News related to
should

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.

By Nantoo Banerjee     There is nothing to be particularly shocked about Tata Capital stocks declining 2.4 percent below the company’s IPO issue price of Rs. 326 per share a day after its debut in intraday trade on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Tata Capital, a Tata Sons subsidiary, made a flat debut on Dalal Street on […]

The article SEBI Fails To Prevent Aggressive IPO Pricing To Protect Investors appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

By Girish Linganna The prisoner-hostage exchange between Israel and Hamas has been completed successfully, and many are calling it a major victory for peace. Twenty Israeli hostages returned home in exchange for about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, aid started flowing back into Gaza, and guns fell silent after months of devastating conflict. But anyone familiar with […]

The article A House Built On Sand: The Fault Lines In Trump’s 20 Point Gaza Peace Plan appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

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.

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.

Dubai — DOOGEE is rolling out a bold “Tech For Nature” showcase at GITEX GLOBAL 2025, positioning itself at the intersection of rugged devices and sustainability. From 13 to 17 October, the company will host its exhibit at booth A40 in Hall 13, where its outdoor-oriented hardware and eco-aware design features will be on full display.

DOOGEE describes the exhibit as centred around its “Tech Impact” zone, a curated space meant to demonstrate how its devices can withstand extreme conditions while serving the needs of explorers, scientists, and rescue personnel. The lineup includes models engineered for shock, heat, immersion, and drops — with features aimed at bridging utility and resilience.

Among the highlight products is the V Max Play, which pairs a high-capacity battery with a 200 MP main camera and integrates a mini projector for on-the-go displays. DOOGEE also plans to exhibit the S200 Ultra, built with aluminium-titanium alloy framing and a rear display for rapid glanceable information. Wearables and peripheral devices are similarly designed for outdoor resilience: the Anywise W1 Pro watch offers dual-band GPS, 5ATM water resistance, and offline map capability, while BoneAir Swim provides bone conduction audio under IP68 waterproof rating.

The firm frames “Tech For Nature” as both a mission and a product philosophy—suggesting that its devices should “coexist with nature” rather than merely tolerate it. In its public communications, DOOGEE emphasises use of sustainable materials and energy-efficient design elements. For instance, it references the use of recycled coffee grounds in casing composites and UV-responsive surfaces that shift hues with ambient light.

DOOGEE is no stranger to rugged or niche technology showcases. Earlier in 2025, the company participated in GITEX Europe, where it spotlighted AI-enhanced rugged devices and wearables built for industrial and outdoor environments. The Dubai event, by contrast, marks its largest commitment yet to the consumer-facing “outdoor tech” narrative.

Analysts note that DOOGEE is entering a competitive space where brands like CAT, Ulefone, and Blackview already target the rugged market segment. To distinguish itself, DOOGEE appears to lean into hybrid positioning: ruggedness plus eco credentials. “The idea is to appeal to users who don’t want to sacrifice environmental sensibility for durability,” commented one industry observer.

GITEX GLOBAL 2025 is itself a major platform: this 45th edition of the event draws participants across AI, quantum, data centres, and startup ecosystems. DOOGEE’s exhibit is aligned with the trend of hardware firms emphasizing sustainability, resilience, and experience-driven product showcases.

Visitors at booth A40 will have hands-on access to the full “Tech For Nature” suite, including tablets, phones, wearables, and audio gear. DOOGEE is also promoting discounts on first orders for attendees and encouraging media and partners to trial devices on-location. Beyond demonstration, the firm is signalling intention to gear up distribution and service channels in regions where demand for rugged outdoor gear is rising.

Ethereum’s value slipped beneath the psychologically and technically significant $4,000 mark today, intensifying fears that the second-largest cryptocurrency may be entering a deeper correction. On Binance, ETH dipped to $3,988.89, down almost 8 per cent in 24 hours.

The abrupt drop triggered widespread liquidations, especially among leveraged positions. On-chain liquidation trackers show nearly $188 million in crypto was liquidated in just one hour during the sharp move.

Persistent macroeconomic headwinds, alongside renewed U. S.–China trade tensions, appear to have compounded selling pressure. The Nasdaq and other equity benchmarks also suffered, amplifying risk aversion among crypto investors.

Technical analysts now view the breakdown below $4,000 as a turning point. From a charting perspective, the fall invalidated previously bullish setups such as bull flags, leaving Ethereum exposed to further downside. One analyst cautioned that extended weakness could push ETH toward the $3,750 to $3,500 zone if pivotal support fails.

Support between $4,200 and $4,300 had held in recent sessions, but now that zone is under siege. Should it collapse, the stage may be set for a retest of $3,900 or lower. Traders are watching whether buyers will defend this corridor or capitulate.

Despite today’s plunge, some investors see accumulation underway. Ethereum’s total on-exchange supply has declined to a nine-year low, with large holders withdrawing ETH from exchanges—an indicator that long-term confidence may still remain intact.

Longer term, expectations remain cautiously optimistic. Standard Chartered recently raised its year-end target for ETH to $7,500, citing heightened institutional adoption and increasing use of the Ethereum network in stablecoin and DeFi infrastructures. Meanwhile, Citigroup offers a more conservative forecast of $4,300 by end-2025, warning that current prices may be more sentiment-driven than fundamentals-rooted.

Major upgrades on Ethereum’s roadmap could yet shift sentiment. Among them: the Glamsterdam upgrade, which integrates enhanced proposer-builder separation. However, a fresh academic study warns of a “free option” risk under high volatility, whereby builders may cancel committed payloads without penalty—posing challenges to network liveness during stress.

In the short term, analysts are split. Some argue that the slide is a healthy reset before ETH resumes an uptrend, provided support zones hold. Others say the breach of $4,000 suggests a loss of momentum strong enough to spark a deeper correction.

Crypto markets are already exhibiting signs of strain beyond Ethereum. Bitcoin is under pressure as well, and risk assets broadly are being squeezed by mixed macro data and higher real-interest rates. Some strategists say the crypto pullback could morph into a broader derisking wave unless fresh catalysts emerge.

Looking ahead, observers point to a few key variables: whether ETH can reclaim and sustain above $4,500; whether buyers will step in at $4,200–$4,300; and whether the network upgrades can deliver tangible improvements to gas, scalability, and decentralisation.