The Sei Development Foundation joined in the round to support expansion of an SEC-regulated alternative trading system and settlement platform for blockchain-based securities.

Crypto wealth manager Abra plans a Nasdaq debut through a SPAC merger, joining a growing wave of digital asset companies tapping public markets for capital.

Ironlight raises $21M to expand a regulated marketplace for tokenized securities as blockchain based equities trading surpasses $1B.

The post Ironlight raises $21M to expand regulated infrastructure for tokenized securities appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

MEXC launches a prediction market platform as crypto exchanges including Coinbase and Kraken expand event based trading products.

The post MEXC launches prediction market platform amid surge in event-based trading appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) has imposed a 6-month partial business suspension and 36.8 billion won fine on one the biggest Korean crypto exchanges, Bithumb.

A New Governance Hit On A Crypto Exchange

According to Korean outlet News1, the FIU has finalized heavy sanctions against Bithumb for serious Anti‑Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Costumer (KYC) breaches, including dealings with unregistered overseas virtual asset service providers and weak customer due diligence under the Specific Financial Information Act.

The measures include a six‑month partial business suspension, focused on restricting certain virtual asset transfers, especially to external wallets for new users, and an administrative fine in the tens of billions of won (around $24–26 million). Alongside this, the CEO was issued a reprimand warning and the exchange’s reporting officer faces a six-month suspension.

This decision follows a wider supervisory campaign launched after Bithumb’s “ghost Bitcoin” system error this past February, which saw hundreds of thousands of BTC briefly mis‑credited and triggered full‑scale inspections across Korean exchanges. As reported by Bitcoinist, the FIU preliminarily notified Bithumb of the suspension on March 9.

Bithumb’s case mirrors previous Korean penalties against rivals like Upbit and Korbit, which have already faced multi‑million‑dollar fines and partial suspensions over widespread KYC and AML failures.

Recently, South Korea has been moving at a rapid speed to align its crypto oversight with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, expanding its Travel Rule implementation and treating major exchanges more and more like systemically important financial institutions, as seen by the recent proposal of the Digital Assets Basic Act, an umbrella bill that packages a wide range of crypto policy measures, from stablecoin rules to crypto exchange‑traded funds.

Globally, the pattern is no different. From Binance’s record multi‑billion‑dollar AML and sanctions settlement in the US to Canada’s nine‑figure fine against Cryptomus and targeted audits in Australia and France, regulators worldwide seem to be converging on a “no more excuses” approach to crypto AML.

For traders, the actionable takeaway is that jurisdiction and compliance profile now directly affect counterparty risk: platforms with weak AML controls risk sudden suspensions, tightened withdrawal rules, or liquidity shocks that can spill over into prices and funding conditions. In today’s climate, trading on exchanges that cut corners on AML rules might mean an extra hidden risk of being suddenly hit by regulators.

Cover image from Perplexity, BTCUSDT chart from Tradingview

The Ethereum Foundation is making headlines once again for selling ETH, but this time the spotlight is also on the buyer. The foundation has dumped approximately 5,000 ETH amid broader market volatility and fluctuating prices. The foundation has provided reasons for its large-scale ETH sale, citing ongoing support of operations and activities. 

Ethereum Foundation Sells ETH To Crypto Company

The Ethereum Foundation has completed a new ETH sale to support its ongoing development efforts. In an X post on March 14, the organization announced that it was offloading 5,000 ETH, worth approximately $10 million, at an average price of $2,042.96 through an over-the-counter (OTC) transaction. The buyer in this deal is Bitmine, a publicly traded Bitcoin mining company that operates under the ticker BMNR.

According to the Ethereum Foundation, the ETH transaction was confirmed on-chain through the organization’s Safe multisig wallet at address: 0x9fC3dc011b461664c835F2527fffb1169b3C213e. The sale represents part of the foundation’s broader treasury management strategy, which is guided by detailed policies published in 2025. 

The Ethereum Foundation has also stated that the funds raised from the sale will be used for its core operations and activities. These include protocol research and development, ecosystem management, and community grant funding. Bitmine’s involvement as an OTC counterparty highlights a growing network of institutional buyers interested in participating in the Ethereum ecosystem. The company has continued to buy ETH even during volatile market conditions.  

Notably, the move also follows a series of previous ETH sales by the organization, demonstrating a structured approach toward funding its operational and developmental priorities. In July 2025, the foundation sold 10,000 ETH to SharpLink Gaming through a similar OTC arrangement. Before that, the Ethereum Foundation had carried out dozens of small ETH sales throughout the year, quietly offloading thousands of coins across multiple transactions to cover operational costs. 

Foundation’s Policy Guides For ETH Sales

The Ethereum Foundation’s treasury policy, published in July 2025, is designed to support the long-term sustainability of the blockchain’s ecosystem. The policy emphasizes that all capital deployments must balance the earning returns above a set benchmark rate while also supporting the Ethereum network and adhering to core principles. 

Regarding ETH sales specifically, the policy explains that the foundation will regularly measure the extent to which its fiat-denominated assets differ from its Opex Buffer target. Based on that calculation, they will decide how much ETH, if any, to sell over the next three months. These sales can happen either through fiat off-ramps or on-chain swaps into fiat-denominated assets.  

While the organization has explained the reasons for its ETH sales, the broader market could still feel its impact. Ethereum is trading above $2,200 after rising by more than 12% over the past 24 hours. While its price appears to be rebounding from its previous downtrend, large-scale ETH sales, especially from prominent entities, could influence market sentiment and price stability. 

The President-backed effort to set broader rules for US crypto markets is nearing a political deadline in Congress as banks press lawmakers and regulators to block stablecoin companies from offering rewards that resemble interest on deposits.

The fight has become one of the central unresolved questions in Washington’s crypto agenda. At stake is whether dollar-linked digital tokens remain focused on payments and settlement or gain features that make them more competitive with bank accounts and money market funds.

The Senate’s market-structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, has stalled after negotiations broke down over so-called stablecoin yield.

Industry participants and lobbyists say late April or early May is shaping up as the practical window for the bill to move if it is to have a realistic chance before the election-year calendar tightens.

CRS sharpens the legal question

Congressional Research Service has framed the issue more narrowly than the public fight around it.

In a March 6 report, CRS said the GENIUS Act bars stablecoin issuers from paying yield directly, but may not fully settle the status of what it called a “three-party model,” in which an intermediary such as an exchange stands between issuer and end user.

CRS said the act does not clearly define “holder,” leaving room for debate over whether intermediaries can still pass economic value through to customers. That ambiguity has become one of the main reasons banks want Congress to revisit the issue in the broader market-structure bill.

Banks say even limited rewards could turn stablecoins into a stronger competitor for deposits, especially at regional and community lenders.

However, crypto firms argue that incentives tied to payments, wallet usage or network activity would help digital dollars compete with older payment rails and could widen their role in mainstream finance.

That split also reflects different views of what stablecoins are becoming.

If lawmakers treat them mainly as payment instruments, the logic for tighter limits on rewards becomes stronger. However, if lawmakers see them as part of a broader shift in how value moves through digital platforms, the argument for limited incentives becomes easier to make.

Bank groups have urged lawmakers to close what they call a loophole before reward structures spread more widely. They say allowing rewards on idle balances would encourage deposit migration away from banks, reducing a key funding source for loans to households and businesses.

Standard Chartered estimated in January that stablecoins could draw about $500 billion from US bank deposits by the end of 2028, with smaller lenders facing the greatest strain.

The banking industry has also tried to show lawmakers that the position carries consumer backing. The American Bankers Association (ABA) recently published the results of a Morning Consult survey on stablecoins, fintech innovation and regulatory preferences.

According to the survey, respondents, by a 3-to-1 margin, said they agreed with congressional prohibitions on stablecoin rewards if the question raised the prospect of reduced funds available to banks to lend in the community and support economic growth. By a 6-to-1 margin, respondents said stablecoin laws should be cautious and should avoid steps that could undermine the existing financial system, particularly community banks.

However, crypto firms have pushed back by arguing that banks are trying to protect their funding model by limiting competition from digital dollars.

Industry advocates, including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, have argued that stablecoin issuers operate under stricter reserve requirements than banks under the GENIUS Act, which requires issued stablecoins to be fully backed by cash or cash equivalents.

The volume story has raised the stakes in Washington

The market’s scale has made the rewards dispute harder to dismiss as a niche argument.

Boston Consulting Group estimated that only about $4.2 trillion of roughly $62 trillion in gross stablecoin transfer volume last year represented real economic activity after stripping out bots, exchange flows, and other internal movements.

That gap between headline volume and underlying economic use helps explain why the debate over rewards has taken on greater importance.

If stablecoins remain largely a settlement tool for trading and market structure, lawmakers may find it easier to keep them boxed in as payment instruments. If rewards help them become a widely used store of cash inside consumer apps, the pressure on banks could rise more quickly.

As a result, the White House tried to broker a compromise earlier this year that would have allowed some rewards in narrow use cases, such as peer-to-peer payments, while barring returns on idle holdings. Crypto companies accepted that framework, but banks rejected it, leaving the Senate talks at an impasse.

However, even if Congress does not act, regulators may still narrow the path for reward structures.

In a proposed rule to implement the GENIUS Act, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said it would presume an issuer is effectively paying prohibited yield if it funds an affiliate or related third party that then pays yield to stablecoin holders.

That signals the administration may try to police the issue through rulemaking if lawmakers fail to produce a legislative fix.

Congress is running short on time

The fight now has two tracks. Congress is debating whether to settle the matter in statute, while regulators are moving to define how far companies can go under the law already on the books.

For the Senate bill, the calendar itself has become a source of pressure.

Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital's head of research, wrote on X:

“If Clarity doesn’t pass committee by the end of April, odds of passage in 2026 become extremely low. This needs to hit the Senate floor by early May. Floor time is running out, and the odds diminish every day that passes.”

Thorn also expressed caution about the chances of a breakthrough even if the rewards fight is resolved, saying:

“The framing right now is that the dispute over stablecoin rewards is holding up the Clarity Act. But even if compromise is reached on rewards, there are very likely to be other hurdles.”

Those challenges could include regulations pertaining to the decentralized finance sector, the powers of regulators, or “even ethics,” Thorn said.

The issue of crypto regulation is likely to become a larger political battleground ahead of the midterm elections in November. That adds another layer of urgency to the current impasse, because a delayed bill would have to compete with a more crowded political calendar and a harder legislative path.

Prediction markets reflect that shift in sentiment. In early January, Polymarket placed the odds of passage at 80%. After recent setbacks, including Armstrong calling the current version of the bill unworkable, the odds moved closer to 50%.

Data from Kalshi shows that the bill has only a 7% chance of passage before May and 65% before the end of the year.

Failure would leave more to regulators and the market

The consequences of failure reach beyond the current dispute over rewards. The CLARITY Act is meant to define when crypto tokens are securities, commodities or otherwise, and to provide a clearer legal framework for how the market is overseen.

If the bill stalls, the industry would remain more dependent on guidance, rulemaking and future political turnover.

That is one reason market participants have focused so heavily on the bill’s fate. Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan argued earlier this year that the Clarity Act would cement the current pro-crypto regulatory environment into law. Without it, he said, a future administration could reverse the current policy push.

Hougan wrote that if the bill fails, crypto would enter a “show me” period and have three years to make itself indispensable to the everyday lives of regular Americans and the traditional financial industry.

In that view, future gains would depend less on investors pricing in a durable legislative win and more on whether stablecoins, tokenized assets, and related products can prove broader real-world adoption.

That creates two distinct paths for the market. Passage could lead investors to price in the growth of stablecoins and tokenization sooner. Failure could leave future growth more contingent on adoption and more exposed to skepticism about whether Washington’s current support will survive the next turn in politics.

For now, the next move belongs to Washington. If senators can revive the market-structure bill this spring, lawmakers may still define how far stablecoins can go in sharing value with users and how much of the broader crypto framework can be locked into statute. If they cannot, regulators appear ready to draw at least part of that line themselves.

Either way, the issue now reaches beyond whether stablecoins are part of finance. The fight has moved to how they will function inside it, and who gets paid as they grow.

The post Congress has only weeks left to convince banks on crypto CLARITY Act or risk losing it to midterms appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Wall Street private-credit funds are slowing the exits as withdrawal pressure builds

As Bitcoin climbs and holds above $73,000, several of Wall Street’s biggest private-credit funds have capped, stretched, or halted withdrawals, according to recent filings and reports tied to BlackRock, Blackstone, Morgan Stanley, Cliffwater, and Blue Owl.

JPMorgan has also marked down some private-credit loan portfolios and reduced lending against parts of the same market, a sign that the pressure is moving beyond investor queues and into the financing that supports the asset class.

Investors asked to withdraw more money than several funds were willing or able to return on schedule. The pattern points to a market built on steady income and smoother marks running into a basic liquidity problem when demand for cash rises: the underlying loans do not trade like public bonds and are harder to sell quickly.

The gap between promised access and actual liquidity sits at the center of the issue. It is also the part most likely to travel beyond private-markets specialists.

For crypto, the distinction is clear even before any price reaction enters the picture. A gated private fund and a 24/7 traded asset handle liquidity in very different ways. One depends on quarterly windows and the manager's discretion. The other trades continuously, for better and for worse.

The pressure is visible in the numbers.

The ratios are more telling than the top-line figures. BlackRock’s fund faced demand equal to about 1.86 times its 5% cap. Morgan Stanley’s fund faced roughly 2.18 times its cap. Cliffwater saw requests equal to 2 times the 7% it planned to honor, and 2.8 times the standard 5% gate. Blackstone’s Bcred reached 1.58 times the 5% threshold that lets it restrict payouts. Those are not tiny overruns.

So far, the market has not had to digest a clear wave of forced sales at disclosed discounts. That marks the dividing line between a liquidity-management problem and a valuation problem. Still, JPMorgan’s move adds a harder edge.

When a bank lends less against private-credit assets after marking down some portfolios, it changes the economics around those funds even if investors never read the filings. Financing gets tighter. Asset sales become more expensive. Confidence takes another hit.

What the filings show, and where the pressure can move next

The filings and reports point to the same mechanism across several products. Private-credit funds offered investors periodic ways to redeem, but the assets under them are private loans that do not move through a deep public market.

Managers can smooth marks in calm periods because they are not forced to print a public price every minute. But when redemptions exceed the cap, the smoothing stops looking like stability and starts looking like a delay.

That distinction shapes where the next pressure may show up. If managers can continue to meet a portion of requests each quarter while keeping loan performance intact, the situation stays inside the box marked limited liquidity.

If requests keep outpacing those windows, managers will have fewer clean options. They can continue to ration cash. They can sell loans. Or they can change fund terms. Each of those choices carries consequences for the market’s growth outlook.

The private-credit market has grown to about $1.8T, according to an IMF note. That scale helps explain why a cluster of redemption caps now reads as more than product-level noise. The system does not need a crisis to feel a slowdown. It only needs investors and lenders to act more cautiously at the same time.

That caution is already visible in public signals around the sector. A Barron’s report cited in earlier coverage said the VanEck Alternative Asset Manager ETF was down 23% in 2026. That shows that public markets are already repricing the firms tied most closely to the trade.

For Bitcoin, the cleanest interpretation is structural and centered on market design. Crypto markets are volatile, but they are transparent about that volatility in a way private-credit products are not.

A holder can sell Bitcoin at any time the market is open to them, which is effectively all the time.

A holder in a private-credit vehicle may learn that liquidity exists only inside a quarterly gate. The difference describes how access works, rather than settling the question of which asset is safer.

The private-credit pitch was built on two ideas at once: stable income and tolerable access. Recent events have not yet disproved the income side. They have, however, tested the access side in public. JPMorgan’s tighter lending, tied to marked-down collateral, adds a second layer of pressure because it suggests the firms financing the system are also adjusting their view of the risk.

The next question is whether managers can clear the queue without changing how the market prices these loans.

Bull and bear cases for markets, liquidity, and crypto

The bull case for the sector is a contained slowdown. In that version, funds continue to honor a portion of withdrawals, managers sell selected assets without taking large disclosed hits, and banks other than JPMorgan do not rush to widen haircuts or pull back financing across the board.

The pressure then stays concentrated in products with heavier retail or wealth-channel exposure. Fundraising slows, but the market avoids a broad reset in valuations.

For crypto, that setup gives Bitcoin a narrative edge without requiring a macro accident. The contrast is simple: Wall Street products can ration exits, while Bitcoin remains continuously tradable. That framing can help BTC relative to traditional risk assets even if the direct flow link remains thin.

The bear case is more mechanical. If withdrawal requests remain above caps for another quarter and managers begin selling assets into a thinner secondary market, the focus shifts from access to pricing.

A loan sold below the last stated value becomes a reference point for the next trade. Once that happens, lenders may tighten terms further, other banks may follow JPMorgan, and investors may question whether net asset values are keeping pace with market reality. In that version, liquidity pressure can feed valuation pressure, and valuation pressure can feed more withdrawals.

In a broader liquidity event, Bitcoin often behaves first like a liquid asset. Investors sell what they can. The safer argument, based on the material cited above, is that the issue strengthens Bitcoin’s long-term case as an asset without redemption windows, while leaving short-term price direction open.

There is also a middle ground, and it may be the most likely one. Private credit can keep growing while losing part of the sales pitch that helped it reach a wider base of investors. A market can survive a queue.

What becomes harder to sustain is the language that treats those products like near-cash income tools. Once withdrawals exceed caps across several large names, the burden shifts. Managers then have to show that limited liquidity is a manageable feature, rather than the defining fact of the product.

For now, the market has a cluster of capped or halted exits, a bank that is lending less against some of the same assets, and a set of public numbers that show the line is getting longer.

The next quarter will show whether managers are simply pacing withdrawals, or whether the industry has to start proving what those loans are worth when someone actually needs to sell them.

The post Over $172B in Wall St private credit funds limit withdrawals as investors rush for the exit while Bitcoin climbs appeared first on CryptoSlate.