Need to know what happened in crypto today? Here is the latest news on daily trends and events impacting Bitcoin price, blockchain, DeFi, Web3 and crypto regulation.

The man in control of the biggest Bitcoin corporate treasury said he shares the objectives but disagrees about the remedy detailed in the proposed temporary fork.

Three US soldiers killed in Iranian missile and drone strikes in Jordan and Iraq push the conflict death toll to 17, with retaliatory strikes targeting

The post Three US soldiers killed as US-Iran conflict escalates with strikes in Jordan and Iraq appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tokenized assets reach $320.6 billion but 77.6% remain wrappers. BlackRock, JPMorgan, and Victory Park Capital lead Wall Street's push into blockchain-based

The post Wall Street’s most active laboratory transforms private assets with wrappers and repacks appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Chainlink is drawing technical attention after chart analysis pointed to a bullish pennant forming on LINK, with buy volume beginning to recover as price compresses into a narrowing range.

The setup, shared by crypto analyst Gopal, suggests traders are watching for a breakout after a period of consolidation. A bullish pennant typically forms when price tightens after a strong move, with buyers and sellers compressing volatility before the next directional push.

For LINK, the pattern matters because Chainlink already has one of the stronger infrastructure narratives in crypto. The token is tied to oracles, data feeds, proof-of-reserve, cross-chain messaging, and institutional blockchain rails. When that fundamental narrative meets a clean technical setup, traders tend to pay attention.

But like all chart patterns, the pennant needs confirmation.

View original post on X

TL;DR

• LINK is forming a bullish pennant pattern, according to chart analysis shared on X.
• Buy volume is rebounding, but breakout confirmation is still needed.
• Traders are watching whether Chainlink can turn technical compression into a stronger upside move.

What A Bullish Pennant Shows

A bullish pennant is a continuation setup.

It usually appears after price moves higher, then consolidates inside a narrowing structure. The market pauses, volatility compresses, and traders wait to see whether buyers can regain control.

If price breaks above the pennant with volume, the pattern can signal continuation. If price breaks down instead, the setup fails.

That is the important line for LINK.

The current analysis points to compression and rebounding buy volume, but the market still needs confirmation. Traders will want to see price push through resistance rather than simply move sideways inside the structure.

Volume matters because it shows whether the breakout has real participation. Without volume, a move above resistance can fade quickly.

Chainlink Has A Stronger Backdrop Than Many Altcoins

LINK is not just a chart trade.

Chainlink remains one of crypto’s most important infrastructure projects. Its oracle networks support DeFi applications, pricing data, proof-of-reserve systems, automation, and cross-chain messaging. The project also continues to appear in institutional tokenization and financial-market infrastructure discussions.

That gives LINK a stronger fundamental backdrop than many speculative altcoins.

Still, the token does not always capture that narrative cleanly. Chainlink can be widely used while LINK price still moves with the broader altcoin cycle. That is why technical setups become important. They give traders a way to judge when the market is starting to reward the narrative.

A bullish pennant with improving volume can suggest that buyers are returning. It does not prove a major move is coming, but it gives traders a structure to watch.

The Breakout Needs Confirmation

For LINK bulls, the next step is simple: break above the pennant and hold.

A clean breakout would show that compression is resolving in favour of buyers. Ideally, that move would come with stronger volume and a broader altcoin market that is not fighting the trend.

If LINK breaks out while Bitcoin and Ethereum are stable, the setup becomes more credible. If LINK attempts to break out during a weak market, traders may be more cautious.

Support also matters. A failed breakout that drops back into the pennant can weaken confidence quickly. A breakdown below the structure would shift attention to lower support and suggest the market was not ready for continuation.

That is why technical traders tend to wait for confirmation rather than buying every early pattern.

LINK’s Infrastructure Narrative Still Helps

The reason LINK technical setups attract attention is that Chainlink has a clear story behind the chart.

Cross-chain communication, real-world asset tokenization, data feeds, and institutional crypto infrastructure are all live themes. Chainlink sits close to each of them. If the market rotates back into higher-quality infrastructure tokens, LINK is one of the assets traders are likely to revisit.

The bullish pennant setup may therefore become more important if it lines up with renewed demand for infrastructure names.

But the market still has to show it.

For now, LINK is compressing, buy volume is improving, and traders have a clear level to watch. That is enough for a technical setup, but not enough for a confirmed breakout.

The next move will decide whether this becomes a continuation pattern or another failed altcoin rally attempt.

This article is based on the referenced X chart post and TradingView market data.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

This report is based on publicly available market and on-chain data. at X

SUI is drawing fresh attention from technical traders after chart analysis pointed to a bullish flag pattern forming on the daily chart.

The setup, shared by crypto analyst Gopal, shows SUI consolidating inside a downward-sloping channel after a stronger upward move. In technical-analysis terms, that kind of structure can become a continuation pattern if price breaks above the upper channel with enough volume.

The key word is “if.”

Chart patterns do not guarantee direction, and a bullish flag can fail if buyers do not follow through. But the setup gives traders a clear level to watch at a time when altcoin momentum is becoming more selective.

For SUI, the question is whether consolidation is cooling the market before another leg higher, or whether the earlier impulse is losing strength.

View original post on X

TL;DR

• SUI is forming a bullish flag pattern, according to chart analysis shared on X.
• Confirmation would require a breakout above the channel with volume.
• Until then, the setup remains a technical watchlist item rather than a confirmed move.

What A Bullish Flag Means

A bullish flag usually appears after a sharp upward move.

The market rallies, then price begins to consolidate in a controlled downward or sideways channel. Instead of collapsing, the asset holds most of the previous gains while traders take profit and new buyers wait for confirmation.

If price breaks above the channel, traders often interpret it as a sign that the previous trend is resuming.

That is the optimistic reading for SUI.

The danger is that traders see the pattern too early. A channel can look like a flag until it breaks down. Volume can fade. Buyers can fail to show up. A broader market pullback can invalidate the setup before it confirms.

That is why confirmation matters.

For SUI, the bullish case depends on price clearing the upper boundary of the channel with stronger trading activity. Without that breakout, the pattern remains potential, not proof.

Why SUI Is On Traders’ Screens

SUI has become one of the more closely watched altcoins because it sits in the high-performance layer-1 category.

The network competes on speed, developer experience, object-based architecture, and consumer-facing applications. That gives SUI a narrative that can attract traders when capital rotates into newer layer-1 ecosystems.

Technical setups become more powerful when they align with a broader story.

If traders already believe SUI is one of the stronger altcoin candidates in a risk-on move, a bullish flag can give them a clean entry signal. If the wider market is weak, the same pattern may struggle to play out.

That is the current tension.

Altcoin traders are looking for assets that can outperform, but they are also more cautious after a choppy market. SUI needs both chart confirmation and broader risk appetite to turn the setup into a stronger move.

Volume Is The Deciding Factor

The most important part of this setup is volume.

A breakout without volume can be unreliable. It may trap late buyers before price slips back into the channel. A breakout with strong volume suggests new demand is entering and that traders are willing to chase the move.

That is especially important for altcoins, where liquidity can be thinner and false moves more common.

TradingView price action can help validate whether the pattern is still intact, but traders will also watch broader market conditions. If Bitcoin stabilises and altcoins begin moving again, SUI has a better environment for a technical breakout. If majors weaken, even a good-looking pattern can fail.

That does not make the chart useless. It just means the chart needs context.

The Setup Is Clean, But Not Confirmed

The best way to frame SUI here is as a technical setup waiting for confirmation.

The bullish flag structure gives traders a clear invalidation point and a clear breakout zone. That is useful. It creates a tradeable map. But the market has not confirmed the move until price exits the channel with conviction.

For readers, that distinction matters.

Technical-analysis stories can become too promotional when they treat patterns as outcomes. A better approach is to explain what traders are watching, what would confirm the setup, and what would weaken it.

In SUI’s case, the bullish argument is straightforward: consolidation after strength can reset the market before continuation. The bearish or cautious argument is just as simple: without volume, the flag may fade into a normal pullback.

The next move will decide which reading is right.

For now, SUI is on the watchlist because the structure is clear. Traders just need the breakout to make it real.

This article is based on the referenced X chart post and TradingView market data.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

This report is based on publicly available market and on-chain data. at X

The UK's designation of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps took effect on July 17, creating a new criminal exposure for UK-linked people and businesses that receive or retain value supplied by or on behalf of the group.

Under the designation instrument, the IRGC became one of the first three bodies added to Schedule 6A of the National Security Act 2023.

The new section 17C offense can carry as much as 14 years in prison when a person obtains, accepts or retains a qualifying material benefit and knows, or in light of other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that it came from the designated body.

The rules still leave some room for judgment. An Iran-linked payment is not automatically a crime, and a Schedule 6A designation does not itself trigger the asset freezes and dealing restrictions used under UK sanctions. The key questions are whether the value can be tied to the IRGC and what the recipient knew at the time. Freezing stablecoins would still require separate action from an issuer or another legal authority.

The law never mentions crypto assets, but its wording is broad enough to catch them. It covers money or anything of value supplied directly or indirectly, including through companies, which could bring stablecoins and other on-chain transfers within scope.

For an exchange, custodian, issuer, payments business or UK user, that makes wallet attribution and timing the operational problem. A blockchain network may settle an incoming transfer before the recipient can refuse it, and an address may be linked to a designated body only later.

The central questions become what was known about the wallet and counterparty, when it became known, and what happened to the value afterward.

The offense follows the value, not the payment rail

Section 17C(1) goes beyond payments made directly to someone. It can also apply when a person secures or accepts a benefit for someone else, or keeps a benefit already received. The key question is whether the benefit came from a designated body and whether the recipient knew, or should reasonably have known, about that link.

The words “by or on behalf of” and “directly or indirectly” matter in a market built around intermediaries. A payment need not arrive from a wallet labeled “IRGC” or from an entity using the group’s name.

The chain of provision can run through companies or other intermediaries. Yet an Iranian counterparty, an Iran-linked wallet or a crypto payment alone does not establish that the IRGC supplied the benefit. The prosecution would still need the designated-body connection and the required mental element.

The maximum sentence depends on the conduct. On conviction on indictment, a section 17C(1) offense involving obtaining, accepting or retaining the benefit carries up to 14 years and a possible fine.

The section 17C(2) offense of agreeing to obtain, accept or retain it carries up to 10 years and a possible fine. The Home Office announcement describes the regime generically as carrying up to 14 years, while the statutory text supplies that split.

Sending value in the other direction follows a separate statutory route. Section 17B covers conduct intended materially to assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities. It also reaches conduct likely to provide that assistance when the person knows, or ought reasonably to know from matters known to them, that it is likely to do so. Receipt and assistance are distinct offenses with distinct elements, and neither creates a blanket prohibition on Iranian crypto activity.

The law also preserves targeted protections. A financial benefit is excluded when it is reasonable consideration for goods or services and providing them is not itself an offense. Other provisions cover reasonable excuses for retention or information, qualifying legal obligations and public functions, and humanitarian activity conducted consistently with internationally recognized applicable principles and standards. Their application remains fact-specific.

On-chain settlement makes timing the hard part

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s cryptoassets threat assessment, which concerns sanctions rather than the new designated-body offence, says crypto firms cannot reject incoming blockchain transactions. It also notes that addresses may be attributed later and that analytics can identify historical direct or indirect exposure.

Those observations describe the same technical sequence that UK-linked recipients now need to consider. A deposit can settle before a custodian has a reliable identity for the sending wallet. New intelligence may then connect that address, or a cluster of related addresses, to a designated body after completion.

An initially unidentified receipt is not automatically criminal. The timeline instead becomes potentially important evidence.

A defensible record may need to show the transaction time, wallet risk data available then, counterparty information, when an attribution alert appeared, the basis and confidence for that alert, whether the value remained accessible, and the response after escalation.

Receipt and retention can also occur at different points. Network-level finality may prevent a recipient from unwinding the original transfer, while separate account or token controls can affect what happens next.

A custodian may be able to restrict account access, stop a later withdrawal, investigate the source or seek an appropriate consent route. The necessary response depends on the facts and on which legal regime applies.

The UK connection follows the money

Section 17C can apply to conduct carried out wholly overseas when the benefit is provided in or from the UK, when the actor is a UK person, or when the specified Crown connection exists. UK persons include UK nationals, individuals who live in the UK, bodies incorporated under UK law and unincorporated associations formed under UK law.

That reach brings more than regulated trading venues into the review population. UK-linked exchanges and custodians are the clearest examples because they receive and hold customer assets.

Payment processors, OTC desks, merchants and other businesses may facilitate or retain on-chain value. Some stablecoin issuers, depending on their token architecture and authority, can restrict later token use after an attribution. Ordinary UK-linked users can receive value too, subject to the same designated-body nexus and knowledge threshold.

The government’s impact assessment says the Act creates no new business reporting duty. It nevertheless considers businesses that receive, hold or transfer funds on behalf of a designated body and encourages existing suspicious-activity and consent processes. Applying the same logic to crypto goes beyond what the law explicitly requires.

Governance can affect the exposure. Under section 35 of the National Security Act 2023, an officer can face liability alongside a body when a Part 1 offense is committed with the officer’s consent or connivance, or is attributable to the officer’s neglect. Directors are not automatically responsible for every flagged wallet, but escalation ownership and documented follow-through now carry higher stakes.

Designation is separate from a sanctions freeze

Schedule 6A and UK financial sanctions perform different legal functions. The government factsheet says an organization listed only under sanctions is outside the designated-body offenses unless it is also designated for those offenses.

Adding a body to Schedule 6A does not itself trigger the asset-freeze, non-dealing and reporting duties that arise under financial-sanctions law. It also leaves stablecoin smart contracts unchanged. An issuer freeze depends on a separate sanctions obligation, another legal basis, or action taken under the issuer’s own controls.

CryptoSlate’s earlier coverage of Tether freezing 134 wallets illustrates that technical layer. The issuer used control over its token to freeze addresses in a sanctions context. The new UK question is different: whether a person accepted or retained a benefit tied to a designated body with the required knowledge, including when no issuer has frozen anything.

A sanctions-only workflow therefore leaves a gap. A firm may need to separate a Schedule 6A attribution alert from an OFSI asset-freeze match, then determine which legal and operational escalation paths apply.

One wallet can raise questions under both regimes, but the presence or absence of a sanctions freeze does not resolve section 17C liability.

Controls need an evidentiary timeline

For UK-linked crypto businesses that receive, hold, transfer or facilitate value, a practical response may be to review how existing controls preserve the chronology behind a decision.

The Act itself does not impose this crypto-specific checklist, but the offense and official crypto risk material support scrutiny of how a business:

• maps designated bodies, aliases and relevant counterparties separately from financial-sanctions lists;
• records the source, confidence and time of a wallet attribution;
• re-screens earlier deposits when reliable attribution changes;
• connects on-chain findings with customer, corporate and intermediary information;
• escalates uncertain matches without treating proximity to an Iran-linked wallet as proof; and
• documents decisions about access, retention, withdrawal and existing reporting or consent routes.

UK cryptoasset exchanges and custodian wallet providers already operate within an FCA anti-money laundering framework that expects proportionate transaction monitoring and internal escalation. Schedule 6A adds a separate potential criminal exposure to facts those systems may surface.

The targeted statutory protections do not amount to a generic safe harbor for due diligence, unsolicited transfers or network-level irreversibility. A suspicious activity report or a request through an existing consent process may form part of an escalation, but the official material does not present either as an automatic defense to section 17C. The analysis remains tied to the benefit, its connection to the IRGC, the facts known to the person, and the conduct that followed.

Recipients generally cannot reject or unwind an incoming blockchain transfer at network level, although separate account or issuer controls may restrict its later use.

The designation’s first crypto test will therefore center on whether UK-linked recipients and intermediaries can reconstruct a defensible account of attribution and knowledge as wallet intelligence changes.

Since July 17, that evidentiary timeline can sit behind criminal exposure measured in years even when the transfer itself settled in seconds.

The post UK turns delayed wallet identification into a 14-year criminal risk for crypto firms appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Grayscale wants to turn staking rewards from its Ethereum and Solana funds into cash payouts at least once a quarter, starting around Aug. 7. That would give investors a straightforward way to compare what each fund actually delivers.

In July 17 SEC filings for the Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF and Grayscale Solana Staking ETF, the asset manager said it intends to amend both trust agreements. If executed, each trust would convert the ETH or SOL received as staking rewards into cash at least quarterly, and promptly distribute the proceeds after expenses not covered by the sponsor.

That requirement sets a minimum, not a fixed payment date or return. Grayscale could distribute more frequently, with each payout depending on the staking rewards actually received during the period. The filings say those amounts cannot be predicted with certainty, so the regularity applies to the process rather than the outcome.

From one payout to a comparable cadence

The proposed structure would make recurring a cash-distribution mechanism ETHE used earlier this year. On Jan. 6, the fund paid about $0.083 per share, or $9.39 million in total, from staking rewards earned between Oct. 6 and Dec. 31, 2025, and sold for cash, according to CryptoSlate's January coverage.

That January distribution showed staking rewards converted into cash for shareholders. Adding GSOL and a minimum schedule would create a like-for-like basis for comparing actual net cash payouts, disclosed expense drag and timing across Ethereum and Solana, rather than judging the structure from a single ETHE event.

The design also reflects the IRS framework for staking inside qualifying grantor trusts. Revenue Procedure 2025-31 allows a compliant trust to distribute net staking rewards consistently either in kind or after a cash sale no less frequently than quarterly. Grayscale's proposed agreements specifically choose cash, requiring the trusts to sell the native-asset rewards before passing the net proceeds to shareholders.

Cash distribution does not defer all tax consequences until payment. Assuming grantor-trust treatment, the ETHE and GSOL disclosures say U.S. holders would recognize their pro rata share of staking rewards as taxable income when the trust receives them, regardless of when cash is later distributed. Selling ETH or SOL to fund the payout can also produce a pro rata capital gain or loss.

The investor gain is comparability: a recurring cash record across two assets. The remaining tradeoffs are the variable rewards, expenses, conversion and holder-specific tax consequences behind each payment.

The post Grayscale is setting up a quarterly cash showdown between Ethereum and Solana staking appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Khing Oei, a former Goldman Sachs credit investor, says the market has Strategy’s STRC preferred stock priced wrong. His math says it is worth about $96. It trades near $85.

Oei spent 25 years valuing risky debt at Goldman Sachs and hedge funds. He shared his STRC model in a recent lengthy discussion.

Why the 14% Yield on MicroStrategy’s STRC Misleads

STRC pays a 12% dividend. Divide that by today’s discounted price and you get a yield above 14%. That number is everywhere. Oei says it is wrong.

Here is the problem. That math assumes STRC pays out forever, no matter what. STRC promises no such thing. It never matures and never has to repay its $100 face value, known as par. It pays only while MicroStrategy can afford it.

The shares crashed 25% below par during June’s Bitcoin selloff. That is what made the yield look so juicy.

“That experience leaves you with a simple instinct: never value a stream by dividing this year’s coupon by today’s price,” Oei wrote in his analysis.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

So he values STRC like a bond. Count the cash it will actually pay out, and nothing more. Strategy’s dashboard showed 843,775 Bitcoin (BTC) worth $54 billion, plus $3 billion in cash. Debt and senior preferred shares claim $8 billion of that first. STRC’s $10.5 billion comes next.

29 Years of Dividends Even if Bitcoin Never Rises

Strip out the senior claims and $50.2 billion backs the preferred shares. The dividend bill runs $1.73 billion a year.

That produces two striking numbers. Bitcoin only needs to grow 3.4% a year and the dividends never stop. If Bitcoin stays flat forever, the money still lasts 29 years.

Value those 29 years of payments at a 12% discount rate and STRC is worth $96.30. BeInCrypto checked the math. It holds.

The market pays $85.29. That price only buys 17 years of dividends. Oei thinks that is too gloomy, since STRF, the safer Strategy share above STRC, yields just 10.4%.

That gap between $85 and $96 is the 13% mispricing. It carries a sharp implication. If Oei is right, buyers collect the 14% yield while the price climbs toward fair value. If the market is right, the discount is a warning that the dividend may one day stop.

Some buyers seem to agree with Oei. A BitcoinTreasuries survey found over half of holders bought the dip below par.

The Road Back to $100

Bitcoin’s price does most of the work. Oei’s table puts STRC back at $100 if Bitcoin reaches $80,000. At $40,000, it drops to $58.

MicroStrategy holds levers too. STRC listed in July 2025 at $90 with a 9% dividend. The board has raised the rate again and again, now 12%, to pull the price toward par.

Cash helps as well. Each $1 billion raised and held in reserve adds about four points, Oei estimates. A buyback adds five, since Strategy would pay $85 for something he values at $96.

The mispricing itself becomes the company’s cheapest tool. The growing cash pile fits what one research desk called a Bitcoin winter pivot.

One caveat applies. Oei runs Treasury, a European Bitcoin treasury firm, so he benefits when these shares are taken seriously. Skeptics also remain. Economist Peter Schiff just predicted a crash toward $20,000, and others ask who ultimately pays if Strategy’s $64 billion bet unwinds.

The question is now a simple one. Does a company with $57 billion in assets deserve this much doubt over a $1.73 billion dividend bill? Bitcoin’s next move will go a long way toward answering it.

The post Ex-Goldman Credit Veteran Says Markets May Be Mispricing MicroStrategy’s STRC by 13% appeared first on BeInCrypto.

MicroStrategy CEO Phong Le says Wall Street’s largest banks are locked in a tight race for second place on the company’s Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citi each score within three points of one another. Fidelity, however, still holds a commanding lead.

Fidelity’s Lead Sets the Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index Bar

The Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index grades 25 major banks on Bitcoin (BTC) trading, custody, and product depth.

Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, published the initial 32% score, drawing on public data through July 10.

Fidelity topped the list at 71%, built on Fidelity Digital Assets, the custody arm it launched back in 2018.

BNY follows at 46%, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. trails narrowly at 45%. Historically, few banks matched Fidelity’s early crypto custody bet.

Bitcoin traded near $64,539 on Sunday, up about 1% over 24 hours. The index, therefore, measures structural adoption rather than short-term price swings.

Goldman, JPMorgan, and Citi Battle for Second

JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup each land at 43%, separated from Goldman by just two points. Record bank earnings this quarter show JPMorgan and Goldman trading desks already profiting from crypto-adjacent activity.

Several rivals are also chasing tokenization efforts underway across the sector, where more than 15 banks now compete to move assets on-chain.

That shift, in contrast, sidesteps Bitcoin entirely and could reshape future index gains.

Vanguard illustrates the gap further. The asset manager only recently began planning its own crypto strategy, years after Fidelity built out its custody business. Meanwhile, smaller regional lenders have barely started.

Major-bank Bitcoin adoption is accelerating, but still early: 32% overall as measured by the index.

Michael Saylor, MircroStrategy’s executive chairman, posted that assessment on X alongside the index’s July 13 debut.

New Launches Could Reshuffle the Bitcoin Banking Adoption Index

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Citi are each developing several crypto initiatives slated for release within the current year. That could include new exchange-traded products, custody expansions, or tokenization tools already in development.

Le expects these launches to bring significantly more clarity to the sector by year-end.

MicroStrategy, holder of the largest corporate Bitcoin treasury, has a stake in that outcome. Saylor’s own case for corporate Bitcoin adoption echoes the same expectation of accelerating bank participation.

Whether Goldman or JPMorgan ultimately claims outright second place may depend on which products actually ship before December arrives.

The post MicroStrategy CEO: Wall Street’s Biggest Banks are Locked in a Tight Bitcoin Race appeared first on BeInCrypto.

On July 17, FTX Recovery Trust and FTX Trading Ltd. announced their 5th major distribution to creditors, which is scheduled to begin on July 31, 2026. 

This round is expected to release approximately $900 million to eligible holders of allowed claims. This is one of the largest bankruptcy recoveries in crypto history.

The record date for this distribution is June 16, 2026. Payments will go to holders of allowed FTX claims and interests who have completed all pre-distribution requirements, including KYC verification, tax documentation, and onboarding with approved providers. Preferred equity holders will also receive payments on the same date under the same record cutoff.

Next FTX Creditor Payment of $900 Million on July 31

According to the official press release, the distribution will be handled by FTX’s designated service providers, including BitGo, Kraken, and Payoneer. Funds are sent in USD, after which recipients can choose withdrawal or conversion options where available. Only claims fully allowed and processed by the record date, with any objection periods cleared, will qualify.

FTX has also filed an amended notice to reduce its disputed claims reserve by about $600 million, from $2.4 billion to $1.8 billion. If approved by the court, this adjustment will free up additional cash for the July distribution and future payouts. Additionally, holders of Allowed NFT Customer Entitlement Claims can begin the NFT distribution process starting June 30, 2026.

The announcement of the 5th round comes after the completion of the 4th round in March 2026.

• In early 2025, the company distributed approximately $1.2 billion in the first round.
• In the second round, the trust allocated $5 billion in May 2025.
• During the third round, the company distributed around $1.7 billion in September 2025.
• The fourth round distributed $2.2 billion in March 2026.

Cumulative payouts before this 5th distribution have approached or exceeded $10 billion. Many creditor classes have already reached or surpassed 100% recovery, with smaller “Convenience Class” claims, which often receive up to 120%, including interest adjustments.

“Customers should be aware that by onboarding with a Distribution Service Provider, they have irrevocably elected to forego their right to receive cash distributions from FTX and have instead directed FTX to pay, directly to such Distribution Service Provider, any distributions to which they otherwise would be entitled to under the Plan. If customers have any questions related to the availability of the funds in their account with their selected Distribution Service Provider, they should contact customer support at their Distribution Service Provider directly,” stated in the press release.

FTX Collapse: An Incident That Shook the Entire Crypto Sector in 2022

The announcement comes around 4 years after FTX’s bizarre collapse in November 2022. The cryptocurrency exchange was once valued at $32 billion. After facing a massive shortfall in users’ funds, FTX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Without any consent from users, FTX has misused customers’ funds through loans to Alameda Research, its sister trading company. At the time of filing, the exchange was holding a small fraction of customer crypto assets. For example, it was just holding 0.1% of Bitcoin.

The FTX collapse triggered panic in the entire crypto market, which created the biggest bear run in the crypto market. As there were many creditors who suffered losses in this incident, the FTC incident has also attracted regulatory scrutiny.

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud and conspiracy charges, and he is currently serving a sentence of 25 years in federal prison. The bankruptcy involved assets across the world, litigation, asset sales, and recoveries from ventures, such as stakes like Robinhood. 

Under new leadership by John J. Ray III, the estate has recovered between $14.5 billion and $16 billion through careful asset management and favorable conditions. The confirmed Chapter 11 plan is working on prioritizing customer recoveries, along with full repayment plus interest for many classes. 

Many international customers are nearing full recovery, while U.S. customers and other classes have already hit 100%. The estate’s ability to deliver above 100% for smaller claims is showing strong asset performance during the collapse of FTX.

In March, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) stated that his exchange always had the money to pay customers and challenged the fraud narrative that has kept him behind bars. 

On July 16, Visa launched the Visa Stablecoin Platform (VSP), a new offering designed to help banks, fintech and crypto firms issue, move and oversee stablecoins within a Visa-managed ecosystem. 

Visa Rolls Out New Stablecoin Platform with Support for Open USD 

According to Visa’s official page, the Visa Stablecoin Platform (VSP) is the platform that allows users to store, access, mint, and manage their stablecoins in a secure environment. The platform has also integrated other existing Visa tools in order to embed stablecoin capabilities into existing payment flows.

“VSP is interoperable with Visa’s existing stablecoin offerings, including stablecoin settlement, stablecoin-linked cards, and stablecoin money movement. Together, these capabilities provide a full stack of solutions that help FIs and fintechs come onchain and enable crypto platforms to access Visa’s global network,” stated the official press release.

There are various features mentioned in the Visa Stablecoin Platform (VSP) in the official announcement. For example, users will be able to use Stablecoin-linked cards that allow users to spend stablecoin balances directly at millions of merchants around the world through Visa’s large network. Users will also be able to move money cross-border by using Visa Direct across fiat and stablecoin systems. The platform comes with secure storage and issuance options with strong compliance and security features.

The platform has integrated the newly launched stablecoin Open USD (OUSD) launched by Open Standard, which is designed to make stablecoins practical for real-world payments.

Jack Forestell, Chief Product and Strategy Officer, Visa, stated in a press release, “Stablecoins are opening up a new layer of programmable money, but for most institutions the hard part isn’t the concept, it’s the operational reality. With the Visa Stablecoin Platform, we’re giving our clients a single place to mint, move and manage stablecoin operations with the controls, security and network reach they already expect from Visa. It’s how we help them turn interest in stablecoins into real products and real payment flows.” 

In the last few months, Visa has been aggressively expanding its stablecoin settlement capabilities through support for more blockchains and assets like USD-pegged stablecoins. In the pilot testing, the payment network has already recorded substantial annualized settlement volumes.

However, as of now, Visa Stablecoin Platform (VSP) is only available for beta testing, as announced on the official page.

Visa and Mastercard Expand Support for Stablecoin Payments 

In the last few months, the stablecoin sector witnessed developments in many regulatory frameworks under the leadership of pro-crypto President Donald Trump. This has ended long-standing ambiguity in the stablecoin market. Visa and Mastercard have also started integrating digital assets into their existing payment networks. By doing this, these payment giants want to make cross-border payments more efficient by reducing costs. It will reduce settlement time.

Mastercard is also expanding its stablecoin settlement capability, including partnerships for end-to-end payments from wallets to merchant checkouts. In June, Mastercard raised its support for Open USD (OUSD) along with a major consortium of more than 140 companies, including Visa, Stripe, BlackRock, Coinbase, and others.

In March, Visa and Bridge announced a partnership, which is expected to roll out stablecoin-backed Visa cards to more than 100 countries by the end of 2026.

There have been many collaborative efforts taking place in the last few months, including shared platforms backed by companies like Stripe and Coinbase. These major payment networks are directly challenging existing stablecoin leaders, such as USDT and USDC. By using their merchant networks, these payment networks are also boosting the adoption of stablecoins.

In 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act and turned it into the first federal law for stablecoins. This has encouraged many companies and enterprises to integrate stablecoins into their existing financial infrastructure. Due to this, the overall stablecoin market capitalization has also soared above $320 billion this year. However, amid the bearish trend in the crypto market, stablecoins have witnessed a drop (as per DeFiLlama) and currently stands at around $310 billion.

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams has proposed expanding protocol fees across Uniswap v4 and several network deployments, putting one of DeFi’s longest-running governance debates back at the centre of the market.

Protocol fees are a sensitive topic for Uniswap because the exchange is one of DeFi’s most important pieces of infrastructure. It processes huge volumes, sits across multiple chains, and remains a core liquidity venue for tokens. But for years, the question has been whether that usage should translate into direct economic value for the protocol and UNI governance.

The new proposal, published through Uniswap governance, targets protocol-level fee activation across multiple deployments, including v4 pools and the newly launched Robinhood Chain.

For UNI holders and DeFi users, this is not just a technical governance item. It goes to the heart of how DeFi protocols should capture value.

Reference: Uniswap Governance Forum

TL;DR

• Hayden Adams has proposed expanding Uniswap protocol fees across several network deployments.
• The proposal includes v4 pools and Robinhood Chain activity.
• The debate matters because it could reshape how Uniswap captures value from its own trading infrastructure.

Why Protocol Fees Matter For Uniswap

Uniswap is widely used, but usage and token value have not always moved together.

That has been one of the biggest debates around UNI. The protocol is critical to DeFi, but the token has often struggled with the question of direct value capture. Governance rights matter, but investors also want to know whether protocol activity can translate into a stronger economic model.

Protocol fees are one possible answer.

If activated, a portion of trading fees can be routed to protocol-controlled mechanisms rather than flowing only to liquidity providers. That can create a clearer link between exchange activity and the protocol’s treasury, buyback/burn mechanics, or other governance-directed uses.

The details matter. Fee rates, affected pools, chain selection, and how collections are handled can all change how traders, liquidity providers, and token holders respond.

For Uniswap, the challenge is balancing value capture with liquidity competitiveness. If fees are too aggressive, liquidity may migrate. If fees are too light, token holders may see little impact.

Multi-Chain DeFi Makes The Debate Harder

Uniswap is no longer just an Ethereum mainnet protocol.

It exists across multiple networks, and v4 is designed to make liquidity architecture more flexible. That multi-chain footprint creates opportunity, but it also makes governance more complicated.

Different chains have different users, fee environments, liquidity profiles, and competitive pressures. A fee model that works on Ethereum may not work the same way on Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, BNB Chain, Robinhood Chain, or Polygon.

That is why this proposal matters. It is not only about turning on a switch. It is about deciding how Uniswap should operate as a cross-chain liquidity protocol.

The governance materials note that fee collections would be routed into TokenJars and claimed for burning through UNI bridging to mainnet. That kind of structure shows how much DeFi governance has evolved. Fee activation now involves not just a governance vote, but cross-chain accounting, collection mechanisms, and execution details.

The more networks Uniswap supports, the more important those mechanics become.

What UNI Holders Will Be Watching

UNI holders will likely focus on whether the proposal creates a clearer path for token value.

That does not mean the market will instantly reprice UNI. Governance proposals can take time, and implementation matters more than the headline. But the direction is important. If Uniswap can show a credible method for turning protocol volume into economic value, the token’s investment case becomes easier to explain.

Liquidity providers will be watching from another angle.

They want to know whether protocol fees reduce their share of trading economics and whether any fee changes make certain pools less attractive. DeFi liquidity is mobile. If LPs believe another venue offers better returns, they can move.

Users care about execution quality. If fee activation damages liquidity or worsens pricing, traders may notice. If the change is small enough to preserve competitiveness, users may barely feel it.

That is the balance Uniswap governance has to strike.

DeFi Is Moving From Growth To Value Capture

The proposal also says something bigger about DeFi’s maturity.

Early DeFi was mostly about growth: liquidity, volume, users, integrations, and TVL. Mature protocols eventually face a different question: how does that activity support long-term economics?

Uniswap is one of the clearest examples because it is both widely used and heavily scrutinised. If a protocol of its size cannot find a sustainable value-capture model, investors will keep asking difficult questions about governance tokens across the sector.

That is why this debate reaches beyond Uniswap.

Other DeFi protocols are watching the same issue. They need to reward users, keep liquidity, satisfy governance, and avoid creating regulatory problems. Protocol fees sit right at the intersection of those pressures.

For now, the proposal gives the market a fresh reason to pay attention to UNI governance. It may not settle the value-capture debate immediately, but it moves the discussion into a more concrete phase.

If approved and implemented cleanly, it could become one of the more important DeFi governance developments of the year.

This article is based on the Uniswap governance forum.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

This report is based on information released by Uniswap Governance Forum. at Uniswap Governance Forum

The SEC has approved a NYSE Arca rule change that raises position and exercise limits for options on BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, giving institutional traders more room to hedge and express larger views around the spot Bitcoin ETF market.

The change increases limits for IBIT options from 250,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts, according to the SEC release. That is a fourfold increase, and it reflects how quickly Bitcoin ETF options have become part of the market’s trading infrastructure.

This is not the kind of update that grabs attention like a new ETF launch. But for market structure, it matters.

Options limits decide how large positions can become. Larger limits can support deeper institutional trading, more complex hedging, and better liquidity around ETF-linked Bitcoin exposure.

Reference: SEC

TL;DR

• The SEC approved a NYSE Arca rule change raising IBIT options limits.
• Position and exercise limits move from 250,000 to 1,000,000 contracts.
• The change gives larger traders more room to hedge Bitcoin ETF exposure.

Bitcoin ETFs Are Becoming Trading Infrastructure

The first phase of the spot Bitcoin ETF story was access.

Investors wanted to know whether they could buy Bitcoin exposure through ordinary brokerage accounts. Asset managers wanted products that could fit inside existing portfolios. Advisers wanted a structure that did not involve exchanges, wallets, private keys, or direct custody.

That phase is now maturing.

The next phase is market structure. Once an ETF becomes liquid, traders want options, hedging tools, arbitrage routes, and larger position limits. Those pieces make the product more useful for institutions that manage risk actively rather than simply buying and holding.

IBIT has become one of the most important Bitcoin ETF products in the market, so options activity around it matters. If traders can hold larger options positions, they can manage larger underlying exposures, hedge portfolio risk more efficiently, or build more sophisticated volatility strategies.

That does not mean the change is automatically bullish for Bitcoin. Options can be used for bullish, bearish, and neutral strategies. But it does mean the market around Bitcoin ETFs is becoming deeper.

Why Position Limits Matter

Position limits exist to prevent excessive concentration and reduce market-manipulation risk.

If limits are too low, large institutions may find the product less useful. If limits are too high, regulators may worry about market integrity. Raising the limit suggests the exchange and regulator believe the product can support larger activity without creating unacceptable risk.

For IBIT options, moving from 250,000 to 1,000,000 contracts is a meaningful shift.

It allows larger traders to operate with more flexibility. A fund with substantial Bitcoin ETF exposure may need options to hedge downside. A market maker may need room to support liquidity. A volatility trader may want to build positions that were previously constrained by the lower cap.

The result can be a more efficient options market.

Better options liquidity can also improve the underlying ETF market because traders have more ways to manage risk. In mature asset classes, options are a normal part of the ecosystem. Bitcoin ETFs are now moving closer to that model.

A Sign Of Institutional Normalisation

The larger point is that Bitcoin is increasingly being absorbed into traditional market infrastructure.

Spot ETFs brought Bitcoin into regulated fund wrappers. Options brought a derivatives layer around those wrappers. Higher position limits now give larger institutions more operational room.

This is exactly how financial markets mature. First comes access, then liquidity, then hedging, then more complex institutional strategies.

For Bitcoin, that is a major shift from earlier cycles, when much of the market was concentrated on offshore exchanges, spot exchanges, and crypto-native derivatives venues. Those venues still matter, but the ETF market has changed the balance.

More regulated options activity could also affect volatility. In some cases, deeper options markets help smooth risk because traders can hedge more efficiently. In other cases, options positioning can create sharp moves around expiries, strikes, and dealer hedging flows.

Either way, Bitcoin traders will increasingly need to watch ETF options data alongside spot flows.

The SEC approval does not guarantee higher Bitcoin prices. It does not remove volatility. It does not change the underlying supply schedule. But it does make the institutional Bitcoin market more functional.

That may be the most important takeaway. Bitcoin ETFs are no longer just products people buy for exposure. They are becoming part of a larger trading and risk-management system.

This article is based on SEC release SR-NYSEARCA-2026-76 and Federal Register materials.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

This report is based on information released by SEC. at SEC