BitMEX is facing a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York seeking the return of 622.66 BTC over alleged forced liquidations and platform misconduct.

The complaint was filed on July 23, 2026, by BKX Services Inc. and David Namdar against HDR Global Trading Limited, Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, Samuel Reed, and Gregory Dwyer, according to public court-monitoring records and related reports. The case is listed under No. 1:26-cv-06259.

The allegations are serious.

The plaintiffs claim BitMEX operated an internal trading desk that had access to customer data and traded against users, while platform freezes allegedly contributed to forced liquidations. The claim seeks the return of more than 622 BTC, valued at roughly $40.7 million.

The important caveat is equally serious: these are allegations at the complaint stage. Wrongdoing has not been proven.

TL;DR

• BitMEX faces a proposed class action seeking the return of 622.66 BTC.
• Plaintiffs allege forced liquidations, platform freezes, and improper internal trading activity.
• The case is at the complaint stage, and the allegations have not been proven.

Why The Case Matters

BitMEX is one of the most important names in crypto derivatives history.

Before perpetual futures became a standard part of the crypto trading landscape, BitMEX helped popularize high-leverage Bitcoin derivatives for a global audience. It shaped trading culture, risk appetite, and the growth of offshore crypto leverage.

That history is why lawsuits involving BitMEX still attract attention.

The claims in this case go directly to issues that have followed crypto derivatives platforms for years: exchange transparency, liquidation mechanics, customer data, insurance funds, server outages, and whether platforms have incentives that conflict with users.

Those are not minor complaints. They sit at the heart of trust in leveraged trading venues.

If traders believe an exchange can freeze during volatility, see customer positioning, or benefit from liquidations, the entire market structure becomes suspect.

Again, these allegations still need to be tested in court. But the themes are familiar to anyone who traded crypto derivatives during earlier cycles.

Forced Liquidations Have Always Been A Flashpoint

Liquidations are part of leveraged trading.

If a trader borrows too much exposure and the market moves against them, the position can be closed automatically to protect the platform and other participants. That is normal in derivatives markets.

The controversy begins when users believe liquidations were not fair.

Was the matching engine working properly? Were users able to close or add margin? Did the platform freeze during volatility? Did the exchange have internal desks with informational advantages? Were insurance funds managed fairly?

Those are the questions that make forced liquidation cases so emotional.

A trader losing money in a fair liquidation is one thing. A trader believing the platform’s own systems made it impossible to manage risk is another.

The BitMEX complaint appears to sit in that second category.

Internal Trading Desk Allegations Raise The Stakes

The claim that an internal trading desk traded against users is especially sensitive.

Crypto exchanges have faced repeated scrutiny over conflicts of interest. In traditional finance, firms are often separated by rules, disclosures, internal controls, and supervision. In crypto, especially in earlier offshore markets, the lines were often less clear.

If an exchange operates a venue, holds customer data, manages liquidations, controls the matching engine, and runs affiliated trading activity, users may worry the playing field is not level.

That is why market structure matters.

Regulated exchanges face restrictions and oversight designed to reduce conflicts. Offshore crypto venues historically operated with fewer clear boundaries. As the industry matures, those older structures are being challenged in courts and by regulators.

The BitMEX case is part of that broader reckoning.

Shutdown Timing Adds Another Layer

The reports around the case also point to BitMEX’s planned termination of operations on September 23, 2026.

That timing adds pressure because users, claimants, and counterparties may want clarity before operations end. A wind-down does not automatically resolve legal exposure. It can actually make litigation and creditor questions more urgent.

If users believe assets or claims remain unresolved, they may try to preserve rights before the platform disappears from normal operation.

That is why old exchange disputes can resurface late.

Even when a platform is no longer central to daily trading, its past conduct can remain the subject of claims, especially when large BTC amounts are involved.

Allegations Are Not Findings

It is important to keep the legal framing precise.

The plaintiffs have made allegations. The defendants may contest them. The court has not proven wrongdoing. The claim amount, alleged conduct, and case narrative still need to move through legal process.

Crypto coverage often turns complaints into conclusions too quickly. That is risky and unfair.

The correct approach is to report what the complaint alleges, what amount is being sought, who is named, and where the case stands. Anything beyond that needs evidence.

For now, the case is another example of how early crypto market structure disputes continue to echo years later.

BitMEX helped define the offshore derivatives era. Now, claims tied to that era are being tested inside traditional courts.

That contrast says a lot about where crypto has gone: from loosely governed leverage markets to legal fights over exactly how those markets were run.

This article is based on public court-monitoring records and related legal reporting on the proposed BitMEX class action.

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

This report is based on information released in disclosures at primary source documentation.

The CLARITY Act appears unlikely to move through the Senate before the August recess, slowing the crypto market structure push at a moment when the industry had hoped for faster progress.

The bill, formally listed on Congress.gov as H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, is designed to create clearer rules for digital asset markets. Reported comments from Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicate the bill is unlikely to get a vote before lawmakers leave for the August break.

That does not mean the bill is dead.

It does mean the timeline has slipped, with unresolved disputes over ethics provisions now sitting in the middle of the process. Democrats have reportedly pushed for stricter rules to prevent public officials from holding or profiting from digital asset transactions.

For crypto firms waiting on market structure clarity, that delay matters.

TL;DR

• The CLARITY Act is unlikely to receive a Senate vote before the August recess.
• The bill is delayed, not dead.
• Ethics provisions involving public officials and digital asset holdings remain a key sticking point.

Why This Bill Matters To Crypto

Crypto’s US policy problem has always been bigger than one agency.

The SEC, CFTC, Treasury, banking regulators, state agencies, courts, and Congress all touch different parts of the market. That has created years of uncertainty over which assets are securities, which are commodities, how exchanges should register, how custody should work, and what rules should apply to intermediaries.

The CLARITY Act is part of the effort to clean that up.

Market structure legislation matters because it can define the lanes. If passed, it could help determine how digital asset trading platforms, issuers, brokers, custodians, and regulators interact. That is why the industry watches every scheduling update.

A delay does not erase the bill. But it does push back the moment when firms might get clearer rules.

For an industry that has spent years asking Congress to act, another delay feels familiar.

Ethics Provisions Are Not A Side Issue

The reported dispute over ethics provisions is politically important.

Crypto is no longer a niche policy topic. Public officials, campaign finance, token holdings, family business interests, and digital asset transactions have all become part of the political debate. Lawmakers who support market structure legislation may still disagree sharply over whether public officials should face restrictions on holding or profiting from crypto assets.

That can slow the bill even if there is broader agreement that digital asset rules need clarity.

The ethics question creates a difficult negotiation.

Some lawmakers may see strict restrictions as necessary to protect public trust. Others may view them as politically targeted or unrelated to the core market structure framework. Until that dispute is resolved, the legislation may struggle to move.

That is why the delay matters. It is not only about calendar pressure. It is about what has to be settled before the bill can progress.

September Becomes The Next Window

If the bill misses the August recess window, attention shifts to September or later.

That is not unusual in Washington, but markets tend to dislike uncertain timelines. Crypto firms, exchanges, investors, and lobbyists all have to adjust expectations around when legislative clarity might arrive.

The bill could still move later. It could be amended. It could become part of a broader negotiation. It could stall and return in another form. None of that is settled yet.

So the correct framing is delay, not defeat.

That nuance matters because crypto headlines often swing too hard. A missed vote window is not the same as abandonment. But it does mean the political path is harder than a simple “pro-crypto bill advances” narrative.

The Industry Still Needs A Legislative Answer

Without market structure legislation, the US crypto industry remains stuck in a fragmented system.

The SEC will continue to assert authority where it sees securities activity. The CFTC will remain central to derivatives and commodity-market oversight. Courts will keep deciding individual disputes. Firms will keep asking for rules that match the way digital asset markets actually operate.

That is not an ideal way to build a market.

Enforcement and litigation can clarify some issues, but they are slow and case-specific. Legislation can create broader rules, if lawmakers can agree on the details.

The CLARITY Act is one of the most visible attempts to do that.

Its delay shows how hard the work remains.

Crypto Policy Is Moving, Just Not Smoothly

The bigger picture is not that Washington has ignored crypto. It clearly has not.

Stablecoin legislation, market structure bills, SEC-CFTC debates, custody discussions, enforcement actions, and campaign finance concerns all show that digital assets are now a serious policy area. The problem is that serious policy areas move slowly.

That can be frustrating for builders and investors who are used to crypto speed.

But this is what it looks like when an industry moves from the edge into the political center. More people care, more committees get involved, and more unrelated concerns attach themselves to the bill.

For crypto, the next few months may be less about whether lawmakers support digital asset clarity in theory, and more about whether they can agree on the political guardrails around it.

The CLARITY Act remains alive, but the pre-recess window appears to be closing.

That makes September the next key test.

This article is based on Congress.gov records for H.R. 3633 and reported comments on the Senate schedule.

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

This report is based on information released in disclosures at primary source documentation.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev’s X account was compromised to promote a fake memecoin, giving crypto another reminder that social engineering still works best when it hijacks trust.

Robinhood Communications confirmed the incident in a post on X, saying Tenev’s account had been compromised and that the company worked with X to resolve the issue. The fraudulent posts promoted a fake token called “Vladhood,” claiming it was tied to Robinhood Chain and would be listed on the trading platform.

The scam posts were removed, but not before on-chain reports indicated the attackers extracted roughly 650 to 690 ETH, worth around $1.2 million to $1.3 million at the time.

This is a security story, but it is also a psychology story.

The attack worked because the message appeared to come from someone users recognized, at a moment when crypto traders are already primed to chase early token launches, chain announcements, and “official” ecosystem assets.

TL;DR

• Vlad Tenev’s X account was compromised to promote a fake memecoin.
• Robinhood Communications confirmed the hack and said the issue was resolved with X.
• Scam links and contract details should not be amplified.

Why High-Profile X Hacks Still Work

Crypto users like to think they are more skeptical than ordinary internet users.

Sometimes they are. They know about phishing, wallet drains, fake airdrops, malicious links, and impersonator accounts. But when a real account belonging to a real public figure is compromised, the defensive instinct weakens.

That is why these attacks keep happening.

A scam posted from a random account is easy to ignore. A scam posted from the personal account of a CEO, founder, exchange leader, or major investor feels different. The profile has history. The follower count is real. The branding may look familiar. If the post is timed around an ecosystem narrative, it can feel plausible for just long enough.

That short window is all scammers need.

In this case, the fake token leaned on Robinhood Chain branding, which made the post feel connected to an actual market narrative. Users who believed they were early to an official launch may have acted before checking confirmation channels.

The Scam Details Should Not Be Spread

One important rule in covering these incidents is not to help the scam.

That means avoiding direct links to malicious sites, scam contracts, or claim pages. Even after a scam is exposed, users may still click out of curiosity, bots may scrape links, and copycat attempts can appear.

The useful details are the structure and warning signs, not the active trap.

The structure here is familiar: compromised high-profile account, fake official token claim, urgency, brand hijacking, and a link that pushes users toward a malicious transaction or purchase.

The lesson for users is simple, but difficult to follow in the moment: never treat a social post alone as proof of a token launch, especially when money is involved.

Check official company accounts. Check the website directly by typing the URL yourself. Check exchange announcements. Wait for multiple confirmations. And if a post is pushing urgency, assume that urgency is part of the attack.

Robinhood’s Brand Made The Scam More Dangerous

Robinhood is not a fringe crypto brand.

It is a major retail trading platform with mainstream users, public-company visibility, and growing crypto ambitions. That makes any Robinhood-linked token narrative especially dangerous, because users may believe the platform could actually launch or list a token tied to its chain strategy.

Scammers understand that.

They do not need to invent a completely random story. They only need to attach a fake token to something plausible enough to create a rush.

That is why brand security is becoming more important for crypto companies and financial platforms. A compromised executive account can become a real financial attack surface. It is not just reputational embarrassment. It can produce direct losses for users who trust the wrong post.

Social Platforms Remain A Crypto Weak Point

Crypto’s relationship with X is complicated.

The platform is where many projects announce launches, developers discuss updates, traders share information, and communities coordinate. It is also where phishing, impersonation, hacked accounts, fake airdrops, and malicious token promotions spread quickly.

That speed is part of the appeal and the danger.

Even when a company acts quickly, scams can move faster. A hacked post can generate millions of impressions in minutes. Wallets can interact almost instantly. Funds can move before the account is recovered.

Better platform security helps, but users still need defensive habits.

Two-factor authentication, hardware keys, internal posting controls, and rapid incident response matter for executives and companies. For users, the best defense is refusing to connect wallets or send funds based on a single social post.

The Bigger Lesson

The Tenev account compromise is not unusual because it is technically exotic. It is notable because it shows how old scam mechanics still work inside new crypto narratives.

Trust a public figure. Invent an official-sounding token. Create urgency. Capture funds quickly. Disappear before the full correction spreads.

That pattern has survived multiple market cycles because it targets human behavior more than code.

For Robinhood, the immediate issue appears to have been resolved. For users, the broader warning remains.

In crypto, the account posting the message matters, but it is not enough. The stronger the brand, the more attractive it becomes to attackers. And when money can move instantly, even a short-lived compromise can be expensive.

This article is based on Robinhood Communications’ confirmation of the X account compromise.

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

This report is based on information released in disclosures at primary source documentation.

Bitcoin Magazine

Morgan Stanley Bitcoin ETF Nearly Notches $400M in Assets

Wall Street giant Morgan Stanley Bitcoin exchange-traded fund now has close to $400 million in assets under management — despite only launching in April. 

The NYSE Arca-listed fund, which is the first by a bank, got off to a roaring start when it debuted, bringing in over $33 million in fresh cash on its first day. 

Now, the fund has over $391 million in assets, demonstrating the popularity of the product. Many ETFs never reach $400 million in assets at all, let alone in one quarter.

Senior Bloomberg Intelligence ETF analyst Eric Balchunas revealed Friday that the product has been one of the most successful funds launched this year so far. 

This week alone, investors have thrown $15.7 million in new cash at the product, according to Farside Investors data. 

Morgan Stanley has been making big crypto moves for years now. Back in 2021, it started offering wealthy clients exposure to Bitcoin via funds such as those by Galaxy Digital.

And last year, the bank’s CEO and Chairman, Ted Pick, said that the bank was working with regulators to see how they could offer crypto safely.

Back in April, the bank’s head of digital assets, Amy Oldenburg said client education — not product design — is the central challenge facing Bitcoin adoption.

ETF action this week

After weeks of outflows and sloppy price action, American Bitcoin ETFs have taken in fresh cash over the past seven days. 

Farside Investors shows the products have received a total of $274 million in new investment so far this week. 

The funds had been on a winning streak, receiving nearly $1 billion over seven days until Thursday, when every ETF experienced outflows — except for Morgan Stanley’s product. 

Bitcoin’s price was recently trading for $64,096, down over 1% over the past 24 hours. The cryptocurrency is virtually unmoved over a seven-day period. 

European asset management firm CoinShares last week said that while investors are back at putting fresh cash in Bitcoin ETFs, other factors may hold digital asset markets from going higher. 

“We see no significant upside potential from here,” James Butterfill, head of research at CoinShares, wrote.

This post Morgan Stanley Bitcoin ETF Nearly Notches $400M in Assets first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

The exchange, already sanctioned by the UK, is now on a list of 18 entities “providing crypto-assets services or payment services“ in defiance of the EU’s measures against Russia.

Poolin Technology has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, setting up an orderly wind-down and asset sale process tied to its West Texas mining operations.

The filing was made on July 22, 2026, in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey under Case No. 26-18325. Poolin Technology PTE. Ltd. and its US affiliates, Lonestar Dream Inc. and Lonestar Taproot LLC, are listed in the case.

The filing details a $52 million stalking-horse bid from Thor CALAP LLC for the company’s Pyote and Tarbush mining sites in West Texas. Poolin’s prepetition liabilities stand at $173.1 million, including $163.7 million in unsecured IOUs owed to roughly 11,700 Poolin Wallet users after withdrawals were frozen in 2022.

That last detail is the real weight of the story.

This is not just a mining-asset sale. It is another reminder that the damage from the last cycle’s freezes, failures, and stranded user balances is still working through courts years later.

TL;DR

• Poolin Technology and affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on July 22.
• The case includes a proposed $52 million stalking-horse sale for West Texas mining sites.
• The company lists $163.7 million in unsecured IOUs owed to around 11,700 Poolin Wallet users.

Poolin’s Mining Assets Are Only Part Of The Story

Bitcoin mining bankruptcies are often discussed through the lens of equipment, energy costs, debt, and hashrate.

That makes sense. Mining is a capital-heavy business. Operators borrow money, buy machines, negotiate power, build facilities, and then hope Bitcoin prices, difficulty, and electricity costs line up well enough to keep margins alive.

But Poolin’s case has another layer.

The company’s liabilities include user IOUs from the Poolin Wallet withdrawal freeze. That makes the bankruptcy more personal than a normal mining-site restructuring. There are users who have been waiting since 2022 for access to funds or some form of recovery.

That changes the tone.

A $52 million asset sale may help create value for the estate, but it has to be measured against much larger liabilities. A bankruptcy process can organize claims and assets, but it rarely makes everyone whole when the gap is this large.

The Texas Sites Get A Floor Bid

The stalking-horse bid is important because it creates a starting point for the sale.

In bankruptcy, a stalking-horse bidder sets a baseline offer for assets. Other bidders may come in higher, but the initial bid helps prevent a distressed sale from starting with no floor at all.

Here, Thor CALAP LLC’s $52 million bid relates to Poolin’s Pyote and Tarbush mining sites in West Texas.

Those assets may still have value because mining infrastructure is difficult to build. Power access, land, equipment, grid arrangements, and operating history can all matter, even when the company behind the assets is distressed.

Bitcoin mining sites can change hands and continue operating under new ownership if the economics make sense.

That is likely what creditors will be watching.

Can the sale price improve? Can the assets attract more bidders? Can the estate recover more value than the floor bid?

The User IOUs Remain The Hard Part

The user liabilities are much harder.

Poolin Wallet users were left with unsecured IOUs after withdrawals were frozen. In bankruptcy terms, unsecured creditors often face the most uncertainty, especially when asset values are far below total claims.

That does not mean there will be no recovery. It means expectations need to be realistic.

A mining-asset sale can help, but the numbers show why this is not a simple fix. The estate has to deal with administrative costs, secured claims if any, sale processes, creditor priorities, and the broader balance of liabilities.

For users, the process may feel painfully slow because bankruptcy is not designed for speed. It is designed to sort claims, preserve value, and distribute proceeds according to legal priorities.

That can be frustrating when users have already waited years.

Bitcoin Mining Still Carries Cycle Risk

Poolin’s filing also fits a broader pattern in Bitcoin mining.

Mining businesses can look strong in bull markets and become fragile very quickly when conditions change. A falling Bitcoin price, rising difficulty, higher energy costs, expensive debt, or poor treasury management can put pressure on even well-known operators.

The industry has professionalized, but it remains cyclical.

Public miners now talk more about energy strategy, high-performance computing, AI partnerships, debt discipline, and treasury management. That is partly because the old model of simply adding hashrate and hoping for higher BTC prices is not enough.

Poolin’s bankruptcy shows the other side of the sector.

Mining assets can survive, but corporate structures may fail. Facilities may be sold. Users and creditors may spend years waiting for recovery.

A Wind-Down, Not A Comeback Story

The key point is not to frame this as a classic turnaround.

The filing indicates an orderly wind-down and asset liquidation process. That is different from a company restructuring around a new growth plan.

Poolin’s West Texas sites may find a buyer. Creditors may recover some value. The bankruptcy court may bring order to a messy situation. But the story is not really about Poolin returning as a stronger miner.

It is about resolving what is left.

For the broader crypto market, this is another post-cycle cleanup story. The names change, but the pattern is familiar: frozen user funds, distressed assets, legal claims, and a long wait for recovery.

Bitcoin mining may be entering a more mature energy and infrastructure phase, but older failures are still being unwound.

Poolin’s Chapter 11 case is one more example of that long tail.

This article is based on public bankruptcy case references for Poolin Technology PTE. Ltd. and related case-monitoring materials.

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

This report is based on information released in disclosures at primary source documentation.

Kraken is bringing perpetual futures to eligible US traders through a regulated derivatives structure, and that is a notable shift for a product category that has usually lived outside the US market.

The exchange said the product is offered through NinjaTrader Clearing, LLC, doing business as Kraken Derivatives US, a CFTC-registered Futures Commission Merchant. The contracts are listed on Bitnomial Exchange, LLC, a CFTC-regulated Designated Contract Market.

That structure is the point.

Perpetual futures have been one of crypto’s most important trading products for years, but US users have largely been locked out of the offshore perpetuals market unless they used platforms they were not supposed to access. Kraken’s move gives eligible US traders a regulated route into a familiar derivatives format.

It does not mean unregulated perpetuals are suddenly legal in the US. It does not mean Kraken is launching a new spot product. It means one of crypto’s largest exchanges is trying to fit a historically offshore product into a US derivatives framework.

TL;DR

• Kraken has announced CFTC-regulated perpetual futures access for eligible US traders.
• The product runs through Kraken Derivatives US and Bitnomial Exchange.
• This is a regulated derivatives product, not spot trading or offshore-style unregulated perpetuals.

Why Perpetuals Matter So Much In Crypto

Perpetual futures are one of the engines of crypto trading.

Unlike standard futures contracts, perpetuals do not expire in the same way. Traders use them to take leveraged long or short positions, hedge spot exposure, manage basis trades, and speculate on price moves without constantly rolling contracts.

Outside the US, perpetuals are everywhere.

They are central to liquidity on major offshore exchanges and decentralized derivatives platforms. In many cases, perpetual markets are where crypto price discovery happens fastest, especially during volatile periods.

That has left the US in an awkward position.

American traders can access regulated futures on venues like CME, but the perpetual format has been harder to offer inside US rules. Offshore platforms built massive businesses around these products while US exchanges had to operate under a much stricter framework.

Kraken’s launch is interesting because it tries to close that gap without stepping outside the regulatory perimeter.

Regulation Changes The Product Feel

A CFTC-regulated perpetual is not the same as the offshore version many crypto traders know.

The product has to exist within a framework of regulated intermediaries, exchange rules, customer protections, margin requirements, clearing processes, surveillance, and compliance obligations. That may make it less wild than the offshore perpetuals market, but that is exactly what makes it possible for US traders.

Some traders will prefer the offshore feel: higher leverage, fewer restrictions, broader token lists, and faster product launches.

But institutions and regulated US users usually care about something different. They need legal certainty, custody clarity, counterparty standards, and a venue that can be used without compliance teams saying no.

That is where Kraken’s regulated setup has an opening.

It may not attract every degen trader, but it can appeal to traders who want perpetual-style exposure inside a clearer rulebook.

Kraken Is Building A US Derivatives Lane

Kraken has been pushing deeper into derivatives, and this announcement fits a broader strategy.

The exchange already has a strong spot-trading brand, but the real competition in crypto is increasingly about who can offer the full stack: spot, margin, futures, custody, staking, institutional services, and regulated derivatives.

For US users, that stack is harder to build than in many other jurisdictions.

A product has to fit the rules. The exchange has to work with the right entities. The legal structure has to be precise. That makes the rollout slower, but it can also create a more durable business if the products gain traction.

Kraken’s perpetual futures launch suggests the US market may slowly get access to products that resemble the global crypto trading toolkit, but through regulated wrappers.

That is not as flashy as offshore leverage, but it may be more important long term.

The Competitive Question

The bigger question is whether regulated perpetuals can become liquid enough to matter.

A derivatives product lives or dies by liquidity. Traders need tight spreads, reliable execution, good margin treatment, and enough open interest to enter and exit positions efficiently. If liquidity is thin, even a compliant product can struggle.

Kraken has distribution, but it still has to build market depth.

CME has already shown that regulated crypto derivatives can become a major institutional venue. Offshore exchanges have shown that perpetuals can dominate retail and professional crypto trading. Kraken’s opportunity is somewhere between those worlds.

If it can give US traders a perpetual-like experience with enough liquidity and regulatory comfort, the product could become a meaningful new lane.

If liquidity does not develop, it may remain more of a compliance milestone than a market-structure shift.

US Crypto Derivatives Are Maturing

The broader read is that US crypto derivatives are becoming more sophisticated.

For years, the US debate was often framed around what traders could not access. Now, exchanges are trying to build versions of crypto-native products that can survive inside the US framework.

That matters because derivatives are not a side market. They shape liquidity, hedging, volatility, and institutional participation.

Kraken’s launch does not end the offshore perpetuals era, and it does not open the door to every crypto product under the sun. But it does show that regulated US venues are starting to absorb more of the trading formats that made crypto markets grow globally.

For traders, that means more choice.

For regulators, it means a chance to bring activity into supervised venues.

For Kraken, it is a bet that the US wants crypto derivatives, but wants them built the hard way: with registration, rules, and market infrastructure.

This article is based on Kraken’s announcement of CFTC-regulated perpetual futures for US traders.

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

This report is based on information released in disclosures at primary source documentation.

Bitcoin Magazine

$7 Trillion Investment Giant Fidelity Backs New Crypto Clarity Act

Investment giant Fidelity is the latest big player to back the latest version of the long-awaited Clarity Act. 

The Boston-based firm’s “Public Policy” account on X said Friday that it was urging the Senate to pass the bill. 

Lawmakers have been hashing out the crypto market structure bill since last year. A new improved draft circulating the Senate this week bans officials and their families from issuing or promoting crypto — a sticking point for opposition politicians. 

“The time is now for clear rules of the road that are essential to strengthening investor confidence, providing certainty for market participants, and reinforcing U.S. leadership in global digital asset markets,” the company said. 

Fidelity — which manages around $7 trillion in assets — was joined Friday by crypto advocacy groups the Crypto Council for Innovation, Blockchain Association, and the Digital Chamber, as well as the National Fraternal Order of Police and other politicians in backing the bill. 

Top asset manager Fidelity is interested in the bill as the firm manages Bitcoin and other digital asset exchange-traded funds: products which give American investors exposure to crypto via shares that trade on stock exchanges. 

The SEC approved a number of spot BTC ETFs in 2024, which have since gone on to be some of the most successful ETF launches ever. 

Clarity stalls

Republicans passed the Clarity Act last year but the bill has been in deadlock — mainly because banking chiefs raised concerns over stablecoins and the yield they would potentially pay customers. 

Coinbase pulled support for the bill in January after clashing with banking bigwigs who said that earning yield on stablecoins should be banned. 

U.S. banks argue that they could lose customers if crypto exchanges like Coinbase offer more attractive products for their deposit base. 

Some lawmakers — like Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren — have argued that President Donald Trump’s family has unfairly benefited from crypto ventures. 

Warren this week argued that the Clarity Act could further be used for Trump to cash in on crypto but the latest draft bans officials and their families from issuing or promoting crypto. 

This post $7 Trillion Investment Giant Fidelity Backs New Crypto Clarity Act first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Jan3 CEO Samson Mow says the recovery could signal renewed confidence in preferred-share products used by Bitcoin treasury companies.

Elliptic has published a new report explaining how Bitcoin ATM scams work, and the most useful part is not the usual warning that scammers exist. It is the transaction path.

The report describes how fraudsters manipulate victims, often elderly people, into depositing cash at physical crypto kiosks. Once the cash is converted into crypto, the funds move into wallets controlled by scammers. From there, the money can be routed through additional addresses, services, or laundering pathways.

That makes Bitcoin ATM fraud different from a normal card scam.

The victim may start with cash, but the loss quickly becomes an on-chain tracing problem. Financial institutions, compliance teams, and investigators then need to follow the crypto transaction flow rather than only look at a bank transfer.

Elliptic’s point is that blockchain analytics can help identify those paths, flag scam-linked addresses, and support recovery or law enforcement work when the right intermediaries are involved.

TL;DR

• Elliptic’s report explains how Bitcoin ATM scams move victim funds from cash deposits into scammer-controlled wallets.
• The report highlights blockchain tracing as a tool for identifying fraud paths.
• Elliptic provides analytics; it does not itself freeze funds or act as an enforcement agency.

Why Bitcoin ATMs Are Used In Scams

Bitcoin ATMs create a bridge between physical cash and digital assets.

That can be useful for legitimate users, but it also creates an opening for scammers. A fraudster can pressure a victim to withdraw cash, visit a kiosk, scan a QR code, and send funds without fully understanding what is happening.

Once the crypto transfer is complete, reversing it is difficult.

That is why scammers like the method. It moves money quickly, and the victim may not realize the transaction is irreversible until it is too late.

The victims are often manipulated through fear or urgency. They may be told they owe money, that an account is compromised, that a loved one is in danger, or that they need to move funds for safety. By the time they reach the ATM, the scammer has already controlled the emotional setup.

The machine is just the final step.

Cash Becomes An On-Chain Investigation

What makes these scams interesting from a compliance perspective is the shift from cash to blockchain.

The victim starts with physical money, but once the transaction is made, investigators can follow a public ledger. That does not mean recovery is easy. It does mean the movement of funds can leave a trail.

Blockchain analytics firms like Elliptic can identify wallet clusters, trace flows, flag addresses associated with known scams, and help institutions recognize suspicious deposits or withdrawals.

This matters for banks and crypto businesses.

A bank may see the cash withdrawal before the ATM transaction. A crypto exchange may later see funds arrive from an address linked to scams. Law enforcement may need to connect both sides of the flow.

The more quickly those patterns are identified, the better chance there is of disrupting the laundering path.

The Elderly Victim Problem

One uncomfortable part of Bitcoin ATM fraud is who gets targeted.

Scammers frequently go after elderly victims because they may be more vulnerable to intimidation, less familiar with crypto, or more likely to comply when someone pretends to be from a bank, government agency, or law enforcement.

That is not a crypto-only problem. Elder fraud exists across gift cards, wire transfers, payment apps, and bank fraud. But Bitcoin ATMs can make the final transfer hard to reverse.

This is why education matters.

If someone is being told to deposit cash into a Bitcoin ATM to solve a tax problem, secure a bank account, pay a fine, or help a family member, it is almost certainly a scam.

Kiosk operators, banks, and local authorities have tried warnings, transaction limits, and compliance checks, but scammers adapt quickly.

Analytics Helps, But It Is Not Magic

Elliptic’s report is also a reminder to keep expectations realistic.

Blockchain analytics can help trace funds. It can help institutions screen addresses. It can help law enforcement understand laundering flows. But analytics alone does not freeze assets.

Freezing funds usually requires an exchange, custodian, stablecoin issuer, law enforcement action, or another entity with control over an account or address. If funds move through self-custody wallets or poorly regulated services, recovery becomes harder.

So the value of analytics is speed and visibility.

It can show where funds went, whether they touched known services, and which entities may be able to intervene. That can turn a chaotic scam report into something investigators can act on.

But it does not undo the transfer by itself.

Bitcoin ATM Fraud Is A Compliance Issue, Not A Bitcoin Issue Alone

It would be too easy to frame Bitcoin ATM scams as a reason Bitcoin itself is broken.

That misses the point.

Fraudsters use whatever payment rail helps them move value: bank wires, gift cards, payment apps, cash couriers, checks, crypto, and more. Bitcoin ATMs are one tool in that broader fraud economy.

The real question is how to reduce harm.

That means better warnings at kiosks, stronger transaction monitoring, faster communication between banks and crypto firms, public education for vulnerable users, and better use of blockchain tracing when funds move on-chain.

Elliptic’s report gives compliance teams a clearer view of the mechanics.

The scams begin with manipulation, move through physical cash, and end as digital transactions that can be followed across the blockchain.

Stopping them requires attention at each step.

This article is based on Elliptic’s report explaining how Bitcoin ATM scams work.

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

This report is based on information released in disclosures at primary source documentation.

Bitcoin Magazine

State Department to Debut Freedom Tech Program with Bitcoin Policy Institute, Palantir as Founding Partners

The U.S. State Department is launching a program that includes Bitcoin as a way to advance digital freedom worldwide. 

Named the Freedom Tech Excellence Program, the initiative will see the State Department work with the Bitcoin Policy Institute, data-analytics firm Palantir Technologies, defense technology company Anduril Industries, and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation on issues including online surveillance, encryption, AI governance, and protecting free expression online.

According to the program’s stated goals, participants will focus on five priority areas: First Amendment and free expression protections in the digital age; countering unlawful digital surveillance and online scams; privacy-enhancing technologies such as strong encryption and VPNs; responsible governance of emerging technologies including AI; and safeguarding children and other users online.

The inclusion of the Bitcoin Policy Institute signals that the Department views Bitcoin and blockchain technology as tools relevant to circumventing censorship and financial surveillance in authoritarian states — a theme the organization has long championed in its advocacy work.

The FTEP will operate through limited-term assignments, placing private sector personnel inside the State Department on temporary embeds tasked with shaping diplomatic efforts around specific digital freedom issues. 

President Trump campaigned on a ticket to help the crypto space and since taking office, his government has taken a more pro-crypto approach to both regulating and including elements of the space in his administration. 

In March 2025, for example, President Trump signed an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile, capitalized with roughly 200,000 Bitcoin already held by the government through criminal and civil forfeiture. 

The order framed Bitcoin alongside strategic reserves the U.S. maintains for materials like gold, petroleum, and pharmaceuticals, treating it as a scarce national asset rather than merely a speculative one.

This post State Department to Debut Freedom Tech Program with Bitcoin Policy Institute, Palantir as Founding Partners first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

According to Senator Elizabeth Warren, the House bill “won’t solve the problem“ of insider trading in Congress as lawmakers will still be allowed to own and sell stocks.