A final stablecoin rule has not ended the argument over rewards. The Bank Policy Institute used its October 24 newsletter to renew criticism of how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency will judge arrangements that pay stablecoin holders through third parties.

• BPI says case-by-case decisions leave stablecoin reward arrangements unclear.
• The dispute concerns implementation of the issuer yield prohibition.
• The OCC says its broader GENIUS Act rule takes effect January 18, 2027.

The disagreement is about how the prohibition is applied

In the newsletter, BPI repeated its October 21 response to the final rule. The banking trade group objects to removal of a proposed presumption covering certain issuer arrangements with third parties. It says the replacement approach lacks a clear process for explaining decisions and making outcomes public.

This is a lobbying position from an organization representing banks. Its concern about deposits moving into stablecoins is a forecast about competitive and financial effects, rather than evidence that the newly finalized rule has already caused a measurable outflow.

The OCC’s announcement presents the rule as a framework covering reserve backing, redemption and risk management. It confirms the January effective date and says separate work will address anti-money-laundering and sanctions requirements. BPI’s criticism addresses one part of that wider framework.

The practical distinction is between a payment token’s reserve income and a customer incentive offered elsewhere in its distribution chain. Identifying who pays, who ultimately funds the payment and what behavior earns it can matter more than whether a product calls the transfer a reward, rebate or yield.

Product design now has a regulatory interpretation problem

Consider two hypothetical offers: a payment app discounts a purchase, while another pays a recurring amount for keeping tokens idle. Both benefit the user, but their commercial purpose, funding and connection to the issuer may differ. Their labels alone cannot establish their treatment under the rule.

That is why published reasoning would be useful beyond the banks lobbying for it. A decision about one arrangement can help other providers understand which features the regulator regarded as decisive. Without that detail, firms may struggle to compare their own structures with earlier cases.

The product boundaries are already becoming more complex. SoFi’s tokenized-deposit plan raises a different set of claims from a payment stablecoin, even when conversion makes the customer experience look continuous.

Meanwhile, stablecoin payment activity measures how tokens are used, not whether an incentive is legally permissible. Operational activity cannot answer the policy question by itself.

The scrutiny of transaction purpose also connects with wallet and financial-crime controls: the institution still needs to understand the economic relationship behind the transfer. For the OCC dispute, the next useful evidence will be supervisory guidance and disclosed decisions, rather than competing descriptions of what the rule should mean.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The FCA is consulting on updated financial crime guidance for crypto businesses, including customer checks, blockchain analytics and the Travel Rule. Responses are due December 24, and the guide itself would not create new rules.

Crypto businesses preparing for the UK’s expanded regulatory regime have a more detailed picture of the controls the Financial Conduct Authority expects them to build.

The regulator’s October 23 consultation proposes changes to its Financial Crime Guide, covering cryptoassets alongside fraud, sanctions, data security and money laundering. The proposals apply to the FCA’s financial crime supervisory population, including cryptoasset businesses and firms overseen under the Money Laundering Regulations.

The practical focus is on how firms assess customers and transactions, and how they react when risk changes. A blockchain record can help an investigation, but a record alone does not decide whether a customer explanation is credible or a transfer needs further scrutiny.

Analytics Must Sit Inside A Working Control System

The consultation paper proposes examples of good and poor practice for enhanced due diligence, onboarding and transaction monitoring. It specifically addresses the use of blockchain analytics and further guidance on the Travel Rule, which concerns information accompanying certain transfers.

The paper also reminds firms that governance must evolve as their businesses grow. Its proposed changes include a question about whether policies and staff training distinguish obligations under proceeds-of-crime legislation from those under terrorism legislation.

For an exchange or provider of custody, the implication is that buying a screening product is only one part of the job. Someone still has to set its thresholds, review alerts and document decisions. A technically accurate warning is of limited use if it sits unreviewed while funds move elsewhere.

That matters for stablecoin transfers as much as for volatile tokens. A stable unit price does not establish the identity of a sender or the origin of funds. Transaction risk and market risk are different questions, and control systems need to reflect that distinction.

Guidance Now, A Wider Regime In 2027

The FCA says the guide contains no rules and imposes no new requirements. It is intended to help firms understand supervisory expectations and assess their own arrangements. The consultation closes on December 24, after which the regulator plans to publish feedback and the final text in a policy statement.

Separately, the FCA’s regime overview says the wider cryptoasset framework is expected to begin on October 25, 2027. Applications for authorization are already open, and the regulator published a package of final rules in June.

The distinction between those stages matters for firms planning investment in compliance. This consultation does not postpone existing anti-money-laundering duties until next year, nor does it bring the whole future regime into force immediately. It fills in the proposed guidance firms can use when translating their obligations into day-to-day decisions.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: New York’s attorney general is seeking $1.3 billion in monetary relief in the NovaTech case and has announced nearly $6 million in promoter settlements. The larger sum is a request to the court, not money recovered for investors.

New York’s effort to recover losses from the NovaTech cryptocurrency scheme has reached a new stage, with Attorney General Letitia James asking a court to impose roughly $1.3 billion in damages and disgorgement.

The October 22 announcement also disclosed nearly $6 million in settlements with four promoters. Those are separate from the much larger claim involving founders Cynthia and Eddy Petion. The announcement does not establish that either amount has already reached victims.

The case concerns investment packages sold through NovaTech and an earlier business, AWS Mining. According to the attorney general, the schemes targeted Haitian and other immigrant communities through religious networks, social media and messaging groups.

The New Filing Follows An Earlier Judgment

An affirmation filed on October 22 supports the request for monetary relief. It records that New York sued in June 2024 and that the defaulting defendants did not respond or appear. The court entered a default order and judgment on August 4, 2025.

The latest motion asks the court to determine the financial consequences. It should not be confused with a new criminal conviction, a completed recovery or a guarantee that a judgment can be collected. Those distinctions are particularly important when the sums sought are much larger than the settlements announced alongside them.

The promoter figures listed by the attorney general are $2.9 million from Martin Zizi, $2.05 million from Frantz Ciceron, $750,000 from James Corbett and $275,861 from Ricardo Roy Sr. All four face permanent bans from the securities, commodities and cryptocurrency industries.

The timing also needs care: the Zizi consent papers were filed in November 2025. This week’s announcement brings the settlement figures together; it does not mean every agreement was signed this week.

Recruitment Promises Outran The Trading Business

The original mining operation offered high returns and recruiting bonuses, according to the court affirmation. NovaTech later marketed cryptocurrency trading packages. The cryptocurrency label described how investors supplied money, but the underlying issue was what operators actually did with it.

That is a useful distinction for readers assessing similar pitches. An account balance on a website does not establish that assets exist, that trades occurred or that withdrawals can be honored. Nor does a familiar community connection answer questions about custody and control of funds.

For affected investors, the next substantive development will be the court’s decision on monetary relief and any subsequent recovery process. The announced settlements and the requested award address different defendants and different steps in that process; combining them into a headline recovery figure would overstate what has happened.

Related reading: How crypto exchanges work.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The SEC has named tokenization among its fiscal 2027 examination priorities, bringing the systems behind blockchain securities into closer supervisory focus. The staff document sets inspection priorities and creates no new legal obligations.

The SEC’s tokenization agenda now includes a practical question for financial firms: can the infrastructure work reliably when something goes wrong?

In its October 23 announcement, the US regulator placed tokenization among the market developments its examiners will scrutinize during fiscal 2027. The wider program also covers investment advice, complex products, private credit and cybersecurity across more than 34,000 registrants.

For companies building services around tokenized assets, that brings the discussion down from the promise of faster trading to the controls supporting it. A share recorded on a blockchain still needs dependable ownership records, functioning markets and an orderly response to disruption.

Clearing And Trading Systems Enter The Frame

The 20-page examination document explicitly includes tokenization among high-risk areas for clearing-agency reviews. In its discussion of Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity, it lists tokenized securities alongside extended trading hours, advanced AI and quantum computing. Cloud providers and other technology suppliers also feature in those reviews.

That combination matters. Extending trading hours can leave less time for maintenance, while connecting a token to conventional securities records adds another place where systems must agree. The relevant test is whether the complete service remains dependable, including the handoffs between systems.

The document separately emphasizes cybersecurity governance, access controls, incident response and risks from shared technology. It also states that the priorities are staff views, carry no legal force and do not amend existing law. An examination focus should therefore be read as a signal about supervision, rather than a new tokenization license or prohibition.

A Permission To Experiment Still Comes With Conditions

The context is the SEC’s September innovation exemption for certain tokenized stock venues. That temporary framework requires equivalent shareholder rights, issuer notification and an opportunity to object when an unaffiliated party tokenizes shares. It also imposes trading limits and requirements for public, auditable smart contracts.

Those conditions illustrate why market access and operational supervision move together. A permitted venue can still have weak controls; a technically impressive platform can still mishandle an investor’s rights. The new priorities put attention on that gap.

For investors, the useful distinction is between the token and the service built around it. Questions about who holds the underlying security, how transactions reconcile and what happens during an outage remain relevant alongside the blockchain’s design. Custody and market infrastructure do not become incidental simply because a trade uses a token.

The SEC says its priorities are non-exhaustive and may change during the year. Tokenization’s place in the published agenda nevertheless gives firms a clear reason to expect scrutiny of how their systems operate, as well as what their products promise.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Bloomberg has expanded its crypto analytics to classify bank exposure under Basel standards, including indirect holdings hidden inside funds, derivatives and corporate securities.

A bank can have cryptocurrency exposure without holding a single Bitcoin in a wallet. It may own shares of a company with substantial crypto reserves, a fund containing digital-asset products or derivatives whose value depends on a token. Bloomberg is trying to make those indirect exposures easier to identify under banking capital rules.

On Thursday, the financial-data company expanded its Crypto Exposure Analytics service to support classifications aligned with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's prudential framework for banks' crypto assets.

Crypto risk does not stop at the wallet

The Basel framework distinguishes several groups of crypto exposure according to their structure and risks. Bloomberg says its analytics now help institutions apply those classifications across direct holdings and instruments that may contain an indirect connection to digital assets.

That task becomes difficult when exposure sits inside a conventional fund, an equity portfolio or a derivative contract. A risk team looking only for obvious cryptocurrency tickers can miss securities whose price or underlying economics depend partly on crypto markets.

Bloomberg says its screening has identified roughly 1,700 funds potentially relevant to the framework, with around half not explicitly presenting cryptocurrency exposure as part of their stated strategy. That is a company analysis of its dataset, not proof that those funds all hold the same amount or type of crypto risk.

The service maps reference data across securities and investment products, including spot pairs, listed futures and options, indices, bonds and fund tickers. It is intended to give compliance and risk-management teams a more consistent basis for classification and reporting.

Why banks care about the label

Regulatory capital requirements depend on what a financial institution owns and how that exposure is categorized. Classifying a tokenized government bond, a reserve-backed instrument and an unbacked crypto asset in the same way could distort risk calculations even when their legal and economic properties differ substantially.

The challenge will grow if conventional investors obtain more of their crypto exposure through listed funds or structured instruments rather than dedicated exchanges. Identifying a position is the first step; maintaining correct classifications as instruments and holdings change is equally important.

Bloomberg says users can review the reasoning behind individual classifications and access the data through institutional delivery channels, including its terminal and enterprise feeds. That audit trail is useful, but clients remain responsible for validating classifications against their own circumstances and applicable regulators' implementation of Basel standards.

This is infrastructure news rather than a headline about a new crypto coin. Its importance lies in the possibility that digital-asset risk becomes a measurable part of ordinary institutional portfolios, requiring systems that can explain what is inside them.

Source: www.prnewswire.com original announcement or data.

Related Reading: tokenized assets; Bitcoin; crypto custody.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Bybit says its Dubai entity has secured a VARA virtual-asset service provider licence covering spot exchange activity; derivatives permission remains a future objective.

Bybit has obtained a Dubai regulatory licence for spot cryptocurrency exchange services, extending its locally authorized business in one of the industry's most closely watched jurisdictions.

The exchange announced Thursday that Bybit Fintech FZE received a virtual-asset service provider licence from Dubai's Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority, known as VARA. The permission covers spot exchange services. Bybit's management says it wants to expand into derivatives later, but that would require separate regulatory approval.

A defined licence, not an all-purpose passport

Exchange businesses often operate several distinct activities: spot trading, leveraged derivatives, custody, brokerage and payments. A licence for one does not automatically authorize the others, and market participants should read regulatory announcements for their exact scope.

Bybit established an international headquarters in Dubai in 2022. The new authorization is an additional step toward operating local trading services within VARA's framework rather than relying on the company's broader international brand or permissions in other jurisdictions.

The distinction matters to users because legal entity, available products and customer protections can differ across markets. A trader seeing Bybit's name in multiple countries should not assume every account is covered by the same regulator or that all services have identical compliance terms.

Bybit's announcement cites a global base of more than 80 million users. That figure is company-reported and does not tell readers how many users are eligible to open an account under the specific Dubai permission, nor does it establish active local trading volumes.

What Dubai gains from a regulated entrant

Dubai's strategy has been to bring virtual-asset activity within a dedicated local regime rather than treat every exchange as a general technology business. For platforms, meeting authorization conditions may involve governance, market-surveillance and risk-control obligations that would not necessarily arise from simply offering a website.

Regulated status can create commercial opportunities with banking partners and institutional customers. It can also bring higher reporting costs and limits on products that an exchange might offer elsewhere, especially in leveraged markets.

Bybit executives have indicated that derivatives form a substantial part of the group's global business, making future permission an important strategic objective. But there is no basis for saying that Dubai has granted derivatives approval in this announcement.

For customers and competitors, the concrete news is a new spot-exchange licence. The next measures of progress will be the actual service rollout under Bybit Fintech FZE, the categories of client accepted, and whether further applications result in additional legally permitted activities.

Source: www.prnewswire.com original announcement or data.

Related Reading: crypto exchanges; crypto custody; stablecoins.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Senator Richard Blumenthal has demanded records from Tether and consultancy Nxum over reported payments and potential ethics concerns; the inquiry is not a finding of wrongdoing.

Tether is facing questions from a senior U.S. senator over reported payments to a consultancy connected to a former White House crypto-policy official. The concern is about potential conflicts of interest in policymaking, rather than the reserve backing or technical operation of USDT.

On Thursday, Senator Richard Blumenthal, the ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said he had sent letters seeking information from Tether and Nxum Group. The inquiry follows reporting that payments flowed to a firm associated with Bo Hines, who previously led the White House Council of Advisers for Digital Assets.

What the senator is seeking

Blumenthal's public letter cites Wall Street Journal reporting alleging that more than $6 million was paid to Nxum under an arrangement involving strategic communications and public affairs. The senator raises questions about the firm's ownership, lobbying contacts and the timing of policy discussions during Hines's government service.

Those allegations are attributed to the reporting and to the senator's interpretation of it. They are not judicial findings or proven violations of ethics law. The existence of an investigative letter alone does not establish that Tether, Hines or the consultancy acted unlawfully.

The senator has requested records on contracts, payments, communications and lobbying activity. That documentary evidence, and responses from the parties involved, would be central to establishing what actually happened.

The stakes extend beyond one stablecoin issuer

Stablecoin legislation has become a major policy issue because issuers of digital dollars increasingly intersect with banks, payment providers and federal financial regulators. Companies have legitimate reasons to explain their business models to government; public officials are separately subject to rules intended to protect decision-making from personal financial interests.

The difficulty lies in distinguishing ordinary policy advocacy from arrangements that create an impermissible conflict. Large payments to a consultancy and past connections to an official are facts worth examining only in the context of ownership, contractual services, relevant dates and actual conduct.

For holders of USDT, the inquiry does not itself imply any change to redemption terms or reserve assets. For the policy community, however, the questions could invite closer attention to lobbying disclosures and the role of advisers moving between government and the crypto sector.

The next material development would be a substantive response, additional records or a formal investigation producing findings. Until then, the responsible description is that a senator has opened an inquiry into reported transactions — not that wrongdoing has been established.

Source: www.blumenthal.senate.gov original announcement or data.

Related Reading: stablecoins; crypto custody; crypto exchanges.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The Blockchain Association has asked congressional leaders to advance bipartisan crypto tax changes, including a de minimis exemption and revised treatment of stablecoins and staking rewards.

For a person buying coffee with cryptocurrency, the tax rules can be far more complicated than the payment itself. A U.S. crypto trade group is asking Congress to address that mismatch with a new push for bipartisan digital-asset tax legislation.

The Blockchain Association sent a letter Thursday to congressional leaders in both parties, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. It also launched a website intended to help digital-asset users contact lawmakers about tax policy.

The proposals under discussion

The association wants a meaningful de minimis exemption for small crypto transactions, under which everyday low-value spending would not trigger the same tax calculations as a major investment sale. It also argues for treating qualifying stablecoins more like cash for tax purposes.

Another proposal concerns rewards from mining and staking. The group favors a framework that treats those rewards as self-created property taxed upon disposition, rather than automatically imposing a tax event at receipt.

These are policy requests by an industry advocacy organization, not changes already adopted by Congress or the Internal Revenue Service. The letter contains a range of further priorities, including clarity for transfers that do not change economic exposure and reporting rules intended to balance compliance with privacy.

Why the timing matters

Crypto transactions can cross boundaries between payments, financial investments and network participation. Ordinary tax categories do not always match that activity neatly. Moving a token between wallets a person controls, for example, has a different economic character from selling it at a profit.

The association says 67 million Americans hold or use digital assets. That is its advocacy figure and should not be mistaken for a fresh government census. The larger policy point is that an expanding market can make small frictions disproportionately expensive to taxpayers and administrators.

There are countervailing concerns. Lawmakers will need to consider the revenue implications of exemptions, the possibility of tax avoidance through transaction splitting and how reporting obligations would work for intermediaries.

For investors, the practical message is restraint: a proposed exemption is not a license to disregard existing records or reporting duties. The association has opened a legislative campaign; Congress has not yet resolved its arguments.

Any eventual bill will be judged not only by whether it simplifies cryptocurrency transactions, but by whether the rules are clear enough for wallets, exchanges, taxpayers and the IRS to apply consistently.

Source: theblockchainassociation.org original announcement or data.

Related Reading: Bitcoin; stablecoins; staking.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Ireland’s central bank imposed a €3.25 million penalty on Coinbase Ireland over electronic-money safeguarding and outsourcing failings, subject to High Court confirmation.

Ireland's central bank has fined Coinbase Ireland €3,252,618 after finding failures in the way the company safeguarded electronic-money customer funds and oversaw outsourced arrangements.

The action, announced Thursday, concerns compliance with Ireland's electronic-money rules over a period spanning 2020 to 2025. It is important to identify the regulated activity precisely: the decision is about safeguarding funds associated with electronic-money services, not an allegation that Coinbase's blockchain itself suffered a security breach.

What the regulator says went wrong

Electronic-money institutions must maintain arrangements that separate relevant customer money from the firm's own funds and protect it under the governing rules. The Central Bank of Ireland said Coinbase Ireland did not consistently maintain the required amount in designated safeguarding accounts and failed to meet related governance and outsourcing obligations.

Safeguarding failures matter even when customers do not report an immediate loss. They weaken the controls designed to ensure funds are available if a business runs into trouble, and they can leave regulators without a reliable picture of where protected balances actually sit.

The central bank's notice says Coinbase Ireland admitted the breaches. The monetary sanction reflects a starting penalty of €4,646,597 reduced by 30% under the regulator's settlement-discount scheme. The sanction is subject to confirmation by Ireland's High Court, a procedural qualification that should not be lost in the headline.

A wider message for crypto payments businesses

Crypto companies often hold multiple regulatory permissions that govern different pieces of a customer relationship. Safeguarding rules for an electronic-money business are not identical to the rules governing an exchange, a wallet provider or a bank deposit.

That distinction has become more important as exchanges add payment accounts, stablecoin access and other bank-like features. A company may deliver technically functioning transactions while still falling short on operational records, third-party oversight or reconciliation of the money behind those services.

Coinbase is a prominent global exchange, so a national enforcement action carries reputational weight. It does not, by itself, establish that Coinbase customers lost €3.25 million; that figure is the fine, not a documented customer loss.

The practical takeaway is that consumer confidence in digital finance depends on more than cryptographic security. Conventional controls over client funds remain essential, and regulators are prepared to enforce them even at firms whose public identity is rooted in cryptocurrency.

Source: edit.centralbank.ie original announcement or data.

Related Reading: crypto custody; crypto exchanges; stablecoins.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Bitwise filed a supplemental SEC comment seeking clearer protection for firms that rely on token-status filings. The October 21 letter develops its earlier proposal; it is an industry request, not an adopted rule.

Bitwise is pressing the Securities and Exchange Commission to answer a question that matters to fund managers: when can a firm rely on somebody else’s determination that a crypto asset has separated from an investment contract?

The asset manager’s October 21 supplemental letter focuses on that reliance problem in the SEC’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework.

It asks the commission to distinguish an issuer’s filing of Form TR from the point at which a separate market participant can rely on an unchallenged filing. It also seeks protection for reasonable, good-faith determinations if a later challenge arises, and asks for the treatment to carry through relevant investment-company and investment-adviser definitions.

A Token Issuer And A Fund Manager Have Different Information

Bitwise’s original October 19 response explains its position as a company that builds investment products using crypto assets rather than issuing those assets itself. Whether an asset could be treated as a security affects decisions about which products can hold it.

The practical concern is that a manager may need to make those decisions using public information, without access to all the records held by an issuer or development team.

A reliance framework would define when public filings can support that decision and what knowledge would prevent a firm from relying on them. That is distinct from declaring that any particular token is outside securities law.

The supplement also argues that filing Form TR should not itself be treated as an admission about the asset’s previous legal status. Its requests concern the consequences of using the proposed process, not simply the form’s availability.

The Letter Does Not Resolve The Rulemaking

The document is hosted in the SEC’s comment file, but its arguments belong to Bitwise. Publication there is not an endorsement by the commission.

The distinction is especially relevant to headlines about regulatory certainty. An industry participant can identify a problem and propose a detailed solution while the outcome remains undecided.

For fund managers, the issue to watch in the eventual rules is how responsibility is divided between the party making a token-status filing and the firms using it to construct financial products. Bitwise’s latest submission makes that division the center of its case.

Related Reading

• Hyperliquid Policy Center Calls For Five Changes To SEC Crypto Rule
• SEC Opens New Crypto Custody Path For Investment Advisers And Funds
• Winklevoss Zcash ETF Filing Brings Privacy Coin Exposure To Nasdaq

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

TL;DR: The Hyperliquid Policy Center supports the SEC’s proposed crypto framework but says five changes are needed to make the rules workable for token developers and markets.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center has welcomed the US Securities and Exchange Commission‘s attempt to clarify how securities law applies to crypto assets, while warning that details around distributions and trading could still create unnecessary barriers.

In a comment published October 19, the group urged the regulator to revise its proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework in five areas. Its concerns include how administrative steps in token airdrops are treated, how tokens can trade after an exempt distribution, and whether a safe harbour offers clear enough protection once a project has matured.

The centre also wants clearer rules for token buybacks and a consistent approach to the interaction between federal exemptions and state securities requirements.

The proposals reflect a long-running problem for cryptocurrency developers. A network token may begin life inside a fundraising arrangement, yet eventually circulate in a system where thousands of participants trade and use it without dealing directly with its original issuer.

Drawing a line between those stages has been difficult under decades-old securities tests. The SEC’s proposal is intended to offer more predictable treatment, but the consultation process shows that industry participants still disagree about where the boundaries should fall.

The advocacy group’s submission is not a regulatory decision. It is one contribution to a rulemaking process whose final outcome will depend on the commission’s response to the evidence and objections it receives.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The Blockchain Association has urged the US Treasury to draw clearer lines around DeFi software, foreign stablecoin issuers and who could face liability under proposed GENIUS Act rules.

The fight over US stablecoin regulation is shifting from Congress to the details of implementation. In comments on Treasury’s proposed Section 3 rules under the GENIUS Act, the Blockchain Association has argued that a framework designed for regulated payment issuers should not inadvertently catch unrelated software and market participants.

One sticking point is the definition of a digital asset service provider. The association wants officials to distinguish customer-facing financial businesses from infrastructure such as self-custody software and validators that do not provide the same services.

It also disputes how the rules might define knowing participation in unlawful stablecoin issuance. Its position is that enforcement should require genuine knowledge and meaningful assistance, rather than interpreting ordinary secondary-market activity as evidence of involvement.

Foreign-issued stablecoins are another concern. The group says compliance requirements should rely on accessible regulatory information rather than assuming every service provider can investigate an issuer with which it has no direct relationship.

These are advocacy positions, not changes Treasury has adopted. Regulators still have to balance the industry’s request for workable rules against their responsibility to police payment products and financial crime.

The eventual language will help determine whether GENIUS Act compliance is mostly a challenge for stablecoin issuers or one that reaches much further into the surrounding ecosystem.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The OCC has published its final GENIUS Act rule, setting out how payment stablecoin issuers under its supervision will be regulated from January 18, 2027.

America’s national banking regulator has put considerably more detail around the new federal framework for dollar-backed stablecoins. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued its final rule on Wednesday, covering issuers under its jurisdiction and certain custody activities carried out by regulated institutions.

The regulations address eligible reserve assets, redemption, risk management, supervisory reporting, custody, applications and oversight of foreign issuers. In other words, the debate is moving from whether the United States should regulate stablecoin issuance to what a company must actually do to issue one.

There is an important distinction in the rollout. The rule takes effect on January 18, 2027, rather than immediately. The OCC also made clear that Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money-laundering and OFAC sanctions requirements will be covered by a separate rulemaking coordinated with the Treasury Department.

For banks and stablecoin businesses considering the US market, the rule provides a concrete compliance framework. It does not, however, mean every dollar token has already received a federal licence. Applications, supervisory approvals and the practical work of meeting the requirements still matter.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The Hyperliquid Policy Center supports the SEC’s proposed crypto framework but says five changes are needed to make the rules workable for token developers and markets.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center has welcomed the US Securities and Exchange Commission‘s attempt to clarify how securities law applies to crypto assets, while warning that details around distributions and trading could still create unnecessary barriers.

In a comment published October 19, the group urged the regulator to revise its proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework in five areas. Its concerns include how administrative steps in token airdrops are treated, how tokens can trade after an exempt distribution, and whether a safe harbour offers clear enough protection once a project has matured.

The centre also wants clearer rules for token buybacks and a consistent approach to the interaction between federal exemptions and state securities requirements.

The proposals reflect a long-running problem for cryptocurrency developers. A network token may begin life inside a fundraising arrangement, yet eventually circulate in a system where thousands of participants trade and use it without dealing directly with its original issuer.

Drawing a line between those stages has been difficult under decades-old securities tests. The SEC’s proposal is intended to offer more predictable treatment, but the consultation process shows that industry participants still disagree about where the boundaries should fall.

The advocacy group’s submission is not a regulatory decision. It is one contribution to a rulemaking process whose final outcome will depend on the commission’s response to the evidence and objections it receives.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The Blockchain Association has urged the US Treasury to draw clearer lines around DeFi software, foreign stablecoin issuers and who could face liability under proposed GENIUS Act rules.

The fight over US stablecoin regulation is shifting from Congress to the details of implementation. In comments on Treasury’s proposed Section 3 rules under the GENIUS Act, the Blockchain Association has argued that a framework designed for regulated payment issuers should not inadvertently catch unrelated software and market participants.

One sticking point is the definition of a digital asset service provider. The association wants officials to distinguish customer-facing financial businesses from infrastructure such as self-custody software and validators that do not provide the same services.

It also disputes how the rules might define knowing participation in unlawful stablecoin issuance. Its position is that enforcement should require genuine knowledge and meaningful assistance, rather than interpreting ordinary secondary-market activity as evidence of involvement.

Foreign-issued stablecoins are another concern. The group says compliance requirements should rely on accessible regulatory information rather than assuming every service provider can investigate an issuer with which it has no direct relationship.

These are advocacy positions, not changes Treasury has adopted. Regulators still have to balance the industry’s request for workable rules against their responsibility to police payment products and financial crime.

The eventual language will help determine whether GENIUS Act compliance is mostly a challenge for stablecoin issuers or one that reaches much further into the surrounding ecosystem.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Crypto-aligned political committees have reported more than $52 million in spending against former Senator Sherrod Brown’s bid to return to Congress. The campaign is one of the clearest examples of the industry’s willingness to spend heavily on a single Senate seat.

The cryptocurrency industry’s election spending is no longer an abstract national number. In Ohio, a single Senate contest has now attracted more than $52 million from two crypto-aligned political committees.

Federal Election Commission filings show Defend American Jobs, an affiliate of the Fairshake network, reporting about $46.67 million in expenditures opposing Democrat Sherrod Brown and supporting Republican incumbent Jon Husted. A separate committee, the Digital Freedom Fund, reported approximately $5.94 million in spending in the race, putting the combined total near $52.61 million.

Brown is a former US senator seeking to return to the chamber, not the sitting incumbent. That distinction matters because the spending is aimed at keeping the seat with Husted in the November midterm election.

Fairshake and related groups have received financial support from major crypto companies, including Coinbase and Ripple. Their involvement reflects the industry’s interest in who controls the committee agenda and how future digital-asset rules are negotiated in Washington.

The Ohio total also shows how quickly campaign commitments can grow. Defend American Jobs’ reported amount is well above the $30 million previously earmarked for the race. The figures represent political spending, not money contributed directly to a candidate’s official campaign account.

There is a risk for the industry in attaching itself so visibly to partisan contests. A sector seeking durable rules will eventually need to work with whichever party holds power. For now, its backers are making the calculation that winning particular races is worth an extraordinary financial commitment.

TL;DR: Russia’s new regulated crypto-market framework has moved into operation, with the Bank of Russia adding firms including VTB, Sberbank and several specialist operators to registers covering cryptocurrency exchanges and digital depositories. Domestic crypto payments remain restricted, but regulated trading and custody infrastructure is now taking shape.

Russia has begun turning its new cryptocurrency rules into an operating financial system.

The Bank of Russia’s framework for registering cryptocurrency exchanges and digital depositories took effect on October 5, and the regulator has begun admitting firms to the new market structure.

VTB has been added to the register of organizations permitted to exchange cryptocurrency.

The digital depository register includes major banks such as Sberbank and VTB alongside specialist infrastructure providers.

Other approved crypto-exchange operators include Zefir, Sistema Crypto and T-Invest Lab, according to information released around the register’s launch.

That represents a substantial shift in how Russia handles digital assets.

Crypto has not suddenly become unrestricted money inside the country.

The domestic prohibition on using cryptocurrency as payment for ordinary goods and services remains in place.

Instead, the new framework separates ownership and investment activity from the use of crypto as a parallel domestic currency.

Registered exchanges can provide regulated access to digital assets, while digital depositories handle services including recording and transferring crypto holdings and providing customers with access to wallet identifiers associated with their assets.

The involvement of major banks is particularly notable.

VTB has said it expects to begin opening crypto trading access through its investment business before expanding services further.

That gives the market a distinctly different shape from jurisdictions where crypto infrastructure developed almost entirely through independent exchanges.

In Russia, some of the country’s largest conventional financial institutions are moving directly into the regulated digital asset stack.

The Bank of Russia laid out the admission process in September, setting requirements for managers, documentation and ongoing registration.

Those rules formally came into force on October 5.

The result is not crypto liberalization in the conventional sense.

It is crypto being pulled into a state-supervised framework.

That distinction will matter for users and businesses.

A more formal system could give investors clearer custody and counterparty rules while simultaneously increasing regulatory visibility over where assets are held and how they move.

Russia has spent years balancing interest in digital assets against concerns around capital flows and monetary sovereignty.

Its new registers show where that balance is landing.

Crypto trading can exist.

But increasingly, Moscow wants to know exactly who is operating it.

Bitcoin Magazine

UK Brings Crypto Under Full FCA Oversight for the First Time

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has opened applications for crypto firms to become authorized, bringing the sector under full regulation for the first time.

In a Wednesday announcement, the watchdog said companies can apply so that the crypto industry has “clarity and legitimacy.”

The UK is in the process of drafting a sweeping new crypto bill. The FCA finalized its regulatory framework for cryptoassets in June, and the regime is due to take effect in October 2027.  

“The UK’s new crypto regime will give consumers greater protections and firms a clear framework to operate in. Firms can now apply for authorisation and start preparing for regulation,” Dominic Cashman, director of authorisation at the FCA, said in a statement. 

The statement added that firms will have to demonstrate that they meet requirements covering consumer protection, customer-asset safeguarding, market integrity and financial resilience.

Britain is pushing ahead with digital asset legislation since last year recognizing bitcoin and other digital assets as property. The reform came from a 2023 recommendation by the Law Commission, which argued that digital assets did not fit neatly into existing legal categories.

Despite the FCA’s announcement, the UK currently is trailing behind Brussels and Washington with digital asset regulation. 

The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation has applied to service providers since 30 December 2024. 

And the U.S. under President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law in July 2025, establishing a federal framework for dollar-backed tokens.

Despite lawmakers blocking landmark legislation the Clarity Act last month, U.S. regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission have pushed ahead with rulemaking regardless. 

This post UK Brings Crypto Under Full FCA Oversight for the First Time first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.