Bitcoin Magazine
Strategy Skips Bitcoin Again, Buys Back $25M of STRC Stock
Bitcoin treasury Strategy on Monday announced that it had again skipped buying Bitcoin, instead buying back its own preferred stock, Stretch (STRC), for $25 million.
In a filing and post on X, the company said it sold 5,429,160 shares of MSTR common stock through its at-the-market program between July 20 and July 26, generating $544.5 million in net proceeds.
It was the first time the company did a buyback of its STRC product, one of the firm’s several products that gives investors exposure to Bitcoin via shares that pay a dividend.
The company still holds 843,775 Bitcoins on its balance sheet — worth over $55 billion at today’s price of $65,576 per coin.
The Bitcoin buying pause is the fifth in a row. Strategy has leaned on dollar accumulation over fresh Bitcoin buys across recent weeks, a shift from the aggressive purchases that defined much of its history. The firm now has $3.75 billion in cash that will not be used to fund repurchases, according to a filing.
Strategy has said that its buyback plan — approved earlier this month — is about balance-sheet strength rather than retreat. President and CEO Phong Le has said that Strategy intends to remain a long-term Bitcoin buyer.
Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — started buying Bitcoin in August 2020 as a way to generate better returns for its shareholders during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It has since spent around $63.9 billion on Bitcoin and is the largest corporate holder of the asset. Investors can buy its shares to gain exposure to the leading cryptocurrency without having to buy and hold digital coins themselves.
Strategy spawned a long-list of copycat firms which have bought not only Bitcoin, but other cryptocurrencies to boost their stock prices.
Strategy’s Nasdaq-listed stock (MSTR) was trading nearly 7% higher on Monday at nearly $98 per share. MSTR year-to-date has dropped by nearly 40%.
This post Strategy Skips Bitcoin Again, Buys Back $25M of STRC Stock first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.
Sam Waldon, the Principal Deputy Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, will leave the agency on July 31, 2026, marking a leadership change inside one of the most closely watched divisions in US financial regulation.
The SEC said Waldon is departing after more than 14 years of service. Osman Nawaz will succeed him in the role.
For crypto markets, the headline will naturally raise questions about enforcement direction. The SEC’s Enforcement Division has been central to the agency’s approach to digital asset cases for years, and any senior personnel change gets attention.
But the important caveat is simple: the SEC announcement itself is a general enforcement leadership update. It is not a crypto-specific policy shift, and it should not be treated as one.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division is where policy pressure often becomes real-world action.
Rules, speeches, guidance, and commissioner statements all matter. But enforcement is the part of the agency that investigates, files cases, negotiates settlements, and sets practical boundaries through litigation.
Crypto companies know this better than most.
Over the past several years, the industry has dealt with enforcement actions touching exchanges, token issuers, staking products, lending platforms, disclosures, custody, fraud, market manipulation, and broker-dealer questions. Whether a company agrees with the SEC or not, enforcement has shaped the US crypto market in a very direct way.
That is why leadership changes inside the division attract attention.
A new senior official may bring different priorities, different management style, or different emphasis. But that does not mean the agency suddenly reverses course overnight.
The Enforcement Division is larger than one person, and its priorities are shaped by the Commission, courts, statute, staff expertise, and market events.
It is tempting to treat every SEC personnel move as a signal for crypto.
Someone leaves, and the market asks whether enforcement is softening. Someone joins, and traders ask whether more cases are coming. That instinct is understandable, but it can lead to weak conclusions.
Waldon’s departure may matter institutionally, but the press release does not say crypto enforcement policy is changing.
That distinction matters.
The SEC can continue pursuing digital asset cases under new enforcement leadership. It can also change emphasis without announcing it through a personnel release. The actual signal will come from future actions, settlements, litigation decisions, and public statements from senior agency officials.
So the right read is cautious.
This is a leadership transition in the enforcement division, and crypto markets should watch what follows, but not assume a new crypto posture before there is evidence.
The broader environment is also important.
Digital asset policy has moved deeper into Congress, courtrooms, and agency rulemaking debates. Market structure bills, custody rules, stablecoin legislation, ETF approvals, and enforcement limits are all part of the conversation.
That makes the SEC’s enforcement role more politically visible.
If Congress creates clearer digital asset rules, the SEC’s enforcement approach may eventually change because the legal framework changes. If courts narrow or expand the agency’s authority, enforcement priorities may shift. If new leadership at the Commission changes the tone, the division may adapt.
But those are bigger forces than one departure.
Waldon stepping down is a notable personnel event, not a standalone regulatory pivot.
The next Principal Deputy Director will inherit a difficult environment.
The Enforcement Division has to deal with traditional securities fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, disclosure failures, investment adviser misconduct, and emerging-market risks. Crypto is only one part of that workload, even if it attracts outsized attention.
Nawaz will step into a division operating under intense scrutiny.
Industry groups want clearer rules and fewer regulation-by-enforcement cases. Investor advocates want strong action against fraud and misconduct. Lawmakers are divided over how much authority the SEC should have in digital assets.
Balancing those pressures is not easy.
For crypto firms, the practical advice remains unchanged: watch the agency’s actual behavior. Personnel matters, but filings, subpoenas, settlements, complaints, speeches, and court decisions matter more.
The next real test will be what the SEC does after the transition.
Does the agency continue bringing aggressive digital asset cases? Does it focus more narrowly on fraud? Does it wait for Congress on market structure? Does it pursue intermediaries, issuers, or custody models? Does it soften settlement terms or push harder in court?
Those questions cannot be answered from one leadership announcement.
Still, the departure is worth noting because enforcement leadership helps shape how priorities become action.
For now, the safest conclusion is measured: the SEC is changing personnel at a senior enforcement level, but the release does not announce a crypto enforcement reset.
The market will need to watch the next cases, not just the title change.
This article is based on the SEC’s announcement of Sam Waldon’s departure from the Division of Enforcement.
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 SEC is preparing to hold a public roundtable on 24-hour trading, and while the announcement is focused on US equity markets rather than crypto, the direction of travel is hard to miss.
Traditional markets are being pushed toward a world that crypto already knows well: trading that does not neatly stop at 4 p.m., clearing systems that need to handle more continuous activity, broker-dealers that need overnight controls, and investors who increasingly expect access outside the old market day.
The SEC said the roundtable will take place on September 17, 2026, under File Number 4-913. The discussion will cover the operational and regulatory issues around extending US public market trading hours, including overnight trading, clearing requirements, national market system rules, broker-dealer responsibilities, operational resilience, and investor protection.
That may sound dry, but it is a serious market-structure question.
Crypto has been 24/7 from the beginning. Stocks, ETFs, and regulated public markets are now being forced to think about what always-on finance actually requires.
At first glance, extended trading sounds like a simple investor-access story.
Let people trade for longer. Let brokers open more hours. Let markets respond to news overnight. Give investors more flexibility.
But the real issue is infrastructure.
Markets do not work just because a trading screen is open. They need clearing, settlement, surveillance, liquidity, quoting obligations, risk controls, broker support, margin systems, customer protections, and operational staffing. If those systems are stretched across more hours, the entire market has to adapt.
That is why the SEC is looking at this through a roundtable rather than a casual policy note.
A 24-hour market can create benefits, but it can also create thinner liquidity, wider spreads, more volatile overnight moves, and new pressure on brokers and clearing firms. Retail investors may get more access, but they may also trade in worse conditions if market depth is weak outside normal hours.
Crypto traders understand that problem already.
A token may technically trade 24/7, but not every hour has the same liquidity. Weekend markets can be thinner. Sudden news can move prices aggressively. Risk never fully sleeps.
The SEC’s announcement does not directly target crypto assets, and that needs to stay clear.
This is about US public market trading infrastructure. But crypto is still the obvious backdrop because it has normalized always-on market access for millions of traders.
Younger investors are used to checking Bitcoin or Ethereum prices at midnight, on Sunday, or during a holiday. Global markets are used to digital assets moving continuously. Brokers and exchanges know that investor behavior has changed.
That shift creates pressure on traditional markets.
If investors can trade crypto whenever they want, they eventually ask why equities and ETFs remain tied to old market hours. The answer is not that traditional markets are lazy. It is that the systems around equities are more regulated, more intermediated, and more dependent on coordinated infrastructure.
That is exactly why the SEC roundtable matters.
It asks whether the old system can stretch without breaking important protections.
Trading hours are the visible layer. Clearing is the harder one.
If trades happen around the clock, clearing and risk systems need to support that activity. Brokers need to know how customer orders are handled overnight. Market makers need to decide when and how they quote. Exchanges need surveillance systems that can operate continuously.
Investor protection also becomes more complicated.
A retail trader placing an order at 2 a.m. may face a very different market than one trading during the normal session. If spreads are wider or liquidity is thin, execution quality can suffer. Regulators will want to understand whether disclosures, order handling rules, and best execution obligations remain strong enough.
Those are not theoretical concerns.
Crypto markets have shown both the appeal and danger of constant access. Always-on trading gives users freedom, but it also removes natural pauses. There is no guaranteed cooling-off period. Markets can move while people sleep.
One of the more interesting parts of the 24-hour trading debate is that traditional finance is not simply copying crypto. It is trying to absorb the parts investors like while keeping the protections regulators demand.
That is harder than it sounds.
Crypto’s always-on nature developed without the same market structure that surrounds US equities. There are fewer closing auctions, no single national market system equivalent, different custody models, and very different investor protections.
US equity markets cannot just flip a switch and become crypto-style 24/7 markets.
But the pressure is real.
ETF trading, global investor demand, retail app behavior, and cross-market volatility all make longer trading hours more likely over time. The SEC roundtable gives regulators, exchanges, brokers, and investors a chance to examine what that world requires before it becomes standard.
For crypto, the story is less direct but still meaningful.
It shows that always-on finance has moved from a crypto-native oddity to a mainstream market-structure question. Traditional markets are now debating how much of that model they can safely adopt.
That does not mean rules have changed yet. It means the conversation has moved into the center of US market policy.
This article is based on the SEC’s announcement of its public roundtable on 24-hour trading.
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.
Ripple has been named to CNBC and Statista’s World’s Top Fintech Companies list for the fourth consecutive year, giving the company another mainstream recognition point as it expands across payments, custody, tokenization, and digital asset infrastructure.
The recognition is tied to Ripple as a company, not to direct XRP token adoption. That distinction matters.
CNBC and Statista evaluate fintech firms across categories and performance indicators. Ripple appeared in the Digital Assets category, reflecting its enterprise business lines and broader role in blockchain-based financial infrastructure.
For XRP holders, the headline is positive for brand visibility, but it should not be turned into something it is not. This is not a bank adopting XRP. It is not a new payment corridor. It is not an endorsement of the token by CNBC or Statista.
It is a corporate fintech recognition story, and that still has value.
Crypto companies often live in two worlds.
Inside crypto, they are judged by token prices, regulatory battles, ecosystem activity, wallets, developers, and exchange liquidity. Outside crypto, they are judged more like fintech companies: revenue, customers, products, compliance, partnerships, and market position.
Ripple has always sat between those worlds.
It has the XRP Ledger connection and a large token community, but it also operates as an enterprise payments and digital asset infrastructure company. That means mainstream fintech recognition can matter for how banks, payment companies, investors, and partners view the business.
Being included on a CNBC and Statista list does not change Ripple’s fundamentals overnight, but it helps reinforce that the company is not viewed only through the lens of crypto speculation.
That is useful for a firm trying to sell services to institutions.
Ripple is often reduced to one story depending on who is talking.
For some, it is the XRP company. For others, it is a payments firm. For others, it is a regulatory case study. More recently, Ripple has been pushing further into custody, stablecoins, tokenization, and prime-brokerage-style digital asset services.
That broader footprint is likely part of why the company continues to appear in fintech rankings.
Enterprise customers do not usually care about crypto Twitter narratives. They care about whether a provider can deliver reliable infrastructure, handle compliance, support settlement, and operate across jurisdictions.
Ripple’s ability to remain visible in mainstream fintech circles may help it keep those conversations open.
Still, the market should keep the token connection in proportion.
Corporate recognition may improve Ripple’s brand, but XRP demand depends on actual network usage, liquidity, product design, and market conditions. A fintech list does not automatically create transaction volume.
The fact that CNBC and Statista have a Digital Assets category also says something about the market.
Crypto companies are no longer being treated only as speculative startups. The stronger firms are increasingly being evaluated alongside other fintech infrastructure providers. That means higher standards, more competition, and more focus on business durability.
Ripple appearing for a fourth straight year suggests continuity.
That matters because crypto businesses often rise and fall quickly. Exchanges, lenders, token projects, and infrastructure companies can go from market leaders to distressed names in a single cycle. Staying relevant across multiple years is harder than it looks.
For Ripple, the recognition supports the idea that it remains one of the more established digital asset firms.
This is the key caveat.
The list does not mean CNBC or Statista endorses XRP. It does not mean institutions on the list are using XRP. It does not mean Ripple’s enterprise progress automatically translates into token price appreciation.
That distinction is especially important because XRP headlines can move quickly through the market.
A corporate milestone can become a token narrative before the details are understood. Traders may treat any Ripple recognition as an XRP catalyst, but the actual connection is more indirect.
The realistic read is that Ripple’s corporate visibility remains strong, and that can support long-term business development. Whether that eventually benefits XRP depends on how Ripple’s products use the ledger, the token, or related infrastructure.
Ripple’s inclusion on the list is not the biggest story in crypto today, but it fits the company’s broader direction.
Ripple wants to be seen as a serious fintech infrastructure provider, not just a crypto brand. Payments, custody, tokenization, stablecoins, and institutional digital asset services all sit inside that strategy.
Mainstream recognition helps with that positioning.
It gives Ripple another credibility point when speaking to banks, payment providers, investors, and regulators. It also shows that digital asset companies can remain part of the fintech conversation even after years of market volatility and regulatory pressure.
For XRP holders, the takeaway is measured.
Ripple’s brand is still strong enough to appear in mainstream fintech rankings. That is positive. But token demand still has to be earned through real network activity and product usage.
The list helps the company’s institutional image. It does not settle the XRP adoption question by itself.
This article is based on CNBC and Statista’s World’s Top Fintech Companies list.
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.
Sui is leaning into one of the biggest problems in crypto payments: nobody wants to think about gas fees when they are just trying to send dollars.
The network’s sponsored transaction model and gas-free stablecoin transfer setup are designed to let users move supported stablecoins without needing to hold native SUI for gas. Instead, fees can be sponsored by applications or abstracted from the transaction flow, depending on how the transfer is structured.
That may sound like a small UX tweak, but it goes straight to one of crypto’s most annoying onboarding problems.
If a user has USDC but no SUI, they can get stuck. If they need to buy a native token just to move a stablecoin, the payment experience immediately feels broken. Sui’s approach tries to remove that friction, making stablecoin transfers behave more like ordinary digital payments and less like a technical wallet exercise.
Crypto people get used to gas fees, but normal users do not.
If someone wants to send a stablecoin, they expect to send the stablecoin. They do not expect to pause, find the native gas token, bridge funds, swap assets, and then try again.
That extra step is one of the reasons crypto payments still feel awkward, even when the underlying blockchain is fast and cheap.
Stablecoins are supposed to be one of crypto’s cleanest use cases. They are familiar, dollar-denominated, and useful for payments, remittances, trading, and DeFi. But if every transfer still requires users to understand native gas mechanics, the experience remains too technical.
Sui’s gas-free model is trying to hide that complexity.
The network is not saying fees no longer exist. That would be misleading. Someone still pays for blockspace. But the user may not need to manage the gas token directly, which is what matters for payments and consumer apps.
Sponsored transactions are powerful because they let developers design better user flows.
An app can pay gas for users, bundle costs into its own business model, or create onboarding experiences where users can interact before they understand every detail of the network. That is how most mainstream apps work. Users do not think about server costs every time they click a button.
Crypto has often pushed those costs directly onto users.
That may be acceptable for traders, but it is rough for payments, gaming, social apps, and consumer wallets. If Sui developers can sponsor fees cleanly, apps can feel much closer to normal fintech or internet products.
Stablecoins make this even more important.
A merchant payment, payroll transfer, or peer-to-peer dollar transfer should not require a separate native-token balance. If the app can manage gas behind the scenes, the payment becomes easier to understand.
The caveat matters.
Gas-free stablecoin transfers do not mean the Sui network has abolished fees. They also do not mean every transaction on Sui is free forever. Fees still exist at the protocol level, and someone has to absorb or pass along that cost.
The difference is who deals with it.
In some cases, an application may sponsor the fee. In others, the cost may be abstracted from the stablecoin transfer itself. Either way, the goal is to avoid making users hold SUI just to complete a basic transaction.
That is a big UX improvement, but it still needs sustainable economics.
Apps cannot sponsor fees endlessly without a reason. They need revenue, incentives, or product logic that makes it worthwhile. If the model is used for high-volume stablecoin payments, developers and wallets will need to decide how much cost they can carry.
Sui is not alone in trying to make crypto feel easier.
Account abstraction, sponsored transactions, gasless payments, smart wallets, and intent-based systems are all part of the same broader push. Networks are realizing that speed and low fees are not enough if the user experience still feels strange.
Sui’s pitch is that its architecture can support smoother app design and high-throughput use cases. Gas-free stablecoin transfers fit that story well because they are easy to explain. Users understand dollars. They understand sending money. They do not want to understand gas tokens.
That makes this a useful ecosystem feature.
The question now is adoption. Will wallets, payment apps, DeFi protocols, and stablecoin issuers actually use these flows? If they do, Sui could become more attractive for consumer-facing finance. If not, the feature remains infrastructure waiting for product demand.
Still, the direction is right.
Crypto payments will not go mainstream because users learn to love gas fees. They will go mainstream when the gas fee becomes something the app handles quietly in the background.
Sui is trying to move closer to that world.
This article is based on Sui’s sponsored transactions and gas-free stablecoin transfer 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.
Login