News related to
crypto

Moscow has authorised the use of cryptocurrencies in cross-border payments for trade, marking a significant departure from previous policy. The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Bank of Russia have reached an agreement to legalise digital-asset settlements in foreign trade transactions, while simultaneously tightening regulatory oversight of the wider crypto market.

Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said the step was necessary because imports are already being paid for with crypto assets and the existing regulatory framework was inadequate. He emphasised that the legalisation would be accompanied by “proper legislative regulation” to restore order in the sector.

Under the new framework, firms engaged in exports and imports will be able to transact using cryptocurrencies—but only via authorised channels that meet stringent anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer standards. The shift builds on an earlier “experimental legal regime” that allowed limited crypto use in foreign trade and by select investors.

The Bank of Russia remains cautious. Its governor Elvira Nabiullina continues to resist full recognition of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment domestically, and proposed restricting use to cross-border trade and wealthy “qualified” investors under licensed firms.

Market analysts interpret the decision in the context of pressures from Western sanctions, which have constrained access to global payment systems. The move is seen as part of Russia’s strategy to bolster trade flows, particularly in energy and commodities, by bypassing traditional channels.

Still, legalisation is selective rather than broad. The regime applies for now only to foreign-trade transactions; the domestic use of cryptocurrency for everyday payments or retail investments remains prohibited. The Bank of Russia argues allowing wide retail access poses “financial and social” risks.

For domestic investors, the path to broader engagement remains narrow. Earlier this year the regulator proposed allowing only those with assets above 100 million roubles or annual incomes above 50 million roubles to participate in a crypto-investment experiment.

Industry players say the legalisation will create new opportunities. Top banks—such as Sberbank and Alfa‑Bank—had warned that millions of Russians hold crypto assets despite being excluded from the formal regime. They argued the grey market status of holdings was a risk for the broader financial system.

Critics caution that regulatory oversight and enforcement will be key. The Prosecutor-General’s Office, under Alexander Gutsan, highlighted that the new framework includes tools to monitor transactions linked to corruption, terrorism, extremism, and illicit financial flows.

Observers outside Russia are weighing potential ripple effects. Some suggest the policy could encourage other sanctioned or emerging-market nations to adopt crypto-based trade settlement models, challenging the dominance of traditional systems such as SWIFT.

For Russian exporters and importers, the shift may offer relief from constrained access to Western-dominated financing and payment networks. Nonetheless, firms must still operate within Bank of Russia-endorsed platforms and are subject to rigorous compliance oversight—so adoption may remain cautious in the near term.

From the government’s perspective the move attempts to draw the large informal crypto-market inside the regulatory perimeter. Holding of crypto assets by Russian users has been estimated in the hundreds of billions of roubles, according to central bank data.

The company formed by Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. has filed a registration statement with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking to raise up to US$1 billion by issuing up to 160 million shares of common stock. According to the filing, the share-offering will be handled underwritten by Chardan Capital Markets LLC, acting as financial advisor for the transaction.

HSI is the combined entity formed via the business combination between Sonnet BioTherapeutics, Inc. and Rorschach I LLC, a special-purpose vehicle affiliated with Atlas Merchant Capital LLC and Paradigm Operations LP. That merger agreement valued HSI at approximately US$888 million, comprising roughly US$583 million in the native token HYPE and at least US$305 million in cash.

In its S-1 filing, HSI states the capital will support “general corporate purposes, including the acquisition of HYPE tokens and other digital-asset treasury activities.” Analysts interpret this as an indication that HSI intends to deepen its exposure to the HYPE ecosystem and position itself as a publicly-listed vehicle for crypto-asset treasury management.

Leadership for the combined company is drawn from the sponsors behind Rorschach I. At closing, the board will include Bob Diamond and David Schamis. Current independent directors from Sonnet will also roll over into the new board structure.

Market observers point out that the transaction marks a significant shift from the biotech credentials of Sonnet to a crypto-treasury focus at HSI. At the time of the agreement, the value of HYPE tokens held by HSI was based on a spot price of approximately US$46.37. The shift has drawn scrutiny: one investor-rights law firm is investigating whether the minority stakes to legacy Sonnet shareholders create equity fairness issues.

The $1 billion raise is notable for several reasons. First, it underscores the trend of publicly-listed companies forming or converting into crypto treasury vehicles, providing regulated-market access to digital-asset exposure. Second, by aligning its strategy around HYPE token accumulation, HSI is building a sector-specific reserve, akin to what several other companies have done with Bitcoin in prior years. Third, the timing — amid heightened regulatory discussions around crypto infrastructure and token-linked public entities — places HSI at a crossroads of capital-markets innovation and regulatory risk.

The Bank of England has committed to implementing a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins by the end of 2026, signalling a significant shift in the United Kingdom’s approach to digital assets. According to government and central-bank sources, a formal consultation is scheduled for 10 November and the regulation is expected to align closely with forthcoming U. S. standards.

The framework will establish new standards for so-called “qualifying stablecoins” issued in the UK, stipulating full backing by secure liquid assets held in trust, mandatory redemption at par, and authorisation under the Financial Conduct Authority. For stablecoins deemed systemic—particularly those used for payments at scale—the BoE will assume additional supervisory and resolution responsibilities. The FCA’s Consultation Paper CP25/14 sets out much of this detail.

In public remarks, BoE Governor Andrew Bailey argued that widely-used stablecoins must be regulated in the same way as banks if they function as money-substitutes. He said they should access Bank accounts and adhere to depositor-protection regimes. The BoE itself has described the future payments landscape as one of “multi-money” — where tokenised deposits, central bank money and stablecoins coexist—provided the framework protects trust and financial stability.

The proposed regulatory timetable is part of a broader drive by UK authorities to maintain competitive positioning in global fintech, particularly as stablecoins gain traction in cross-border payments and tokenised-asset ecosystems. Industry experts note that the UK wants to keep pace with U. S. regulation to avoid regulatory arbitrage.

Under the current design, issuers of qualifying stablecoins will need authorisation by the FCA, must safeguard assets backing the coins by placing them in statutory trust arrangements, and maintain daily reconciliation between issued coins and backing assets. The consultation suggests a two-tier backing-asset regime: “core” assets and “expanded” assets subject to extra disclosure and modelling requirements.

From a technical infrastructure perspective, the BoE highlights that stablecoins may reduce the banking sector’s dominance over payments, but that the central bank must remain the settlement asset for systemically important markets. This position underpins the planned consultations and policy work around stablecoins’ role in the UK payments system.

Industry reaction is mixed. Some fintech firms and crypto-asset service providers welcome clarity, saying that clear rules reduce uncertainty and support investment. Others worry that too heavy or complex regulation might deter innovation or prevent start-ups from competing with global incumbents. One blog commentary described the framework as “a huge deal … but a nagging worry that too much focus on compliance might throw a wet blanket on the very innovation they are meant to encourage.”

The stakes are high for tokenised deposit initiatives within the UK banking system. Leading lenders including HSBC, NatWest Group and Lloyds Banking Group are pushing ahead with pilots of tokenised deposits through 2026. Regulators have been clear that although such deposits may be permitted within the current system, the stablecoin regulatory regime must take into account the potential threat of massive deposit flows leaving the banking sector.

One key tension lies in the setting of holding limits. The BoE has proposed initial caps on stablecoin holdings—for individuals perhaps in the order of £10,000 to £20,000—and higher for business entities, on the grounds that a swift migration out of bank deposits could undermine credit flows to households and firms. The caps would remain until the BoE is confident the stablecoin sector does not pose a systemic threat.

In this regulated-fork approach, oversight will be shared: The BoE will supervise systemic stablecoin issuers; the FCA will regulate non-systemic stablecoins and issuers under the regulated activities order. The Treasury has indicated that stablecoin issuance will not, for now, be brought directly into payment-services regulation.

The government of British Columbia has introduced legislation that would permanently ban new crypto-mining operations from connecting to the provincial grid via BC Hydro, and impose formal limits on power access for AI and data-centre operators. The bill, known as the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, aims to steer the province’s clean-electricity supply toward mining, LNG and natural-resource industries viewed as higher-priority than the high-load crypto sector.

Under the new framework, BC Hydro will no longer approve fresh power-grid connections for crypto-mining facilities. The moratorium first established in 2022 is now set to become law. In parallel, beginning in late 2025 the province will introduce an allocation process for electricity demanded by AI and data-centres: only a capped amount of power will be available to those sectors, and they must compete for it under stricter criteria.

Government officials say the shift reflects a need to address surging grid-demand from emerging industries and to ensure that public electricity resources deliver broad economic and employment benefits. Premier David Eby said the move will help the province “move faster” on major transmission infrastructure and support industrial growth in a planned megaproject in the northwest. Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix added: “Our new allocation framework will prioritise vital growth in sectors like mining, natural gas and lowest-emission LNG, while ensuring our clean energy is directed to projects that deliver the greatest benefit to British Columbians.”

The backdrop encompasses the looming construction of the North Coast Transmission Line, a roughly $6 billion project designed to bring new clean-electricity capacity to the province’s sparsely-electrified northwest. That infrastructure is central to the government’s strategy of prioritising industrial connections over speculative, high-load users such as crypto-mining farms.

Industry analysts have mixed reactions. Supporters say the policy reflects sound planning in a jurisdiction dependent on hydroelectric power and facing increasing pressure from multiple large-scale electricity users. They note that the high energy-intensity of crypto-mining—with relatively modest job creation and economic multiplier effects—makes it a less compelling candidate compared with mining, LNG, hydrogen and industrial AI. On the other hand, critics warn that the framework gives the government wide discretionary power, potentially reducing transparency and favouring incumbents. As one Green-party MLA noted: “With no detail on this framework or the criteria for decision-making in Bill 31, we are concerned that the minister will be the one making these consequential determinations under the influence of friends or lobbyists.”

The government has indicated that data-centres and AI firms will still be eligible for power, but will face competition under the new mechanism: for example, BC Hydro reportedly will allocate only about 300 megawatts for AI and 100 megawatts for data-centre use every two years. Those thresholds will represent a major scaling down in open-access grid connections for such technology users and signal a shift away from first-come, first-served power allocations.

For prospective crypto-miners, the measure marks a turning point. Major mining projects that had anticipated low-cost Canadian hydro power will face altered calculus: either repurpose for non-crypto uses, or relocate to jurisdictions with more open grid access. This may induce capital flight or slow the growth of a nascent mining industry in the province. Conversely, proponents of the policy argue it will preserve affordability for households and existing industrial users by preventing unmanaged load growth.

The government’s timing is also notable. The bill not only formalises the ban on new crypto-mining connections, but synchronises with the broader policy shift to accelerate the NCTL and re-shape grid access rules. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2026 and extend into the early 2030s. For the grid, this means a period of constrained supply allocation while demand from resource-intensive projects expands.

Community and Indigenous groups have been emphasising that increased industrial electrification must occur in consultation and benefit-sharing with First Nations. The legislation allows for First Nations co-ownership of the transmission line and signals a broader reconciliation dimension to the infrastructure strategy.

In the crypto-community the reaction is sharp. Firms and investors note that BC’s abundant hydro power was a major attraction to set up mining operations at scale. With the ban in place, developers will need to evaluate stranded-asset risk or shift to other Canadian provinces or international venues. Some warn that innovation in GPU- and AI-mining overlap may find itself constrained as power availability tightens.

From a global lens, British Columbia joins a growing cohort of jurisdictions imposing stricter controls on high-energy crypto-activities and re-examining how emerging tech intersects with energy policy. The regulation underscores the tension between rapid tech growth and public-utility responsibilities in regions reliant on renewables and constrained transmission.

Tokyo’s financial regulator is advancing a proposal that would permit domestic banks to directly invest in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and operate crypto exchanges, marking a significant shift from earlier restrictions. The Financial Services Agency is set to present its plans to the Financial System Council—an advisory body to the prime minister—later this month.

Under the existing regime promulgated in 2020, Japanese banks have been effectively barred from acquiring and holding digital assets for investment purposes, owing to concerns about volatility and financial-stability risk. The new regulatory blueprint would align crypto asset holdings by banks with traditional financial instruments such as stocks and government bonds, while introducing capital and risk-management requirements tailored to the asset class.

According to data cited by the FSA, Japan’s crypto account holdings have climbed past 12 million as of February 2025—a roughly 3.5-fold increase over five years. The surge in retail interest is growing pressure on regulators to provide greater clarity and institutional-grade infrastructure. Amid this backdrop, the proposed reforms aim to usher in a more integrated digital-asset ecosystem under the purview of regulated financial institutions.

The FSA’s initiative encompasses three key pillars: Firstly, banks would be authorised to purchase and hold unbacked crypto assets for trading or investment, subject to strict internal controls and exposure limits.  Secondly, bank groups may register as licensed “cryptocurrency exchange operators,” effectively allowing them to offer trading and custody services in-house rather than relying solely on third-party platforms.  Thirdly, the FSA plans to shift oversight of digital assets from the current Payment Services Act regime into the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act framework, thereby affording crypto the same legal mould as securities.

Banking groups in Japan are already responding. Three of the country’s largest financial institutions—Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group and Mizuho Financial Group—have announced a joint plan to issue a yen-pegged stablecoin for corporate settlements, signalling a broader shift into digital assets.

Supporters of the reforms argue that allowing regulated banks to engage with crypto assets will bolster investor protections, improve custody and transactional infrastructure, and widen market access. “This reform will treat cryptocurrencies similar to other investible asset classes under bank supervision,” noted one industry analyst. However, sceptics caution that the volatility of cryptocurrencies remains elevated and that exposure must be managed carefully to prevent end-user or systemic risk.

Regulatory design will therefore place a heavy emphasis on limiting banks’ direct holdings of digital assets relative to their capital base, imposing heightened disclosure and governance mandates. One working-group paper recommends that banks maintain separate risk-allocations and stress-testing frameworks for crypto, akin to those used for foreign-exchange or commodity trading desks.

The tax and legal context are also evolving. Japan is preparing to introduce a flat 20 % capital-gains tax on crypto assets as part of its 2025 reforms, and certain tokens are slated to be reclassified as securities under the FIEA. These measures are designed to reduce uncertainty for institutional participants and global investors seeking regulated exposure to digital assets.

Market participants appear cautiously optimistic. Some regional banks are exploring pilot custody services for institutional clients, while fintech firms anticipate greater collaboration with mainstream banks as eligibility expands. On the flip side, legacy concerns persist: past hacks and exchange failures have left regulators and consumers wary of governance failures and inadequate transparency.

The world’s largest cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, vaulted above $111,000 after a steep dip earlier this week, triggering sharp gains across major tokens including Ethereum, XRP and Solana. On-chain metrics signalled accumulating momentum while traditional equity markets in Asia registered fresh highs, boosting risk-assets overall.

Bitcoin climbed to around $111,223, representing a gain of approximately 3.7% within 24 hours, after briefly touching a low near $103,602. Other digital assets followed: Ethereum reached roughly $4,062, XRP $2.47 and Solana approximately $193.33, with 24-hour gains of between 3% and 5%.

Analysts highlight several factors underpinning this recovery. On-chain data show the realised value-to-transaction ratio for Bitcoin has declined — a historical marker of heightened accumulation rather than passive holding. A crypto-analytics firm noted that “strong declines in the RVTS have preceded major bull phases, as they indicate that Bitcoin is being used, accumulated, and transferred — not just held.”

Broader market dynamics provided further tailwinds. In Japan, the Nikkei 225 index soared past 49,000 for the first time, advancing the year-to-date gain to 25%. The move followed media reports indicating that the country’s leading opposition party plans to join coalitions which position its fiscal-dove leader for the prime ministership — one with a policy inclination towards low interest rates and expansionary fiscal measures.

Meanwhile, China’s third-quarter gross domestic product growth of 4.8% year-on-year narrowly exceeded forecasts of 4.7%, providing support for risk assets globally.

Beyond macro-signals, institutional behaviours also deserve attention. A leading publicly listed company with large Bitcoin holdings, Strategy, has signalled fresh crypto purchases — adding a layer of institutional demand to the structural thesis.

Within the crypto space, major platforms tied to tokenisation and stable-coin activity are also part of the narrative. Analysts at Galaxy Digital emphasise three structural drivers: increased AI-capex from tokenised assets, accelerating stable-coin infrastructure, and the migration of real-world assets onto blockchain networks. These are seen as propositions that may sustain momentum beyond short-term price moves.

Yet, market participants remain cautious. Liquidity remains thin and residual risks — such as further macro headwinds, regulatory tightening or a reversal in risk appetite — continue to warrant vigilance. As one analyst put it: “The near-term message is caution — respect thinner liquidity, post-crash psychology and a ‘wall of worry’ mood. The medium-term message is resilience.”

Within altcoins, XRP is gaining renewed focus ahead of potential ETF-related developments, while Solana is benefitting from its association with on-chain tokenisation flows. Market-data platform CoinGecko shows that XRP trades at around $2.46, with volume flows increasing as sentiment rebuilds.

Astra Nova has secured USD 48.3 million in a funding round aimed at accelerating its development of no-code, AI-driven tools for creators in the Web3 entertainment space. The capital will bolster expansion into new regions and deepen integrations among its ecosystem of mini-apps, games and community tools.

The bulk of the funding, approximately USD 41.6 million, came through a strategic investment round, building on prior backing from firms including Outlier Ventures and Middle East family offices. Astra Nova intends to deploy the funds toward global scaling, regulatory readiness and product enhancements.

Astra Nova’s core proposition rests on TokenPlay AI, a platform that enables creators to launch blockchain-enabled micro-apps without writing code. Powered by Alibaba Cloud infrastructure, it is designed to let developers spin up interactive communities and gamified utilities rapidly. In addition, Astra Nova operates NovaToon, Deviants: Fight Club, and BlackPass, all of which already draw user traction.

Crucially, major brands are integrating with Astra Nova ahead of its token launch. Shiba Inu, one of the most active crypto communities, is deploying mini-apps through TokenPlay AI, and the Simon’s Cat IP is also building live integrations. These are not mere announcements: the integrations are functional and active, driving transaction volume even before the token is fully in circulation.

Astra Nova’s native token, $RVV, is scheduled for issuance on 18 October. The token is intended as the foundational utility currency within the ecosystem, underpinning in-app upgrades, advertising, subscriptions, and community incentives. Transaction fees from ecosystem activity are programmed to trigger buybacks of $RVV, creating a feedback loop to support tokenomics.

Backing for the project includes strategic support from NEOM, NVIDIA’s Inception programme, and Alibaba Cloud. NVIDIA’s involvement is particularly significant: it provides access to GPU and AI computing capabilities that are critical to Astra Nova’s adaptive storytelling and intelligent NPC infrastructure. Alibaba Cloud offers global infrastructure scale, while NEOM’s partnership underscores sovereign interest in aligning the startup with Saudi Arabia’s broader AI and tech ambitions.

Astra Nova’s metrics already indicate early scale: the company claims more than 250,000 creators on its waitlist for TokenPlay AI, cumulative user reach across its live products exceeding 500,000, and 200,000 daily active users across the ecosystem. The ARPG built on Unreal Engine 5 has surpassed 100,000 playtest downloads, reinforcing early demand and user engagement.

Analysts see the model’s strength in its orchestration of multiple components—creator tooling, community building, content, and gaming—into a unified framework supported by AI and blockchain. The pre-launch traction with IPs such as Shiba Inu and Simon’s Cat gives the ecosystem a runway of activity even from day zero of token issuance.

Bitcoin’s price dropped below $105,000 early Friday in London trading, recovering marginally later but signalling mounting pressure in crypto markets. Bloomberg data showed a fall of as much as 3 percent before a modest bounce. The slide comes after a week of heightened volatility that has dragged digital-asset valuations lower.

The crypto sector has shed billions. Total market capitalisation fell to its lowest point since July, as institutional and leveraged positions faced heavy liquidations. Ethereum, the second-largest token, also fell sharply, trading under $3,800.

One key driver has been intensifying stress in U. S. regional banks. Shares of Zions Bancorp plunged after it disclosed a $50 million loan impairment, while Western Alliance is embroiled in fraud allegations tied to borrowers. Those troubles have sparked a “flight to safety” across risk assets, nudging investors away from speculative trades.

The collapse in derivatives markets was steep: over $1 billion in long and short positions were wiped out in rolling liquidations, especially on exchanges with aggressive leverage mechanics. The drop below the 200-day moving average—around $107,500—has undermined a long-term support zone, fuelling further anxiety among traders.

At the same time, trading volume surged. Weekly volume for Bitcoin hit its highest level since March, suggesting heavy participation even amid panic. Some analysts see that as a sign of re-accumulation by institutional players, though it remains unclear whether those inflows will stabilise prices.

Technical watchers are eyeing potential floor zones near $100,000, while others suggest $88,000 could act as an “open target” if selling accelerates. Meanwhile, on-chain data reveals that wallets holding between 100 and 1,000 BTC—sometimes called “shark wallets”—are accumulating aggressively, marking the fastest rate of inflow since 2013. Those trends echo previous panic phases, which often preceded longer rallies.

Some observers caution that Bitcoin’s repeated failure to behave as a “safe harbour” during market stress undermines one of its selling points. Still, others argue that the fundamentals remain intact—citing diminishing supply on exchanges, renewed institutional interest, and the durability of blockchain infrastructure.

Volatility is unlikely to subside soon. The week ahead includes major U. S. economic data releases and potential policy statements from central banks that could sway risk sentiment. In parallel, geopolitical frictions—particularly over trade and supply chains—may further rattle markets already in flux.

Over $250 million has been wiped out from leveraged positions across major cryptocurrency markets within the last 60 minutes, according to real-time tracker alerts. The bulk of the liquidations hit long bets, triggering a sharp lash of volatility that rattled traders across exchanges.

Data from multiple crypto-analytics feeds show that Bitcoin and Ethereum bore the brunt of the forced closures, with long positions cascading under mounting downward pressure. The alerts indicate that around $200 million of that total was liquidated in just the preceding 15 minutes. Margin calls and automatic stop-loss triggers have sharply pared back open interest.

Market participants point to a combination of lower-than-expected macro signals and heightened global risk aversion as catalysts for the sudden liquidation wave. Macro equity markets have seen risk assets fall under pressure over the past sessions, prompting a spillover into speculative crypto positions. The added strain from derivatives exposure amplified the move.

Crypto exchange data show that Binance, Bybit and OKX recorded the highest volumes of liquidations, especially in their perpetual futures markets. On Binance alone, over $80 million in long positions may have been forcibly closed, according to traders cross-checking the on-chain and order-book flows. Ethereum perpetuals also registered substantial losses, particularly in mid- and high-leverage tiers.

Analysts observing funding rates and open interest across exchanges have flagged an abrupt deleveraging. The funding rates for many altcoins flipped negative, signalling that the short side was gaining dominance as leverage unwound. Open interest across high-risk tokens dropped by 15 – 20 % in many cases, suppressing liquidity and heightening slippage.

Several algorithmic trading desks and quant funds experienced knock-on effects. As large liquidations pulled prices lower, stop orders cascaded, exacerbating the decline in thin markets. Some trading firms reported losses due to slippage and forced exits—even though positions were hedged—with automated strategies failing to escape the downdraft in time.

A few larger holders, often designated as ‘whales’, appear to have opportunistically repositioned. Some have placed bids closer to now-discounted levels in anticipation of a bounce; others reduced exposure altogether. On-chain indicators suggest increased inflows to stablecoin pools and accumulation in non-spot holdings, hinting at a cautious redeployment rather than wholesale exit.

Institutional interest remains muted amid the turmoil. According to contacts in digital-asset fund management, most institutions were already operating with limited leverage and hedges in place. Few entered new positions during the seizure of volatility, and many paused trades to watch whether support levels would hold.

Citizens Bank has launched coverage of SharpLink Gaming, assigning it a “market outperform” rating and a price target of $50, implying upside in excess of 200 percent from current levels.

The bank’s analysis hinges on SharpLink’s positioning as a publicly traded entity that actively manages an Ether treasury, combining yield-bearing deployment strategies with equity-market mechanisms to enhance value. Citizens projects that ETH’s long-term price trajectory, together with SharpLink’s operational model, could underpin substantial growth.

Citizens expects SharpLink’s net asset value to rise as the company compounds returns from staking, liquid restaking, and other on-chain yield strategies. The bank cites management’s capacity to issue equity above NAV or repurchase shares when trading below NAV as a leverage point for shareholder value.

SharpLink is led by Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin, who serves as Chairman, and Joseph Chalom, formerly of BlackRock, as Co-CEO. The bank underscores this combination of crypto ecosystem pedigree and traditional capital markets acumen as a competitive advantage.

In its report, Citizens forecasts ETH could exceed $7,000 by 2026, potentially pushing beyond $20,000 by 2030, and argues that SharpLink offers one of the few pure-play equity vehicles tied to Ether exposure. The bank describes SharpLink’s operating model as a “flywheel” in which yield-generated returns accelerate NAV per share, further facilitating growth capital.

Citizens’ valuation assigns a premium multiple to SharpLink’s NAV, justified by management execution and the structural optionality inherent in an actively managed ETH treasury. The report points to the possibility that investor recognition of this optionality could drive valuation multiple expansion.

SharpLink has also taken steps consistent with the thesis. It has initiated a share buyback programme, repurchasing approximately 939,000 shares at an average price of $15.98, and the board has authorised up to $1.5 billion in share repurchases for capital allocation flexibility. In tandem, SharpLink disclosed it holds around $3.6 billion in ETH, nearly all staked to produce yield.

Meanwhile, B. Riley has initiated coverage of SharpLink with a “Buy” rating and a $32 target, casting some contrast in outlook. B. Riley emphasises that the company’s discount to modified NAV is attractive — currently trading at 0.8× mNAV — and expects upward re-rating to 1.5× mNAV within 12 months, contingent on ETH accumulation and damping equity issuance dilution.

CJ Hetherington, CEO of Limitless Labs, has accused Binance of demanding 8 per cent of his project’s token supply and a multimillion-dollar deposit as conditions for listing. Binance, in a forceful rebuttal, called the allegations false and defamatory, and hinted at legal recourse.

Hetherington shared purported internal communications that outlined Binance’s demands: 1 % of the token supply for a day-one airdrop, 3 % for subsequent airdrops over six months, 1 % reserved for marketing, and another 3 % allocated to the BNB HODLer programme. He claimed Binance also asked for a $250,000 security deposit and required around $2 million in BNB as collateral. In total, he argued, these terms effectively extracted 8 % of total tokens in exchange for a listing.

Binance responded swiftly via its official X handle, stating it “does not profit” from token listings and that the content of Hetherington’s posts is “false and defamatory.” The exchange emphasised that it does not charge listing fees and that any required security deposits are typically refundable within one to two years. Binance also denied allegations of token dumping by its executives, calling them “entirely untrue and unsubstantiated.”

The exchange further asserted that Hetherington’s disclosures breached confidentiality, undermining trust and transparency in industry processes. It reserved the right to pursue legal action for what it characterised as unauthorised disclosures.

The dispute has drawn responses from industry observers. Mike Dudas, founder of 6MV, stated on X that he has seen Binance listing proposals with nearly identical terms in the past month and was able to talk about them because he did not sign a nondisclosure agreement. He implied the arrangement described by Hetherington reflects a recurring model.

Crypto analyst Howard Peng, by contrast, criticised Hetherington for publicising the discussions and labelled the move immature. Peng urged projects dissatisfied with listing proposals to walk away and suggested exploring alternative exchanges.

Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao also weighed in, arguing that successful projects should attract listings without paying “fees.” He wrote that if a project must “beg an exchange to list,” it indicates weak demand and could invite scrutiny from within the community.

The exchange’s defence comes amid broader regulatory scrutiny of centralised exchanges and their listing practices. Some market participants argue that hidden costs and opaque listing criteria undermine fairness and can stifle innovation, especially for emerging projects. Others maintain that exchanges are entitled to protective mechanisms—such as collateral or token commitments—to mitigate risk and ensure project stability.

Multiple posts flooding social media demand accountability—users call for a regulator-led probe, the CEO’s arrest, and deep scrutiny of Binance’s internal systems. The outcry follows recent chaos around synthetic tokens USDe, BNSOL, and wBETH, which lost their pegs on Binance amid massive liquidations. Compensation is flowing, but the narrative now centers on whether the crash was a desperate scramble or a deeply orchestrated exploit.

When Binance announced it would pay $283 million to users affected by depegging and associated liquidations, it framed the move as a goodwill gesture to restore stability. The payout applies to users whose positions used USDe, BNSOL, or wBETH as collateral between 21:36 UTC and 22:16 UTC on October 10. The exchange said compensation covers the difference between liquidation price and market price at 00:00 UTC on October 11, plus fees. It also promised to improve its risk-control systems and change how its indices weigh collateral assets..

These remedial steps, however, have not assuaged skeptics. Analysts at Uphold argued the event was no accident: they see the crash as a coordinated exploit of a vulnerability in Binance’s unified margin system, in which USDe, BNSOL, and wBETH were accepted as collateral. Because the exchange valued collateral based on internal order-book data instead of aggregated external prices, they say the system could be manipulated from within the venue itself. That, they believe, allowed an attacker to locally crash prices and trigger a cascade of liquidations.

One widely cited theory points to timing. Binance announced on October 6 it would update its pricing mechanisms to rely more on external oracles, with the changes scheduled for October 14. The incident happened on October 10—right in the middle of that eight-day window. In effect, critics argue, the exchange had acknowledged the flaw but had not yet implemented the fix, leaving a vulnerability no one should have touched. On-chain data shows USDe dropped to as low as $0.65 on Binance while remaining near parity across other markets, and wBETH and BNSOL showed similar divergence. The fact that only these three tokens—and only on Binance—were massively disrupted raises the specter that this was a targeted strike, not a systemic weak spot.

The theory gains further support from social media researchers. A thread by a user called “ElonTrades” describes how roughly $60–90 million of USDe was dumped on Binance to manipulate its order book, triggering forced liquidations in unified-account positions. That thread also links to outsized short positions opened elsewhere in anticipation of a broad market drop. Combined, the strategy would allow the attacker to profit while setting off mayhem across crypto markets.

Binance has rejected claims of an external exploit. In its public statement, the company argues that extreme market volatility predated the depegs, and that local platform issues amplified rather than initiated the crash. It also suggests some of the price distortions stemmed from interface display glitches—tokens with very small values were rendered as zero on users’ screens—while others reflect execution of long-dormant limit orders. The company contends liquidation volume occurring on its platform was only a fraction of broader market activity.

Even some industry voices have pushed back against blanket condemnation of Binance. One analyst told reporters that attributing the crash entirely to internal failure is premature, and that extreme leverage and macro market turmoil may have interacted with, not originated from, the exchange’s anomalies.

Yet the optics are harsh and the damage is real. The crypto community remains intensely uneasy. Many traders point to how precisely the exploit—or crash—focused on three collateral tokens, how it preceded a planned patch, and how quickly the stains were cleaned up by compensation. To many, the $283 million seems less like accountability than a strategic PR move to calm markets and buy time.

BNB, the exchange’s native token, soared after the compensation announcement, reaching a high near $1,370. That rally suggests some market participants interpreted the payout as a signal that Binance could backstop risks if needed. But it has not quelled deeper anxieties: users are now demanding full transparency about trades, collateral decisions, and the CEO’s role in risk oversight.

Amanda, a margin trader who lost funds in the incident, told crypto forums: “This wasn’t a market tantrum. The order flow was too precise, too surgical. It felt like someone pulled the plug on us.” Other users posted examples of margin calls executed within fractions of seconds after the depeg, with little time or warning to react.

The sequence of events presents too many coincidences: a pricing flaw known and scheduled for repair, large collateral-related token dumps executed mid-window, massive liquidations cascading in an insular system, and a rapid compensation move. Taken together, the evidence aligns with a narrative of design-level risk exploited rather than location-level chaos.

If the worst scenario proves true—that Binance’s unified margin design was manipulable from inside its own infrastructure—the implications ripple far beyond a single crash. Centralized exchanges, hailed for their convenience and liquidity, might now be exposed as fragile ecosystems. Traders could demand stricter oversight, regulators more frequent audits, and entire collateral frameworks could be reassessed.

South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit has authorised a change in GOPAX’s executive leadership, clearing the way for Binance’s acquisition of 67 per cent of the local exchange and formally restoring its presence in the country. The decision comes after over two years of regulatory review and internal scrutiny.

The executive registration approval by the FIU establishes Binance as the controlling shareholder of GOPAX, resolving a key hurdle that had delayed the deal since its initiation in early 2023. By acquiescing to the change, South Korean authorities have allowed Binance’s re-entry into one of Asia’s most active cryptocurrency ecosystems.

When Binance first acquired the majority stake in GOPAX in February 2023, it sought to stabilise the exchange following a liquidity crisis tied to frozen customer deposits connected to the GoFi yield product. That crisis was traced to exposure to Genesis Global Capital, whose own collapse triggered withdrawals being halted. Binance undertook a capital injection to support GOPAX’s recovery while awaiting formal regulatory sign-off on executive changes.

The FIU’s prior hesitancy centred on concerns that Binance’s international compliance record could clash with South Korea’s anti-money laundering oversight. Legal pressure from U. S. authorities, including enforcement actions and substantial fines, had raised red flags among domestic regulators. But the FIU’s acceptance now signals that uncertainties over Binance’s compliance credentials have been sufficiently addressed.

Under South Korean law, exchanges must report changes in executive or representative roles to the FIU, which effectively acts as a gatekeeper in approving foreign capital in the local crypto sector. No separate screening mechanism exists for major shareholders, making the executive registration process a de facto test of suitability. Delays in this case were reportedly driven by repeated demands for supplemental documentation by regulators.

GOPAX is one of only five exchanges in South Korea authorised to conduct cash-crypto transactions under strict regulatory norms. With Binance now in control, GOPAX could compete more aggressively against dominant local players such as Upbit and Bithumb. Yet entrenched banking relationships and compliance frameworks will still pose barriers to market share gains.

The approval reflects a shift in Korea’s regulatory posture toward greater openness—especially for exchanges that have resolved international legal disputes. Binance’s own settlements regarding AML and market conduct issues appear to have alleviated domestic regulatory apprehension. The acceptance also underscores the FIU’s judgment that Binance’s structural changes and compliance assurances now align with South Korea’s regulatory expectations.

A new wave of supply-chain assaults has seen North Korean hackers publish more than 300 malicious npm packages, infecting developer systems with sophisticated malware that steals credentials and crypto assets. The campaign, known as “Contagious Interview,” exploits the trust developers place in open-source tools by cloaking malware inside packages mimicking legitimate ones.

The Socket Threat Research Team disclosed that attackers uploaded 338 malicious npm modules, collectively downloaded over 50,000 times, many featuring a newly observed loader named XORIndex. About 27 of them remain active in the npm registry. Within those packages, XORIndex collects host metadata and downloads a second-stage payload, BeaverTail, which in turn leverages a backdoor called InvisibleFerret to maintain persistence and exfiltrate data. This expansion follows a preceding June surge of 35 malicious modules using a HexEval loader.

Researchers emphasise that Contagious Interview is not a static campaign but a dynamic interplay between defenders and adversaries. As packages are taken down, attackers quickly reissue variants under fresh aliases or change loader techniques. The latest 67-package load pushed last month illustrates this cat-and-mouse escalation: the new modules alone exceeded 17,000 downloads. Attackers have mixed XORIndex and HexEval in parallel deployments, suggesting modular development and adaptability.

The campaign’s social engineering backbone remains key. Actors pose as recruiters or HR contacts on platforms like LinkedIn, targeting software engineers or job-seekers. They offer interview assignments that require cloning a GitHub or Bitbucket repository, with the malicious npm module embedded deep in the project. Because many developers run these projects outside sandboxed environments, the malicious loader quietly executes and bridges the gap to full system compromise.

Analysts attribute Contagious Interview to DPRK-aligned threat groups tracked under names such as CL-STA-0240, DeceptiveDevelopment, Tenacious Pungsan and Void Dokkaebi. The methodology aligns with patterns shown by the Lazarus Group and its affiliates, as attackers continue to weaponise open source ecosystems for espionage and financial theft. XorIndex and HexEval share infrastructure and tactics, including encrypted communication with command-and-control servers. In several cases, submitters of the malicious packages have crafted repository names containing “interview,” reflecting the campaign motif.

Beyond npm, the campaign’s reach extends: some modules reference Bitbucket repositories, and similar tactics have appeared in PyPI package attacks. The broader goal appears dual: accessing developer environments to steal intellectual property or credentials and siphoning cryptocurrencies from wallets detected on compromised machines.

Security firms and registry maintainers have responded with takedown requests and account suspensions. Socket reported removing six live HexEval-based modules earlier this year, and the npm security team has collaborated to suspend associated accounts. But defenders admit the reactive posture is fragile; attack waves resurface within hours.

Traders on the U. S. prediction market Kalshi are assigning a 55 percent chance that Bitcoin will exceed $130,000 by the end of 2025, with probabilities of 34 percent for surpassing $140,000 and 24 percent for topping $150,000. That places the market’s expected annual high at roughly $132,000.

Those figures reflect a steadily intensifying optimism about Bitcoin’s trajectory, drawing attention from institutional and retail participants alike. Kalshi’s “How high will Bitcoin get this year?” market is driving price discovery around extreme outcomes for the cryptocurrency.

That optimism today sits alongside growing institutional flows into related assets. Bitcoin spot ETF issuers have been attracting multi-billion dollar inflows across several jurisdictions; analysts view that as a cornerstone of structural demand, tightening supply in spot markets. At the same time, the derivatives market is registering sharply skewed positioning in favour of upside moves, especially in out-of-the-money call options.

Crypto research platforms note that exchange reserves of Bitcoin are at multi-year lows, meaning a smaller buffer for large sell orders to exert downward pressure. Some large holders are moving coins to cold storage or long-term custody, reducing the circulating float further. That dynamic can magnify even moderate inflows into a pronounced price rise.

Macroeconomic factors are reinforcing these tailwinds. Markets broadly expect the U. S. Federal Reserve to shift toward a less restrictive stance in the months ahead, which would lower the opportunity cost of holding a risk asset like Bitcoin. Inflation pressures, geopolitical uncertainty, and currency devaluation narratives have been pushing capital toward non-sovereign stores of value — a trend some asset allocators perceive as supportive for digital assets.

Kalshi itself has expanded rapidly. In October 2025, the company announced growth into over 140 countries following a $300 million funding round that values it at $5 billion. This capital boost is intended to improve infrastructure, broaden partnerships, and scale its product stack beyond simple yes/no event contracts. The valuation surge underscores confidence in prediction markets as a means of tapping collective foresight.

Kalshi is currently viewed as a leader in the prediction-market space, outpacing rivals like Polymarket. As of mid-October, Kalshi’s valuation exceeds that of Polymarket by a wide margin, though the latter retains star appeal in crypto circles.

BlackRock chief executive Larry Fink asserted that cryptocurrencies carry a role akin to gold in investment portfolios, calling Bitcoin “a decent tool for diversification” while warning that it should not form a major slice of one’s holdings.

Speaking on 60 Minutes on CBS, Fink said: “There is a role for crypto in the same way there is a role for gold … For those looking to diversify, it is not a bad asset, but I don’t believe that it should be a large component of your portfolio.”

Fink’s remarks mark a notable shift from earlier positions. In the past, he dismissed Bitcoin as a facilitator of money laundering, stating that none of his clients expressed interest in crypto. The evolution of his thought underscores how digital assets have moved further into mainstream investment discourse.

His comments come amid rising institutional engagement with digital asset markets, with BlackRock among firms championing the development of spot Bitcoin ETFs. The firm has also begun pushing into tokenization, envisioning the conversion of traditional financial products such as equities, bonds or real estate into digital token formats. Fink described tokenization of all assets as “the next wave of opportunity” over the coming decades.

Analysts view Fink’s balanced tone—acknowledging both potential and restraint—as calibrated for the climate of heightened volatility and regulatory uncertainty in crypto markets. He is signalling openness without forfeiting caution.

Some investors welcomed the endorsement as validation from one of finance’s most influential figures, though sceptics note that Fink’s insistence on limiting crypto to a small portfolio slice reflects enduring reservations.

Crypto proponents point out that Bitcoin’s often low correlation with equities or bonds—and its non-sovereign character—make it attractive as a diversification instrument. BlackRock itself in earlier internal research has characterised Bitcoin as a “unique diversifier,” citing its tendency to behave differently from traditional assets during episodes of macro stress.

Yet the environment remains fraught. Price swings, regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions, and infrastructure challenges continue to deter widespread adoption. For instance, debates persist around how to regulate digital assets, custody risks, taxation, and classification.

OwlTing, a Taiwan-based fintech focussed on stablecoin infrastructure, is set to begin trading its Class A common shares on the Nasdaq via direct listing on 16 October under the ticker “OWLS”. The move marks what the company calls a milestone in its evolution from hospitality and e-commerce into a compliance–led blockchain payments firm.

In its public filings, OwlTing reported revenue of US 7.6 million in 2024 and a payment volume across its platforms of approximately US 218 million. Though still unprofitable, the listing underscores growing confidence in the fragmented stablecoin infrastructure space.

The listing comes at a moment when several high-profile developments are shaping the stablecoin and payments ecosystem. Stripe’s Bridge unit is reportedly preparing to apply for a federal banking charter, aiming to navigate evolving U. S. stablecoin regulation. Meanwhile, major financial and technology firms are said to be in advanced talks to acquire BVNK, a London-based stablecoin platform.

OwlTing’s pivot from hospitality and blockchain traceability to payments and stablecoin services has been underway for some years. Its OwlPay platform enables businesses to accept stablecoins or fiat and settle globally. The company has obtained money transmitter licences in multiple U. S. states and holds themselves out as a “compliance-first” operator in a space that often struggles with regulatory uncertainty.

By listing via direct listing rather than a traditional IPO, OwlTing seeks to avoid dilution of existing shares and allow market-based price discovery. The company will ring the Nasdaq opening bell on 16 October to commemorate the debut. Analysts view the listing as Asia’s first fintech with a pure direct listing on Nasdaq, positioning OwlTing as a regional trailblazer in blockchain payments.

In parallel, Stripe’s ambitions in stablecoin continue to intensify. Its Bridge arm, acquired earlier this year, is now seeking a national trust charter to get ahead of U. S. regulation on digital assets and stablecoins. The charter would permit holding deposits and issuing stablecoins more directly under U. S. oversight.

Roughly $706 million in leveraged crypto positions were liquidated over the past 24 hours, with long bets accounting for $456 million and shorts making up more than $249 million, according to Coinglass data. Ethereum led by asset class with $234 million in liquidations, Bitcoin followed with $168 million, and other altcoins totaled about $68 million. Meanwhile, U. S. spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs recorded sharp capital withdrawals of $326 million and $428 million respectively, marking a second straight session of outflows for both.

The wave of forced sell-offs comes amid intensifying volatility across crypto markets, driven by macro uncertainties and amplified leverage. Analysts point to U. S.–China trade tensions and abrupt tariff escalations as triggers that rattled institutional positioning. The ensuing “flight to safety” saw leveraged traders squeezed out, pushing volatility higher.

Ethereum’s dominance in the liquidation mix underscores its exposure to leveraged structures: its liquidations outpaced Bitcoin by roughly 40%. That suggests traders running shorter time horizons or more aggressive leverage in the ETH derivatives market. Some observers interpret this as symptomatic of recent rotations within crypto capital flows, where speculative bets on altcoins become more vulnerable during stressed conditions.

ETF outflows add another layer to the stress narrative. The $326 million pulled from spot Bitcoin ETFs and the $428 million withdrawn from Ethereum ETFs reflect a broader retreat by institutional capital. For Ethereum ETFs, Monday’s $428 million exodus represented the steepest daily outflow in several weeks. Within those redemptions, BlackRock’s ETHA alone led with over $310 million withdrawn.

Those moves reverse inflows seen in prior weeks: Ethereum funds had aggregate positive flows of nearly $488 million in the prior week, while Bitcoin products had also drawn substantial capital. Market analysts caution, however, that the shifts may not signal structural withdrawal from crypto exposure but rather tactical repositioning under duress.

Volatility in derivatives markets has drawn scrutiny to structural stress points. Funding rates, margin requirements, and thin liquidity in some trading venues magnify the impacts of sudden directional moves. Experts suggest that while ETF outflows may exacerbate short-term weakness, sustained pressure will hinge on macro stability.

Tether has agreed to pay $299.5 million to the Celsius Network bankruptcy estate, resolving long-standing disputes over Bitcoin collateral transfers tied to Celsius’s collapse in 2022. The deal was announced by the Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium, a joint venture between GXD Labs and VanEck, acting as litigation administrator and asset recovery manager for Celsius’s creditors.

The settlement brings closure to adversary claims filed in August 2024 in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Celsius had contended that Tether improperly liquidated Bitcoin collateral backing loans denominated in USDT, executing sales when Bitcoin’s market value closely matched Celsius’s debt — thereby undermining the lender’s position. Under the agreement, those claims will be dismissed, though the broader wind-down of Celsius remains ongoing.

BRIC was appointed by Celsius’s debtors and the unsecured creditors committee in January 2024 to steer recovery efforts of illiquid assets and litigation claims. According to BRIC’s announcement, the payment reflects a negotiated resolution consistent with maximizing returns for creditors. David Proman of GXD Labs remarked on the “timeliness” of the settlement and the objective of concluding contentious matters against Tether.

While $299.5 million is a substantial sum, it accounts for a relatively small fraction of the total claims Celsius had pursued—estimated at approximately $4 billion. Tether’s side had resisted full liability, positioning its role as merely transactional rather than one bearing responsibility for downstream collateral use, a stance it has maintained in past legal challenges. Some observers interpret the settlement as signalling heightened legal risks for stablecoin issuers in future insolvency contexts, where courts may scrutinize the proximity of collateral actions to debtor collapse.

The settlement does not necessarily foreclose other claims linked to the Celsius wind-down. BRIC remains responsible for managing a portfolio of residual litigation and illiquid digital assets, with the aim of continuing creditor recovery. The deal, in effect, removes one major legal obstacle in a broader restructuring process that has spanned years.

Market reaction has been muted. Crypto stakeholders and legal analysts are now closely watching whether regulators or courts will treat this settlement as a template—potentially influencing how stablecoin issuers are held to account in distressed scenarios. Some argue that issuers will face increased pressure to adopt stronger governance and compliance frameworks to mitigate similar exposures. Others caution against overinterpreting the settlement as an admission of liability.

The Bank of North Dakota and payments firm Fiserv have unveiled plans for a dollar-backed digital token dubbed “Roughrider,” to be deployed among banks and credit unions in 2026 as a new instrument for interbank settlement. The token, restricted initially to participating financial institutions, aims to accelerate and modernise bank-to-bank transactions within the state.

Under the agreement, Roughrider will be built on Fiserv’s digital asset infrastructure, leveraging the platform’s framework to interoperate with other stablecoins. The Bank of North Dakota becomes the first U. S. state bank to issue a stablecoin on Fiserv’s platform. The initiative targets enhanced liquidity, streamlined payments, and potential expansion into merchant adoption.

Governor Kelly Armstrong cast the move as bold institutional innovation, positioning the state as a testing ground for blockchain-enabled finance. “We’re entering a new era,” he said, emphasising that North Dakota financial institutions must embrace evolving money-movement tools. Fiserv’s COO Takis Georgakopoulos described Roughrider as merging the stability of traditional banking with the agility of distributed ledger technology.

State officials say the Industrial Commission, which oversees the bank, must approve the pilot plan. Once greenlit, the rollout will begin with a small cohort of local institutions. BND President and CEO Don Morgan noted that any costs from development will rest on the bank’s balance sheet rather than state taxpayer funding. The legal team of Troutman Pepper Locke has advised the bank in structuring the deal.

The federal legislative environment played a crucial role: in July, Congress passed the GENIUS Act, providing stablecoin issuers with a national regulatory framework requiring full backing by high-quality assets, transparency rules, and audit requirements. North Dakota’s scheme is built to align with those standards.

While Wyoming’s Frontier Stable Token launched in August and is available for public use, North Dakota’s strategy is more conservative. Roughrider will begin as a wholesale instrument; public or consumer-facing use is not part of the first phase. Some stakeholders view it as a deliberate step to mitigate operational and financial risks before broader deployment.

Analysts say North Dakota offers a lower-complexity environment for experimentation. With BND being the only state-owned bank in the U. S., the state provides a more controlled setting to work through technical, legal, and compliance challenges. If successful, the model could be scaled beyond North Dakota’s borders or adopted by others.

Banks and credit unions participating in the pilot stand to benefit from faster settlement, reduced settlement costs, and simpler liquidity management. But industry voices warn of potential downsides: deposit flight is a concern if stablecoins siphon off customer balances, and state regulators may need more capacity to oversee digital assets.

Fiserv, which serves roughly 10,000 financial institutions and 6 million merchants globally, sees this as an opportunity to embed stablecoin rails within its ecosystem. It launched its own white-label stablecoin platform earlier this year, with FIUSD as its internal token, and views Roughrider as a use case within that infrastructure.