminate and networks can operate independently." Crypto Regulatory Actions In the coming months, as envisioned by the bills currently under consideration in Congress, I hope the SEC will also consider a series of exemptions to establish tailored issuance regimes for crypto assets that are part of or subject to investment contracts. I have asked staff to prepare recommendations for SEC consideration, aimed at facilitating financing and inclusive innovation while ensuring investor protection. By streamlining this process, innovators in the blockchain space can focus on development and user engagement rather than groping through the maze of regulatory uncertainty. Moreover, this approach will foster a more inclusive and vibrant ecosystem, allowing smaller and less-resourced projects to experiment and thrive freely. Of course, we will continue to work closely with the CFTC, banking regulators, and relevant Congressional departments to ensure that non-security crypto assets have appropriate regulatory frameworks. Our goal is not to expand the SEC's jurisdiction, but to ensure that financing activities flourish while investors are protected. We will continue to listen to all voices. The Crypto Special Working Group and relevant departments have held multiple roundtables and reviewed a large number of written comments, but we need more feedback. We need input from investors, developers concerned about code delivery, and traditional financial institutions eager to participate in on-chain markets but unwilling to violate rules designed for the paper era. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, we will continue to support Congress's efforts to incorporate a sound market structure framework into statutory law. Although the SEC can provide reasonable views under current law, future SECs may still change direction. This is why tailored legislation is so important, and why I am happy to support President Trump's goal of enacting a crypto market structure bill by the end of the year. Integrity, Comprehensibility, and the Rule of Law Now, I want to make it clear what this framework does not include. It is not a promise by the SEC to relax enforcement—fraud is fraud. While the SEC protects investors from securities fraud, there are many other federal regulators capable of overseeing and preventing illegal conduct. That said, if you raise funds by promising to build a network and then abscond with the money, we will find you and take the toughest action permitted by law. This framework is a commitment to integrity and transparency. For entrepreneurs who want to start businesses in the U.S. and are willing to comply with clear rules, we should not respond with shrugs, threats, or subpoenas; for investors trying to distinguish between buying tokenized stocks and buying game collectibles, we should not offer only a complex web of enforcement actions. Most importantly, this framework reflects a humble recognition of the SEC's own jurisdictional boundaries. Congress enacted securities laws to address a specific problem—people entrusting money to others based on promises made on the integrity and ability of others. These laws were not intended to become a universal charter for regulating all new forms of value. Contracts, Freedom, and Responsibility Let me conclude with a historical reflection from Commissioner Peirce's speech in May this year. She evoked the spirit of an American patriot who risked great personal danger, even death, to defend the principle that free people should not be subject to arbitrary decrees. Fortunately, our work does not require such sacrifice, but the principle is the same. In a free society, the rules that govern economic life should be knowable, reasonable, and properly constrained. When we extend securities law beyond its proper scope, when we presume every innovation is guilty, we stray from this core principle. When we recognize the boundaries of our own authority, when we acknowledge that investment contracts may terminate and networks can operate independently on their own merits, we are upholding this principle. The SEC's reasonable approach to crypto regulation will not itself determine the fate of the market or any particular project—that will be decided by the market. But it will help ensure that the United States remains a place where people can experiment, learn, fail, and succeed under firm and fair rules. This is the meaning of Project Crypto, and it is the goal the SEC should pursue. As Chairman, I make this commitment to you today: We will not let fear of the future trap us in the past; we will not forget that behind every token-related debate are real people—entrepreneurs striving to build solutions, workers investing for the future, and Americans working to share in the nation's prosperity. The SEC's role is to serve these three groups. Thank you all, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with you in the coming months.
Latest Speech by US SEC Chairman: Farewell to a Decade of Chaos, Crypto Regulation Enters an Era of Clarity
Original Title: The Securities and Exchange Commission‘s Approach to Digital Assets: Inside「Project Crypto」 Original Author: Paul S. Atkins, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Original Translation: Luffy, Foresight News Ladies and gentlemen, good morning! Thank you for your warm introduction, and thank you for inviting me here today as we continue to explore how the United States can lead the next era of financial innovation. Recently, when discussing the U.S. leadership in the digital financial revolution, I described "Project Crypto" as a regulatory framework we have established to match the vitality of American innovators. (Note: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission launched the Project Crypto initiative on August 1 this year, aiming to update securities rules and regulations so that U.S. financial markets can achieve on-chain transformation.) Today, I would like to outline the next steps in this process. At the core of this step is adhering to the principles of fundamental fairness and common sense in the process of applying federal securities laws to crypto assets and related transactions. In the coming months, I expect the SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) to consider establishing a token classification system based on the long-standing Howey investment contract securities analysis, while acknowledging the boundaries of applicability within our laws and regulations. What I am about to elaborate on is largely based on the pioneering work carried out by the special cryptocurrency task force led by Commissioner Hester Peirce. Commissioner Peirce has built a framework aimed at coherent and transparent securities law regulation of crypto assets based on economic substance rather than slogans or panic. I want to reiterate here that I agree with her vision. I value her leadership, hard work, and persistent efforts on these issues over the years. I have worked with her for a long time and am very pleased that she agreed to take on this task. My speech will focus on three themes: First, the importance of a clear token classification system; second, the logic of applying the Howey test and recognizing the fact that investment contracts may terminate; third, what this means in practice for innovators, intermediaries, and investors. Before I begin, I would also like to reiterate: Although SEC staff are diligently drafting rule amendments, I fully support Congress's efforts to incorporate a comprehensive crypto market structure framework into statutory law. My vision is consistent with the bills currently under consideration by Congress, aiming to supplement rather than replace Congress's critical work. Commissioner Peirce and I have made supporting Congressional action a priority and will continue to do so. It has been a pleasure working with Acting Chair Pham, and I wish CFTC Chairman nominee Mike Selig, nominated by President Trump, a smooth and swift confirmation. My experience working with Mike over the past few months has convinced me that we are both committed to helping Congress quickly advance bipartisan market structure legislation and submit it to President Trump for signature. Nothing can more effectively prevent regulatory abuse than sound legal provisions enacted by Congress. A Decade Full of Uncertainty If you are tired of hearing the question "Are crypto assets securities?", I completely understand. The reason this question is confusing is that "crypto asset" is not a term defined in federal securities law; it is a technical description that only explains the method of record-keeping and value transfer, but says little about the legal rights attached to a specific instrument or the economic substance of a particular transaction—precisely the key factors in determining whether an asset is a security. In my view, most cryptocurrencies traded today are not securities themselves. Of course, a particular token may be sold as part of an investment contract in a securities offering; this is not a radical view, but a direct application of securities law. The statutory definition of a security lists common instruments such as stocks, notes, and bonds, and adds a broader category: "investment contract." The latter describes the relationship between parties, not a permanent label attached to an item. Unfortunately, the statute does not define it either. Investment contracts can be fulfilled or terminated. One cannot assume that an investment contract remains valid forever simply because the underlying asset continues to trade on the blockchain. However, in recent years, too many people have advocated the view that if a token was ever the subject of an investment contract, it is forever a security. This flawed view even further presumes that every subsequent transaction of the token (regardless of where or when) is a securities transaction. I find it difficult to reconcile this view with the statutory text, Supreme Court precedent, or common sense. Meanwhile, developers, exchanges, custodians, and investors have been groping in the fog, lacking SEC guidance and instead facing obstacles. The tokens they see serve as payment tools, governance tools, collectibles, or access keys; some are hybrid designs, difficult to fit into any existing category. Yet for a long time, the regulatory stance has treated all these tokens as securities. This view is neither sustainable nor practical. It brings huge costs with little benefit; it is unfair to market participants and investors, inconsistent with the law, and has triggered a wave of entrepreneurs moving offshore. The reality is: If the U.S. insists on making every on-chain innovation traverse the minefield of securities law, these innovations will migrate to jurisdictions more willing to distinguish between asset types and set rules in advance. Instead, we will do what regulators should do: draw clear boundaries and explain them in plain language. Core Principles of Project Crypto Before elaborating on my views regarding the application of securities law to cryptocurrencies and transactions, I want to first state two basic principles that guide my thinking. First, whether a stock is presented as a paper certificate, a Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) account record, or in the form of a token on a public blockchain, it is still essentially a stock; a bond does not cease to be a bond simply because its payment flow is tracked via smart contract. Securities are always securities, regardless of their form. This is easy to understand. Second, economic substance prevails over labels. If an asset essentially represents a claim on a company's profits and is issued with a promise that relies on the core managerial efforts of others, then even if it is called a "token" or "NFT," it cannot be exempt from existing securities law. Conversely, just because a token was once part of a financing transaction does not mean it magically transforms into a company's stock. These principles are not novel. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that when determining whether securities law applies, the focus should be on the substance of the transaction, not its form. What is new is the scale and speed at which asset types evolve in these new markets. This pace requires us to respond flexibly to market participants' urgent need for guidance. A Coherent Token Classification System Based on the above, I would like to outline my current views on various types of crypto assets (please note, this list is not exhaustive). This framework is the result of months of roundtable discussions, hundreds of meetings with market participants, and hundreds of public written comments. · First, regarding the bills currently under consideration by Congress, I believe "digital commodities" or "network tokens" are not securities. The value of these crypto assets is essentially related to and generated by the programmatic operation of a "fully functional" and "decentralized" crypto system, rather than from the expected profits arising from the core managerial efforts of others. · Second, I believe "digital collectibles" are not securities. These crypto assets are intended for collection and use, and may represent or grant the holder rights to digital expressions or references to works of art, music, videos, trading cards, in-game items, or internet memes, figures, current events, and trends. Purchasers of digital collectibles do not expect to profit from the day-to-day managerial efforts of others. · Third, I believe "digital utilities" are not securities. These crypto assets have practical functions, such as memberships, tickets, vouchers, proof of ownership, or identity badges. Purchasers of digital utilities do not expect to profit from the day-to-day managerial efforts of others. · Fourth, "Tokenized securities" are, and will remain, securities. These crypto assets represent ownership of financial instruments listed in the definition of "securities," maintained on a crypto network. The Howey Test, Promises, and Termination Although most crypto assets themselves are not securities, they may become part of or be bound by investment contracts. Such crypto assets are often accompanied by specific statements or promises, with the issuer required to perform managerial duties, thus meeting the requirements of the Howey test. The core of the Howey test is: investing money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the core managerial efforts of others. The purchaser's expectation of profit depends on whether the issuer has made statements or promises to undertake core managerial efforts. In my view, these statements or promises must clearly and unambiguously specify the core managerial efforts the issuer will undertake. The next question is: How do non-security crypto assets separate from investment contracts? The answer is simple yet profound: the issuer either fulfills the statements or promises, fails to fulfill them, or the contract terminates for other reasons. To help everyone better understand, I want to talk about a place in the rolling hills of Florida. I am very familiar with it from childhood; it was once the site of William J. Howey's citrus empire. In the early 20th century, Howey purchased over 60,000 acres of undeveloped land, planting orange and grapefruit groves next to his mansion. His company sold orchard plots to individual investors and was responsible for planting, picking, and selling the fruit for them. The Supreme Court reviewed Howey's arrangement and established the test for defining investment contracts, a standard that has influenced generations. But today, Howey's land has changed dramatically. The mansion he built in Lake County, Florida, in 1925 still stands a century later, hosting weddings and other events, while most of the citrus groves that once surrounded it have disappeared, replaced by resorts, championship golf courses, and residential communities—now an ideal retirement community. It is hard to imagine that anyone standing on these fairways and cul-de-sacs today would consider them securities. Yet over the years, we have seen the same test rigidly applied to digital assets, which have undergone equally profound transformations, but still carry the label from their issuance, as if nothing has changed. The land around the Howey mansion was never a security itself; it became the subject of an investment contract through a specific arrangement, and when that arrangement ended, it was no longer bound by the investment contract. Of course, although the business on the land changed completely, the land itself remained unchanged. Commissioner Peirce's observation is very accurate: a project's token issuance may involve an investment contract at the beginning, but these promises are not valid forever. Networks mature, code is deployed, control becomes decentralized, and the issuer's role diminishes or even disappears. At some point, purchasers no longer rely on the issuer's core managerial efforts, and most token transactions are no longer based on the reasonable expectation that "a team is still in charge." In short, a token does not remain a security forever just because it was once part of an investment contract transaction, just as a golf course does not become a security simply because it was once part of a citrus grove investment plan. When an investment contract can be deemed fulfilled or terminated according to its terms, tokens may continue to trade, but these transactions do not become securities transactions merely because of the token's origin story. As many of you know, I strongly support super apps in finance, i.e., applications that allow the custody and trading of multiple asset classes under a single regulatory license. I have asked SEC staff to prepare recommendations for SEC consideration: to allow tokens related to investment contracts to be traded on platforms not regulated by the SEC, including intermediaries registered with the CFTC or subject to state regulatory systems. While financing activities should still be regulated by the SEC, we should not hinder innovation and investor choice by requiring that underlying assets can only be traded in a single regulatory environment. Importantly, this does not mean that fraudulent behavior suddenly becomes acceptable or that the SEC's attention is diminished. Anti-fraud provisions still apply to false statements and omissions related to the sale of investment contracts, even if the underlying asset itself is not a security. Of course, to the extent these tokens are commodities in interstate commerce, the CFTC also has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority and can take action against misconduct in the trading of these assets. This means that our rules and enforcement will align with the economic substance that "investment contracts may terminate, and networks can operate independently." Crypto Regulatory Actions In the coming months, as envisioned by the bills currently under consideration by Congress, I hope the SEC will also consider a series of exemptions to establish tailored issuance regimes for crypto assets that are part of or bound by investment contracts. I have asked staff to prepare recommendations for SEC consideration, aimed at facilitating financing, fostering innovation, and ensuring investor protection. By streamlining this process, innovators in the blockchain space can focus their energy on development and user engagement, rather than groping through the maze of regulatory uncertainty. Moreover, this approach will foster a more inclusive and vibrant ecosystem, allowing smaller, less-resourced projects to experiment and thrive freely. Of course, we will continue to work closely with the CFTC, banking regulators, and corresponding Congressional departments to ensure that non-security crypto assets have an appropriate regulatory framework. Our goal is not to expand the SEC's jurisdiction, but to allow financing activities to flourish while ensuring investor protection. We will continue to listen to all voices. The special cryptocurrency task force and related departments have held multiple roundtable meetings and reviewed a large number of written comments, but we still need more feedback. We need input from investors, developers concerned about code delivery, and traditional financial institutions eager to participate in on-chain markets but unwilling to violate rules designed for the paper era. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, we will continue to support Congress's efforts to incorporate a sound market structure framework into statutory law. Although the SEC can provide reasonable views under current law, future SECs may still change direction. This is why tailored legislation is so important, and why I am happy to support President Trump's goal of enacting a crypto market structure bill by the end of the year. Integrity, Comprehensibility, and the Rule of Law Now, I want to make clear what this framework does not include. It is not a promise by the SEC to relax enforcement—fraud is fraud. While the SEC protects investors from securities fraud, there are many other federal agencies capable of regulating and preventing illegal conduct. That said, if you raise funds by promising to build a network and then abscond with the money, we will find you and take the toughest action permitted by law. This framework is a commitment to integrity and transparency. For entrepreneurs who want to start businesses in the U.S. and are willing to comply with clear rules, we should not offer only shrugs, threats, or subpoenas; for investors trying to distinguish between buying tokenized stocks and buying game collectibles, we should not provide only a complex web of enforcement actions. Most importantly, this framework reflects a humble recognition of the SEC's own jurisdictional boundaries. Congress enacted securities laws to address a specific problem—people entrusting funds to others based on the promises made on the integrity and ability of others. These laws were not intended to be a universal charter for regulating all new forms of value. Contracts, Freedom, and Responsibility Let me conclude with a historical reflection from Commissioner Peirce's speech in May this year. She invoked the spirit of an American patriot who risked great personal danger, even death, to defend the principle that free people should not be subject to arbitrary decrees. Fortunately, our work does not require such sacrifice, but the principle is the same. In a free society, the rules that govern economic life should be knowable, reasonable, and properly constrained. When we extend securities law beyond its proper scope, when we presume every innovation is guilty, we stray from this core principle. When we recognize the boundaries of our own authority, when we acknowledge that investment contracts may terminate and networks can operate independently on their own merits, we are upholding this principle. The SEC's reasonable regulatory approach to crypto will not itself determine the fate of the market or any particular project—that will be decided by the market. But it will help ensure that the United States remains a place where people can experiment, learn, fail, and succeed under firm and fair rules. This is the meaning of Project Crypto, and it is the goal the SEC should pursue. As Chairman, I make this commitment to you today: We will not let fear of the future trap us in the past; we will not forget that behind every token-related debate are real people—entrepreneurs striving to build solutions, workers investing for the future, and Americans working to share in the nation's prosperity. The SEC's role is to serve these three groups. Thank you all, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with you in the coming months.
DBS, J.P. Morgan Working to Build Cross-Bank Tokenized Deposits Framework
Summarize this article with: ChatGPT Perplexity Grok Financial institutions worldwide are steadily advancing efforts toward tokenization to simplify asset transfers and settlements. Reflecting this shift, Singapore’s DBS Bank and J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys are working together to establish an interoperability framework that allows tokenized deposits to move smoothly across their respective blockchain platforms. Read us on Google News In brief DBS Bank and J.P. Morgan are collaborating to develop a framework that allows tokenized deposits to move seamlessly across their blockchain platforms. In the proposed system a J.P. Morgan client could send tokenized deposits on the Base blockchain to a DBS customer, who would receive the same value through DBS Token Services. Enabling Seamless Cross-Bank Token Transactions The planned system aims to facilitate the transfer and completion of tokenized deposit transactions on public and permissioned blockchains, setting a benchmark for cross-platform interoperability. Each bank currently offers clients around-the-clock liquidity and instant payment settlements within its own blockchain environment. This collaboration seeks to extend those services, linking both institutions through interoperable channels that will allow cross-bank on-chain transactions between different blockchain networks. Under the proposed setup , a J.P. Morgan client could transfer J.P. Morgan Deposit Tokens (JPMD) via the Base public blockchain to a DBS customer. The DBS account holder would then receive the same value through DBS Token Services, maintaining parity of tokenized deposits across both platforms. This approach supports consistency and trust within a multi-chain financial system. Collaboration for Reliable Tokenized Assets Naveen Mallela, Global Co-Head of Kinexys at J.P. Morgan, stated that the initiative reflects the company’s focus on developing advanced financial infrastructure through collaboration and expertise. He added that “working with DBS on this initiative is a clear example of how financial institutions can collaborate to further the benefits of tokenised deposits for institutional clients while protecting the singleness of money and ensuring interoperability across markets.” Building on this point, Rachel Chew, Group Chief Operating Officer and Head of Digital Currencies at DBS Bank, emphasized that as digital assets gain traction, interoperability is vital to reduce market divisions and allow the safe movement of tokenized funds across different systems, ensuring their full value is preserved. Global Momentum for Tokenized Deposits The collaboration between DBS and J.P. Morgan is part of a wider industry shift toward blockchain-based deposits. In the United Kingdom, several major banks—including Barclays, Lloyds, and HSBC—are participating in a live pilot of tokenized sterling deposits. This project, scheduled to continue until mid-2026 , aims to demonstrate the practical advantages that tokenized deposits can deliver to individuals, organizations, and the overall UK market. The movement is also reflected in international research. Based on a 2024 study by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), around one-third of commercial banks in the regions surveyed have initiated, tested, or explored the use of tokenized deposits. In a related move, the Bank of New York Mellon was reported in October to be assessing tokenized deposits as part of its efforts to enable payments through blockchain networks. This development shows the continued commitment of global financial intermediaries to expand on-chain settlement and bring blockchain technology into regular banking operations.
Filled orders
Delivery scenarios