Menu

Legislation & Congress

ASIC opens consultation on crypto exchange rules ahead of 2027 licensing deadline

ASIC opens consultation on crypto exchange rules ahead of 2027 licensing deadline

, , , , , , ,

Australia’s financial regulator has opened a consultation on strict new rules for crypto exchanges and digital asset platforms, marking the country’s shift toward treating cryptocurrency businesses like traditional financial firms. The rules take effect April 8, 2027, with a licensing deadline of October 7, 2027 for existing operators.

  • ASIC opened consultation on Thursday on proposed standards requiring crypto exchanges to safeguard customer funds, ensure trading transparency and meet financial requirements.
  • Existing crypto firms have until October 7, 2027 to apply for a license and can continue operating while regulators review their applications.
  • The consultation closes November 27, with final guidance expected in March 2027, as Australia aligns with EU, Singapore and Hong Kong regulatory approaches.
  • April 8, 2027 Effective date when new digital asset framework laws take effect in Australia
  • 140+ Digital asset business applications ASIC has recorded seeking authorization to provide services
  • Nov 27 Deadline for stakeholder submissions on proposed standards and guidance
  • Oct 7, 2027 Final licensing application deadline for existing crypto operators

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on Thursday commenced consultation on guidance and standards to implement the country’s new digital asset framework, setting mandatory requirements for how cryptocurrency exchanges and tokenised custody platforms must operate. CoinDesk reported the regulator’s proposals cover asset safeguarding, trading procedures and financial resource requirements ahead of the April 8, 2027 effective date. Parliament passed the underlying legislation in April 2026, joining the European Union, Singapore and Hong Kong in establishing dedicated crypto regulatory frameworks.

ASIC proposes standards covering asset separation, trading transparency and financial resources

Consultation Paper 392 outlines how digital asset platforms must apply for or update their regulatory license, provide customer disclosure documents and comply with asset-holding standards. The proposals require platforms to segregate and safeguard customer assets, implement transparent settlement procedures and maintain adequate financial resources. Trading rules address market manipulation, conflicts of interest and how exchanges handle customer orders.

ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said the regulator’s approach recognizes the rapid evolution of global markets. “Our approach is based on the principle of ‘same activity, same risk, same regulatory outcome’ to align Australia with the approach of comparable overseas jurisdictions,” Kirkland stated in the consultation announcement.

Bringing digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms into the financial services regulatory framework means consumers can have greater confidence when trading digital assets.

Alan Kirkland, ASIC Commissioner

Over 140 firms seek authorization as ASIC extends transition period

ASIC has recorded more than 140 applications from businesses seeking to provide digital asset-related financial services, including over 110 applications received during the sector-wide no-action period that ran from October 2025 to September 30, 2026. The regulator extended that transition deadline in June 2026 as a pragmatic response to industry transition challenges. Existing crypto operators can now continue business while ASIC reviews their license applications, provided they submit by October 7, 2027.

Stablecoins used for payments are being addressed separately through Australia’s payment services reforms, according to the regulator’s announcement.

Consultation closes in six weeks; final rules come in March 2027

The consultation period closes November 27, 2026, at 5pm AEDT.

ASIC engaged early with industry through its Digital Asset Advisory Group and fintech liaison meetings in developing the proposals and will continue direct stakeholder engagement through consultation events and roundtables. The regulator published a consultation user guide to help stakeholders navigate the full package and provide feedback, with submissions sent to fintech@asic.gov.au. Final guidance and standards are expected in March 2027, giving platforms three weeks to prepare before the April 8 effective date.

The rules follow the 2022 FTX collapse, which left approximately 30,000 Australian customers unable to access their funds, and underscore the regulatory response to industry failures affecting domestic investors.

The BlockWest read. These rules reshape how Australian crypto operators manage capital and conduct business, but the six-month window between final guidance and the April 2027 effective date compresses significantly for the 140-plus firms waiting on approval. Exchanges must now embed compliance costs before rules take effect, while ASIC’s capacity to process 140-plus applications by October 2027 remains untested.

Stakeholders have until November 27, 2026 to submit feedback on the consultation paper. The critical test comes in March 2027 when ASIC publishes final guidance; any material changes to the proposed standards could force platforms to redesign systems with less than six weeks’ notice before the April 8 effective date.

Greece plans 10% capital gains tax on cryptocurrency, undercutting EU peers

Greece plans 10% capital gains tax on cryptocurrency, undercutting EU peers

, , , , , ,

Greece is moving toward taxing cryptocurrency capital gains at a rate substantially lower than most EU peers, a sign that member states are settling on divergent approaches to digital asset taxation. The 10% levy would create a competitive advantage for Greek investors relative to those in Germany, France and Italy, where rates exceed 25%.

  • Greece plans a 10% capital gains tax on cryptocurrency, lower than the 25%+ rates in Germany, France and Italy.
  • Annual gains up to 500 euros ($560) would be exempt from the proposed tax under the draft bill.
  • The measure is set for parliamentary submission in November after public consultation closes.
  • 10% Greece’s planned capital gains tax rate on cryptocurrency transactions
  • 500 EUR Annual exemption threshold per investor under the proposed legislation
  • 25%+ Capital gains tax rates in Germany, France and Italy for comparison

CoinDesk reported that Greece is preparing to impose a 10% capital gains tax on cryptocurrency holdings under a draft bill currently in public consultation. The exemption threshold of 500 euros ($560) annually would shelter smaller investors from the levy, while the bill itself is scheduled for parliament in November. The Greek government has yet to release revenue projections for the tax or quantify the domestic cryptocurrency market, citing difficulty in tracking trading activity given that most Greek investors use offshore platforms.

Greece’s rate undercuts major EU trading partners by more than half

The 10% levy positions Greece as a significantly more attractive jurisdiction for cryptocurrency investors relative to other EU member states. Germany, France and Italy are all setting or planning to set capital gains tax rates exceeding 25% on digital assets, creating a gap of at least 15 percentage points between Greece’s approach and its neighbors’ framework.

The disparity reflects broader divergence among EU countries on how to treat cryptocurrency taxation. Rather than adopting a bloc-wide standard, member states are developing their own regimes independently, often mirroring the tax treatment applied to traditional financial assets like equities.

Data scarcity complicates revenue forecasting for the Greek government

Greek officials face structural challenges in estimating the tax base, since most domestic investors trade on platforms headquartered outside the country rather than through Greek-regulated exchanges.

Without visibility into cross-border trading volumes or holdings of Greek nationals, the treasury has not attempted to project the revenue the 10% rate might generate. This opacity may influence how aggressively Greece enforces compliance reporting requirements when the bill reaches parliament.

The BlockWest read. Institutional allocators and crypto wealth managers will likely view Greece’s regime as a compliance arbitrage opportunity, particularly for EU-based clients already holding positions. The rate differential could incentivize migration of trading activity to Greek platforms if regulatory implementation remains light, though offshore trading by Greek nationals may persist unless reporting requirements close loopholes.

The draft bill is scheduled for parliamentary submission in November, when lawmakers will debate the 10% rate, the 500-euro exemption floor, and enforcement mechanisms. The outcome will signal whether Greece intends to enforce cross-border reporting agreements or rely primarily on voluntary disclosure.

HSBC CEO warns the AI boom won’t make every data center a good bet

ECB prepares digital euro pilot launching late 2027 with payment strategy details

,

The European Central Bank is preparing a digital euro as central bank money for everyday transactions across the euro area, designed to coexist with private payment solutions and prevent European dependence on foreign payment infrastructure. ECB Executive Board member Piero Cipollone laid out the strategy in a webcast speech, detailing holding limits, financial stability safeguards and a pilot program beginning in the second half of 2027.

  • Digital euro pilot is set to begin in the second half of 2027, run 12 months, involve 36 payment service providers selected from more than 50 applicants
  • ECB analysis: holding limit of €3,000 would generate no aggregate deposit outflow by 2034
  • Two-thirds of euro area card payments rely on international schemes; 13 of 21 euro area countries have no domestic card scheme
  • Legislative trilogue negotiations under way; European Council called for conclusion by end of 2026
  • €3,000 Upper end of holding limit range examined for financial stability
  • €127bn Projected deposit inflow by 2034 as payments shift from cash to deposit-based instruments
  • 36 Payment service providers selected for pilot from 50+ applications

The ECB’s speech outlines a comprehensive strategy to embed central bank money in digital payments while maintaining what Cipollone calls “the two-tier monetary system” of public and private money coexisting. The digital euro would function as legal tender across the euro area for person-to-person payments, e-commerce and point-of-sale transactions, but banks and regulated payment service providers would distribute it and manage customer relationships rather than the ECB serving customers directly.

The motivation is explicit: prevent monetary fragmentation and European dependence on non-European payment infrastructure. Cipollone notes that cross-border transactions account for just 5 percent of the euro area payment market and private interoperability platforms do not expand domestic acceptance or broaden use cases. A common pan-European public payment layer would give private European competitors a platform to scale.

Digital euro designed as a payment tool, not a savings instrument, to protect bank funding

The ECB has addressed the central concern regulators face when deploying central bank digital currencies: deposit flight from commercial banks. The digital euro would not be remunerated, and holdings would face individual limits. Users could link digital euro balances to bank accounts, with waterfall mechanisms allowing payments to draw from linked accounts when digital euro holdings are exhausted. A reverse waterfall could automatically transfer incoming amounts above a holding limit to the linked bank account.

ECB analysis examined holding limits ranging from €500 to €3,000 across 2,025 banks in two scenarios: business-as-usual and an extreme “flight-to-safety” tail scenario. Under business-as-usual, the ECB projects a €127 billion deposit inflow by 2034 as payments shift from cash to deposit-based instruments. That inflow alone exceeds estimated digital euro-related outflows for any holding limit up to €3,000. Under the extreme scenario, only 13 banks representing 0.3 percent of total banking sector assets would see their liquidity coverage ratio fall to 100 percent.

Within the range assessed, holding limits are effective in containing deposit outflows and safeguarding financial stability.

Piero Cipollone, ECB Executive Board member, speech

The ECB explicitly states that the analysis is “illustrative” and does not represent a decision on the eventual holding limit. The document does not specify how the final limit will be set or which of the tested thresholds the ECB prefers.

Pilot to test ecosystem integration as innovation platform launches

Technical preparation is running parallel to legislation. The pilot is set to begin in the second half of 2027 and run for 12 months, involving 36 payment service providers selected from more than 50 applicants. The ECB opened a call on 15 September for e-commerce and mobile-commerce merchants to participate, testing customer payment journeys and assessing integration with existing checkout systems.

The ECB simultaneously launched a new wave of innovation activities through its digital euro innovation platform, building on an earlier exercise with around 70 market participants. One workstream will test integrated electronic receipts, multi-payer or multi-recipient payments, conditional payments and new payment app features. A second workstream explores longer-term applications including artificial intelligence-enabled payments, micropayments and digital euro use in public services such as transportation, mobility, parking and government payments.

The speech does not specify the technical standards, architecture, offline functionality specifications, or merchant incentive models that will govern the digital euro’s operation. The ECB notes that the Eurosystem will bear infrastructure costs and not charge scheme or processing fees, but says the “precise arrangements” for compensating banks and payment service providers are “currently being discussed as part of the legislative process.”

Tokenised settlement and Pontes framework position digital assets on parallel track

The digital euro retail initiative is one part of a broader ECB strategy. In wholesale markets, the ECB is building infrastructure called Pontes to enable central bank money to settle tokenised transactions. A separate market-shaping initiative called Appia works with the financial industry to develop the wider digital finance ecosystem. Cipollone frames both as essential to preventing financial fragmentation and preserving what he calls “the singleness of money”, the principle that one euro holds uniform value throughout the euro area.

The speech does not disclose timelines, governance structures, or technical specifications for Pontes or Appia beyond naming them as parallel workstreams.

The BlockWest read. The ECB is positioning digital euro holding limits as a technical knob, not a policy tradeoff. By anchoring analysis to an extreme scenario that has not occurred in 25 years and then stating that holding limits “contain deposit outflows” within tested ranges, Cipollone presents the design as financially stable at scale. But the real constraint on digital euro adoption may not be financial stability, it may be the holding limit itself. A €3,000 ceiling is not trivial for retail payments, but it is a constraint. European payment providers will need to understand how that ceiling affects their ability to compete with international schemes that operate without such limits. The legislative process will determine the actual figure; the pilot will test whether the limit users accept actually drives the adoption rates the ECB projects.

The European Council called for trilogue negotiations on digital euro legislation to conclude by the end of 2026. The ECB Governing Council will vote on whether to proceed with digital euro issuance only after legislation is adopted. The digital euro pilot call for e-commerce and mobile-commerce merchants closes on an unspecified date; the pilot itself is to begin in the second half of 2027.

CFTC opens rulemaking to let platforms offer leveraged crypto trading

CFTC opens rulemaking to let platforms offer leveraged crypto trading

, , , , , ,

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has opened a new front in the fight to pull crypto trading volume back from offshore venues, dangling federal leverage access as the incentive. The move comes as Congress remains stalled on comprehensive market-structure legislation, leaving the agency to rely on authority it says it already holds.

  • CFTC published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Monday (October 5) covering Regulation CTX and Regulation CAM.
  • Public comments are due within 60 days of the ANPRM’s Federal Register publication, according to the agency.
  • Wallet transfers completed within 28 days of a trade would generally satisfy the Commodity Exchange Act’s “actual delivery” exception.
  • 60 days public comment window set after Federal Register publication of the ANPRM
  • 28 days wallet-transfer window that would satisfy the “actual delivery” exemption
  • Oct. 5 date the CFTC opened rulemaking for the new CTX and CAM frameworks

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Monday (October 5) laying out a path toward Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (CTX) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (CAM), according to a CFTC press release. The framework, first detailed by CryptoSlate, would give platforms a federal route to offer retail customers margined, leveraged or financed crypto trading. Participation would stay optional for ordinary spot exchanges, which the agency acknowledges it cannot force onto CFTC-regulated venues without action from Congress.

Leverage becomes the lure in a three-tier registration map

The proposal sorts exchanges into three categories depending on what they want to offer US customers. Spot exchanges could stay under state money-transmitter licensing, backed by the CFTC’s existing anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority. Platforms offering leveraged or financed crypto trades could instead register federally under CTX and CAM, while venues trading futures and perpetual contracts would remain under the commission’s existing designated contract market regime.

Hyperliquid Policy Center described the structure as a clearer regulatory ladder in a post on X, with state oversight for spot activity, federal CFTC supervision once leverage enters the picture, and the existing derivatives framework for futures and perpetuals. The legal basis is Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act, which governs certain leveraged retail commodity transactions.

Leveraged products and perpetual contracts have long given offshore exchanges an edge over US platforms, which have operated with a narrower product menu under current rules. Larry Florio, deputy general counsel at synthetic-dollar developer Ethena Labs, called retail leverage the proposal’s central draw, arguing it could be enough on its own to pull exchanges into a single federal regime voluntarily.

FTX’s collapse shapes new custody and reserve requirements

Chairman Michael Selig framed the initiative around lessons from FTX’s 2022 bankruptcy, arguing regulators should build preventive safeguards rather than lean on enforcement after customers have already lost funds. Selig said that “the lesson from FTX’s failure should have been obvious,” arguing that protecting customers from fraud should coexist with responsible crypto innovation.

CAM operators would face requirements already standard for designated contract markets, covering financial integrity, market surveillance, conflicts of interest and operational safeguards. The agency is also weighing crypto-specific tests, including assessments of token concentration, distribution methods, vesting schedules, lockups, programmatic issuance and buybacks when deciding whether an asset is tradable without being easily manipulated. Platforms holding customer assets in omnibus accounts could additionally face proof-of-reserves requirements, a safeguard Selig tied directly to the risks exposed by FTX’s failure.

Customer CTX trades would run through registered futures commission merchants, bringing accounts under capital, disclosure and segregation rules. That intermediation would also pull customer-facing activity under Bank Secrecy Act obligations, including anti-money laundering controls, identity checks and suspicious-activity reporting, raising the compliance cost of opting in well beyond registration fees.

Selig says shipping code shouldn’t trigger broker registration

The CTX proposal would also clarify the Commodity Exchange Act’s “actual delivery” exception, treating transfers to a customer’s external non-custodial wallet within 28 days as generally satisfying the exemption from exchange-trading requirements for certain leveraged retail transactions.

Selig separately addressed how the agency might treat developers who publish software without taking customer orders, controlling execution or holding customer assets. “A person should not have to register as an introducing broker simply because that person shipped code,” he wrote on X.

The ANPRM leaves the hardest numbers undecided. Leverage limits, capital standards and how far FCM intermediation would reshape exchanges’ vertically integrated custody-and-brokerage models are all still open for comment rather than fixed in the proposal.

The BlockWest read. The real decision here sits with exchange balance sheets, not compliance teams. Opting in means unwinding the combined exchange-brokerage-custody model that has made crypto platforms cheaper to run than traditional brokers, in exchange for leverage revenue that offshore rivals already capture freely. Firms like Ethena, whose products depend on where collateral and leverage flow, will be watching which major exchanges blink first.

The CFTC is accepting public comment on the ANPRM for 60 days from its Federal Register publication, with submissions posted to Regulations.gov, before it moves toward drafting detailed rules on leverage limits, custody and intermediary requirements. Whether any major US exchange judges federal leverage access worth surrendering structural flexibility for remains the open question the agency’s own filing does not answer.

Kresus-Quiet Tokenization Inside the Bank

Banks are quietly building tokenization pilots, Kresus executive says

, , , , , , ,

Kresus BlockWest exclusive preview
BlockWest
Institutional
ExclusiveBy Ashton AddisonOctober 6, 2026

Banks are quietly building tokenization pilots, Kresus executive says

Dr. Jordan Knecht of Kresus Labs says banks are running tokenized deposit pilots and vendor reviews now, and that waiting for regulatory clarity can cost 12 to 18 months of build time.

90 days
Time to a live MVP at Kresus, per Knecht
18-24 mo
Typical bank build to production, per Knecht
12+ mo
Minimum delay from waiting for a green light
Billions
Real estate one buyer could absorb, he said

From the outside, banks look slow on blockchain. Inside the vendors they are hiring, Dr. Jordan Knecht says, the picture is different: institutions are running requests for proposals, testing tokenized certificates of deposit and lining up infrastructure for the day regulators finish the rules.

Knecht is Head of Strategic Integrations at Kresus Labs, which sells wallet infrastructure, enterprise tokenization and stablecoin workflows to banks, funds and asset managers. He spoke with Ashton Addison for Crypto Coin Show in an interview recorded Thursday, October 1, and the full conversation is on YouTube. The company has a commercial interest in institutions moving, so his claims are best read as a vendor’s view of its own pipeline. The specifics he offered are what make them worth reporting.

The pilotsTokenized deposits are already in pilot in friendlier jurisdictions

Knecht named the United Arab Emirates and El Salvador as the markets where banks have the most room to experiment. The company is working with several institutions there, which he declined to identify, on tokenized certificates of deposit. He described the work as actively being deployed.

The incentives line up on both sides, he said. Some jurisdictions treat tokenized assets as tax-free, which gives customers a reason to hold the token and then move it, post it as collateral, sell it or borrow against it. For the bank, the same product improves treasury efficiency and serves as a proving ground for other instruments it might tokenize later.

US banks are mostly watching. Knecht said some are waiting to see how regulators in those markets respond, while others run an offshore entity to build pilots they can later show to American lawmakers. He pointed to JPMorgan’s launch of tokenized deposits as evidence that the idea has reached the largest US banks. Tokenized deposits differ from stablecoins, he noted, because they are backed by the bank’s own collateral rather than by a third party.

“

Everybody’s building silently, they’re preparing, they’re getting things in line for when there is regulatory clarity.

Dr. Jordan Knecht, Head of Strategic Integrations, Kresus Labs

The bottleneckLiquidity decides which assets belong onchain

Some clients arrive convinced that tokenizing an asset will make it more efficient on its own. Knecht pushes back. A municipal bond put onchain would trade around the clock, he said, but that does not mean anyone wants to buy it in the middle of the night.

He described a real estate client that Kresus had to turn away until roughly two months ago, because nobody would provide liquidity for the asset. That changed when an institution with a large balance sheet said it wanted to be the sole buyer, with capacity for what he put at probably several billion dollars of property. He did not name the buyer. Addison noted that liquidity has been the sticking point in security token discussions since at least 2018, and he said the buyers now appearing are interested in supporting around-the-clock interoperability, though not yet the depth the market needs.

Equities come first in his view, because that is where most of the tokenization market is concentrated. He read DTCC’s public posture as a pivot toward corporate treasuries as tokenized equities draw liquidity, and framed it as his interpretation rather than a stated DTCC plan. Insurance contracts and annuities would follow. The infrastructure that matters over the long run, he argued, is the plumbing that lets collateral back tokenized assets and lets trades swap and settle atomically. Round-the-clock trading is the visible feature, and the plumbing is the lasting one.

“

It doesn’t mean there’s liquidity and a desire to buy it at 3 a.m.

Dr. Jordan Knecht, Head of Strategic Integrations, Kresus Labs, on tokenized municipal bonds

The rulesStablecoins are still a talking point at US banks, not a deployment

Asked whether banks use stablecoins for payments and settlement yet, Knecht said the market is in a crawl-before-walk phase. Banks are discussing and experimenting, he said, but the company is not seeing anyone deploy them yet. He expects tokenized deposits to be the next step, and he rejected the framing that stablecoins and bank deposits are rivals. They solve different problems, he said.

He tied the pace to regulation. The GENIUS Act, passed last year, gave US banks enough rules to begin experimenting with stablecoins, he said, while the CLARITY Act has been tabled. He compared the process with securities law, which he said took three acts and more than a decade to settle.

On whether crypto exchanges or banks will win customers, he said neither will beat the other and that the two will converge into “just finance.” His example was a Friday 8 p.m. loan closing. A buyer holding $100,000 in USDC on an exchange cannot move it into a bank account until the wire is processed Monday morning. Banks have long used that convenience gap against higher-yield online competitors, and they can make the same argument against stablecoin balances.

Where institutional adoption stands, per Knecht
AreaStatus
Tokenized CDs (UAE, El Salvador)Deploying
Tokenized deposits (JPMorgan)Launched
Bank stablecoin paymentsPilots only
Tokenized real estateBuyer emerging
CLARITY ActTabled

The playbookInstitutions should define the problem before picking a chain

Knecht said prospects often open by announcing they have already chosen a layer one blockchain. He advises against it. Institutions should first define the asset, who holds it, what rights attach to it and what transfer restrictions apply, and then let the infrastructure partner select the network. For a privacy-specific use case he would point to Canton, and to an EVM-based chain where deep liquidity matters more.

He compared the approach to a company hiring a vendor to improve video streaming, where the customer never specifies the protocol. The company starts with a small MVP that he said can go live in about 90 days, then builds toward production. He added that his team is made up of former traditional finance professionals who know the constraints banks work under.

The BlockWest read. We read Knecht’s timeline as a warning to allocators and bank treasurers: pilots are already live in friendlier jurisdictions, and an 18 to 24 month internal build means a decision made after clarity arrives is a decision made late. The weak point is liquidity. Until buyers of size appear beyond equities, tokenization will keep outrunning demand. Kresus sells this infrastructure, so weigh the urgency accordingly.

What to watchThe CLARITY Act and a first named bank deployment are the tests

Two developments would test Knecht’s account. One is whether the tabled CLARITY Act advances, since he links the pace of US bank adoption to regulatory clarity. The other is a named bank moving a tokenized certificate of deposit from pilot to production in the UAE or El Salvador. He said such a project is under way but gave no institution and no launch date.

For now, the evidence is one executive’s account of a pipeline he cannot name. If he is right, the next headlines will come from banks that never announced the build.

About Kresus Labs

Kresus Labs builds enterprise blockchain infrastructure for banks, funds and platforms, including wallet infrastructure, tokenization and stablecoin workflows. Learn more at kresus.com. More from BlockWest: interviews.

BlockWest Institutional
Crypto dealmakers bypass stalled Clarity Act, rely on SEC and CFTC rules

Crypto dealmakers bypass stalled Clarity Act, rely on SEC and CFTC rules

, , , , , , , ,

Crypto’s M&A engine kept running even after the Clarity Act stalled in the Senate, as bankers and investors tell BlockWest that SEC and CFTC rulemaking is filling the gap Congress left behind. The split reaction shows dealmakers now treat agency action, not legislation, as the faster route to regulatory certainty.

  • The Clarity Act failed a Senate procedural vote 49-50 on September 15, 2026, falling short of the 60 needed to advance.
  • Crypto M&A hit a record $9.7 billion in disclosed deal value in the first half of 2026, up 44% from a year earlier.
  • Kraken parent Payward is buying Reap for $600 million and Bitnomial for up to $550 million while Nasdaq invests $100 million in Payward.
  • 49-50 Senate vote tally on the Clarity Act, 10 short of 60
  • $9.7B record H1 2026 crypto M&A value, up 44% year over year
  • 76% share of disclosed deal value from the four largest deals
  • $600M Payward’s price for payments firm Reap, its largest 2026 deal

The crypto industry spent years pushing Congress for a durable rulebook dividing oversight of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That effort hit a wall on Tuesday, September 15, when the Clarity Act drew 49 votes in favor and 50 against in a Senate procedural vote, missing the 60-vote threshold needed to advance. Talks had broken down over ethics restrictions on senior officials’ crypto holdings, including those of President Donald Trump, plus unresolved investor-protection and illicit-finance concerns, according to CoinDesk reported.

With the November midterms approaching and little floor time left, the vote sharply cut the odds of passage this year. That leaves the SEC and CFTC, rather than Congress, as the near-term arbiters of how digital asset businesses get regulated.

SEC moves twice in two weeks after the Senate vote stalls

Bankers who spoke with CoinDesk said the Clarity Act’s failure is unlikely to freeze crypto dealmaking outright. Instead they expect an uneven split: deals in segments where regulators have already clarified rules keep moving, while companies tied to unresolved token questions stay harder to price and acquire.

Paul McCaffery, head of digital assets at investment bank KBW, argued that Congress is no longer the only path to clarity.

The SEC and CFTC are already moving proactively to provide the regulatory certainty markets need, and that’s unlocking a wave of M&A across digital assets, traditional financial services, and fintech alike.

Paul McCaffery, head of digital assets, KBW

Just two days after the Senate vote, the SEC approved a temporary “Innovation Exemption” allowing limited trading of tokenized U.S. stocks on certain onchain venues. On October 1, 2026, the agency proposed a separate rule clarifying how investment firms may custody client crypto assets, while the CFTC has granted relief to certain software providers and updated guidance on tokenized investments and blockchain recordkeeping.

Record $9.7B H1 2026 deal value hides concentration among a few megadeals

Crypto M&A reached $9.7 billion in disclosed deal value in the first half of 2026, up 44% from a year earlier, according to CryptoRank Research. But the number of announced acquisitions fell 8% year over year to 87, and the four largest transactions accounted for 76% of that disclosed value, pointing to a market driven by a handful of large deals rather than broad-based activity.

Payward, Kraken’s parent company, illustrates what is driving those large transactions. It agreed to buy payments firm Reap for $600 million and derivatives platform Bitnomial for up to $550 million, while Nasdaq separately committed $100 million to Payward alongside an expanded commercial partnership, according to CoinDesk reporting. Todd White, partner at Architect Partners, said the SEC’s post-vote moves feel “poised to catalyze activity around tokenization, for both commercial momentum and strategic transactions,” adding that the Innovation Exemption should reinforce a shift toward more liquid, institutional assets already underway.

Venture investors split on whether agency rules can substitute for Clarity

Not every market participant agrees agency action can stand in for legislation. Dmitriy Berenzon, partner at Archetype, said a clearer legal framework “would absolutely result in more deals, more partnerships permeating across financial services and beyond,” pointing to the GENIUS Act’s effect on stablecoin adoption as evidence that defined rules speed activity.

Jake Brukhman, founder and CEO of CoinFund, framed the setback differently. He said failure to pass Clarity “does not create a new drag so much as preserve the regulatory uncertainty already weighing on the sector,” with token-centric companies and pre-token financings most exposed while equity-based infrastructure and payments businesses face less impact.

Will Nuelle, general partner at Galaxy Ventures, described a similar divide, noting deal activity has already concentrated in categories the SEC and CFTC have de-risked through Project Crypto and joint guidance, including exchange infrastructure, spot trading and tokenized collateral. He called regulatory frameworks “particularly for institutional adoption, which can be a supportive tailwind for entrepreneurs building in the space and is obviously supportive for M&A.”

The BlockWest read. Allocators and strategic buyers are quietly outsourcing regulatory risk assessment to whichever agency moves first rather than waiting on Congress, which rewards firms with Washington relationships over those banking on statute. Expect boards evaluating crypto targets to weight SEC and CFTC exemption pipelines more heavily than pending bills when underwriting deal timelines, and expect token-exposed sellers to keep facing wider bid-ask spreads than equity-based infrastructure targets until that changes.

The open question bankers are now tracking is whether dealmakers keep pursuing SEC- and CFTC-cleared categories like tokenized collateral and exchange infrastructure while Washington works toward lasting legislation, or whether prolonged uncertainty eventually makes buyers hesitate on token-centric targets. No new Clarity Act vote is scheduled before the November midterms, leaving the SEC’s October 1 custody rule proposal and its public comment period as the next concrete marker for how far agency action can substitute for a statute.

Anchorage Digital cuts 17% of workforce amid crypto market slump

Anchorage Digital cuts 17% of workforce amid crypto market slump

, , , , ,

Anchorage Digital, the first federally chartered digital asset bank in the United States, has cut 17% of its global workforce as the crypto industry’s layoff wave stretches into its fourth straight year. The reduction lands on a roughly 400-person team Chief Executive Nathan McCauley described to Congress in February 2025, implying around 68 jobs lost.

  • Anchorage Digital CEO Nathan McCauley told employees of a 17% workforce cut this week, The Information reported.
  • McCauley put the company’s global headcount at about 400 people in February 2025 Senate testimony, suggesting roughly 68 roles are affected.
  • Anchorage cut 20% of its staff in 2023 after a bank severed its account, a decision McCauley later tied to being debanked.
  • 17% share of Anchorage Digital’s global workforce cut this week
  • ~68 estimated jobs lost if the 400-person 2025 headcount held
  • 20% size of Anchorage’s prior layoff in 2023 after losing its bank
  • 10,799 US tech job cuts in September, up 77% from August

Anchorage Digital has laid off 17% of its staff, McCauley told employees this week, according to reporting by BeInCrypto, which cited The Information as the outlet that first broke the news. The report, based on people familiar with the matter, tied the cuts to a crypto market slump running for roughly a year. Anchorage has not issued a public statement on the reduction, and BeInCrypto said it had reached out to the company for comment.

McCauley’s 2025 Senate testimony puts the cut near 68 jobs

Anchorage has not disclosed how many employees the 17% cut affects. The clearest public benchmark comes from McCauley himself.

In congressional testimony in February 2025, McCauley said Anchorage employed about 400 people globally, including 282 workers spread across 37 US states. Applying 17% to that figure points to roughly 68 jobs eliminated, though staffing may have shifted in the twenty months since the hearing. The company’s current total headcount, and the exact scale of this week’s cut, has not been confirmed.

Gemini, Coinbase and Bitwise led a year of crypto layoffs

Anchorage’s reduction extends a run of crypto-sector job cuts in 2026. Gemini shrank its workforce by about 30%, Crypto.com cut 12% of staff in March, and Coinbase said in May it would eliminate about 700 roles, or 14% of its workforce.

Dune laid off 25% of its team in May to focus on AI agents and institutional data, and exchange Luno trimmed 20% of its staff in July. Bitwise cut roughly 14% of its team in August. Other firms shut down entirely, including BitMEX, the Lisk blockchain and the Ethereum layer-2 network Blast.

The pattern mirrors a broader slowdown in technology hiring. US tech firms announced 10,799 job cuts in September, up 77% from August, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Tech employers have announced 165,925 cuts for all of 2026, a 54% rise from the same point a year earlier.

Total US job-cut announcements fell 18% in September even as tech activity rose. Tech accounted for 29% of all 2026 layoffs the firm tracked.

Anchorage’s 2023 cut followed being debanked, testimony shows

Anchorage has reduced its workforce sharply before. In 2023 the company cut 20% of its staff, a decision McCauley later linked to losing access to banking services.

That episode is documented in McCauley’s Senate testimony, where he described a partner bank terminating Anchorage’s corporate account in June 2023 with thirty days’ notice, despite more than two years as what he called an “ideal bank client.” The bank declined to explain its decision or allow an appeal, he told the committee, even though Anchorage had held a federal charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency since January 2021. The testimony does not say whether banking access has again become a factor in this year’s cuts, leaving open whether the current reduction reflects market conditions alone or echoes the funding problems McCauley described to Congress.

The BlockWest read. The headline is staffing, but the backdrop is capital discipline. A federally chartered bank trimming headcount twice in three years signals that even regulated crypto custodians have not escaped margin pressure from thin trading volumes and soft client demand. For institutional allocators who rely on Anchorage for custody and staking, the question is whether cost cuts touch service levels, not whether the charter itself is at risk.

Anchorage has not confirmed how many roles the 17% cut affects or whether further reductions are planned, and BeInCrypto said its request for comment had gone unanswered. Whether the company discloses a precise figure, and whether banking access problems similar to those McCauley described to Congress in February 2025 played any role this time, remain open questions.

Independent Community Bankers of America sues OCC over crypto trust charters

Independent Community Bankers of America sues OCC over crypto trust charters

, , , , , , ,

Update (Oct 3, 11:05pm): The draft reveals new lawsuit details including the filing date (October 2), that Comptroller Jonathan Gould was named as defendant, that the complaint targets specific OCC actions (March 2026 rule, Interpretive Letter 1176, and Protego's approval), and that 21 total trust banks have been approved or conditionally approved under the Trump administration.

The nation’s largest advocacy group for community banks has taken the federal government to court over how crypto firms are entering the banking system. The lawsuit challenges a charter pathway that has let companies including Coinbase, Circle and President Trump’s World Liberty Financial operate with federal legitimacy but, the group argues, without the oversight that binds traditional banks.

  • The Independent Community Bankers of America sued the OCC in federal court on Friday.
  • ICBA says crypto trust banks avoid the capital, liquidity, supervision and FDIC insurance rules that bind community banks.
  • The OCC has granted trust charters to Coinbase, Circle, Crypto.com, Protego, and Erebor. World Liberty Financial also received a charter from the OCC.
  • Oct 2026 month ICBA filed its federal complaint against the OCC
  • Sept 2026 month OCC granted OpenReserve Bank a full national charter

The Independent Community Bankers of America filed suit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in federal court on Friday, according to CoinDesk reporting. The filed complaint accuses the agency of pushing “sweeping new powers to charter national trust banks that are not authorized by the National Bank Act.” ICBA argues the charters let crypto firms into U.S. banking and payments without matching the regulatory burden community banks carry.

ICBA’s complaint targets a charter pathway, not individual firms

The lawsuit does not name individual crypto companies as defendants. It targets the OCC’s legal authority to issue national trust charters to firms whose business model differs sharply from a typical community bank.

ICBA’s complaint says crypto trust banks are not held to the same standards on capital, liquidity, supervision or Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. coverage that apply to chartered community banks. The group argues that gap puts community banks “at a severe competitive disadvantage” even though the crypto entrants do not offer the cash deposit accounts FDIC insurance is designed to protect.

ICBA President and CEO Rebeca Romero Rainey framed the charters as an improper entry point into the banking system.

Congress did not create the national trust charter as a side door into the banking system for crypto firms seeking the credibility of a federal bank charter.

Rebeca Romero Rainey, President and CEO, ICBA

World Liberty Financial’s charter drew Senator Warren’s criticism

The OCC has issued a steady run of trust charters to crypto firms, a trend regulators have credited with ending a long drought in new bank formation. Recipients range from crypto-native trusts such as Protego and Erebor to established digital asset businesses including Coinbase, Circle and Crypto.com.

The most politically charged addition is World Liberty Financial, the firm partly owned by President Donald Trump and his family. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren posted on X that the charter was “giving him and his family a new way to profit,” accusing the OCC of permitting presidential corruption.

Last month, the OCC also granted a full national bank charter, rather than a trust charter, to OpenReserve Bank, a blockchain-focused bank backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Jump Capital and Coinbase Ventures. An OCC spokesperson told CoinDesk the agency “does not comment on litigation” when asked about the ICBA suit.

ICBA’s push against stablecoin legislation sets up the next fight

This is not ICBA’s first clash with the crypto industry this year. The group lobbied against the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which stalled in the U.S. Senate last month over bankers’ objections that its stablecoin provisions failed to shield them from competition with core deposit products.

That fight centered on legislation. This one centers on how the OCC interprets existing law without new statutory authority from Congress.

The BlockWest read. The lawsuit is really a dispute over balance sheet risk, not ideology. Community banks fund themselves with FDIC-insured deposits and face strict capital rules; crypto trusts largely custody assets and avoid that cost structure, so every new charter approval changes the competitive math for thousands of small lenders. Watch whether other state banking associations join ICBA, since a favorable ruling would slow OCC approvals industry-wide, not just for named firms.

The OCC has not said whether it will seek dismissal or defend its charter authority in filings, and no hearing date has been set. How the court treats the National Bank Act’s scope will determine whether firms like World Liberty Financial and OpenReserve Bank keep their charters intact or face new legal exposure.

Tether and Circle add $200 billion to US Treasury holdings over five years

Tether and Circle add $200 billion to US Treasury holdings over five years

, , , , , ,

Stablecoin issuers have quietly become one of the more consequential buyers of US government debt, with Tether and Circle together adding roughly $200 billion in Treasury and repo holdings over five years. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco researchers say that sum offsets more than 40% of the decline in China’s Treasury holdings over the same period, a shift that is reshaping who finances Washington’s deficits.

  • Tether and Circle increased Treasury securities and repo holdings by about $200 billion over the past five years
  • China’s Treasury holdings fell by more than half since their late-2013 peak, toward roughly $600 billion by mid-2026
  • Extending current growth rates could push stablecoin issuer Treasury holdings toward $400 billion by 2030, the Fed says
  • $200B stablecoin issuer Treasury and repo holdings added over five years
  • 40%+ share of China’s Treasury decline offset by stablecoin issuer buying
  • ~30% foreign investor share of outstanding Treasuries in early 2026, down from over 50% in 2008
  • $400B projected stablecoin Treasury holdings by 2030 if current growth persists

Stablecoin issuers are emerging as a meaningful new buyer of US government debt just as foreign official demand continues to fade. According to research cited by CryptoSlate, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that Tether and Circle have expanded their combined Treasury securities and repurchase-agreement holdings by approximately $200 billion since roughly 2020 or 2021. That growth, detailed in a San Francisco Fed economic letter, now offsets more than 40% of the drop in China’s Treasury holdings over the same span.

The timing matters. US federal debt held by the public has climbed from about 35% of gross domestic product in 2006 to roughly 100% today, intensifying scrutiny of who is willing to buy the growing pile of new issuance.

Stablecoin issuer Treasury holdings have grown more than tenfold in five years

The broader picture is one of foreign governments retreating from the Treasury market just as crypto-linked dollar demand expands to partially fill the gap. Foreign investors held more than half of outstanding Treasury securities around 2008, but that share had fallen to roughly 30% by early 2026, the San Francisco Fed researchers found. Within that shrinking foreign bloc, official government buyers accounted for just above 40% of foreign Treasury demand by early 2026, down from nearly all of it at their peak in the 1970s.

China sits at the center of that long-run shift. Its Treasury holdings peaked in late 2013 and had fallen by more than half by mid-2026 as Beijing diversified its reserve assets away from US government debt. As China’s holdings slid toward roughly $600 billion, stablecoin issuers’ Treasury position climbed toward nearly $200 billion, according to the Fed data.

Private investors stepping into that space behave differently than central banks. They can demand higher yields when fiscal risk rises, while stablecoin issuers are structurally required to hold large pools of liquid dollar assets to back tokens redeemable at par.

Tether and Circle control more than 80% of stablecoin market value

USDT and USDC together accounted for more than 80% of total stablecoin market capitalization as of mid-August 2026, the San Francisco Fed researchers noted. Both issuers back their tokens with a mix of short-term Treasury securities, cash, bank deposits and repurchase agreements, holdings sized to meet redemption demand on short notice.

That footprint has already made stablecoin issuers heavyweight participants at the short end of the Treasury curve. Since 2023, the two companies have added more short-term Treasury holdings than Japan, currently the largest foreign holder of US government debt, the research found. The San Francisco Fed, citing work from the Bank for International Settlements, said that buying is large enough to measurably move short-term government bond yields.

The comparison with China has a limit, however. Beijing’s reductions have concentrated in longer-dated US debt, while stablecoin issuers overwhelmingly buy Treasury bills and other short-maturity, highly liquid instruments. Growing stablecoin reserves can deepen demand for bills without creating an equivalent buyer for longer-term notes and bonds.

The GENIUS Act could lock in demand for Treasury bills

Regulation adopted in 2025 may reinforce that short-maturity bias rather than broaden it. The GENIUS Act created a federal framework requiring approved US payment stablecoin issuers to fully back outstanding tokens with eligible liquid reserves, with proposed implementing rules covering Treasury bills, notes and bonds maturing in 93 days or less, alongside cash, bank deposits and certain Treasury-backed repos.

That structure ties regulated dollar stablecoin growth directly to incremental demand for the shortest-dated government securities. Issuers also benefit economically, since customers typically earn no yield on their tokens while issuers collect the interest on the Treasuries backing them.

The San Francisco Fed pointed to rising stablecoin use for cross-border payments and as a dollar store of value in countries with volatile currencies, particularly across Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. Extending the industry’s recent growth rate would lift stablecoin issuer Treasury holdings toward $400 billion by 2030, though researchers cautioned the estimate carries substantial uncertainty given competition from bank payment technology and foreign regulation.

The BlockWest read. For bank treasury desks and Treasury auction planners, this is a reminder that short-bill demand is becoming structurally linked to stablecoin circulation rather than purely to rate expectations. If GENIUS Act implementing rules get finalized as proposed, issuers become a semi-automatic bid for T-bills every time global dollar-token demand rises, a dynamic Treasury’s debt managers will need to model explicitly.

Whether stablecoin issuer Treasury holdings actually reach the San Francisco Fed’s $400 billion projection by 2030 depends on adoption outside crypto trading, including cross-border payments and remittances, and on competing pressure from banks building cheaper settlement tools and from foreign regulators who could restrict dollar-token use.

Treasury allows states to file incomplete stablecoin applications before deadline

Treasury allows states to file incomplete stablecoin applications before deadline

, , , , ,

The U.S. Treasury Department has finalized procedural rules letting states lock in a path toward approving their own stablecoin oversight regimes even before their enabling legislation is complete. The move affects any bank, fintech or state regulator weighing whether to pursue a state or federal charter once the GENIUS Act’s certification regime becomes operational.

  • The Stablecoin Certification Review Committee will accept conditional or incomplete state filings to meet the initial deadline
  • Only state-qualified issuers with up to $10 billion in consolidated outstanding payment stablecoins can seek state regulation
  • Treasury says it will not accept any certifications until Paperwork Reduction Act approval clears, with a notice to follow
  • $10B cap on outstanding stablecoin issuance to qualify for state regulation
  • Jan 18, 2028 deadline Treasury set for states to file initial certifications
  • 30-day window the Committee has to approve or deny a complete filing
  • Nov 30 deadline for public comments on the new interim procedures

Treasury published the interim final rule in the Federal Register on Wednesday (September 30), according to reporting by CryptoSlate. It sets the forms and review procedures the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee will use to evaluate state stablecoin regimes under the GENIUS Act.

The Committee says a conditional or incomplete certification can satisfy the statute’s initial filing timeframe even when a state still has legislative or regulatory work pending. That gives state regulators room to submit something on time, then continue building out their regimes before the Committee begins a substantive review.

Conditional filings satisfy the deadline but do not start the 30-day clock

A state’s conditional filing can be amended at any point and does not trigger the Committee’s 30-day approval-or-denial window. That clock only begins once a state submits a complete certification: an unconditional attestation signed by an authorized representative, a detailed explanation of how its regime meets Treasury’s similarity principles, supporting legal materials, and any additional information the Committee requires.

The distinction buys states time to finish their work after meeting the initial deadline. It does not automatically approve a state’s regime or grant a license to any individual stablecoin issuer.

Under the GENIUS Act, the Committee is chaired by the Treasury Secretary, with the Federal Reserve’s Vice Chair for Supervision and the FDIC chair as the other members, acting unanimously on state regime approvals. That three-member structure, not the procedural rule itself, decides whether a state’s regime ultimately clears review.

A $10 billion ceiling separates state-regulated issuers from federal ones

The flexibility applies to state-qualified payment stablecoin issuers that keep no more than $10 billion in consolidated outstanding payment stablecoin issuance. Those issuers may opt into state regulation only if their state regulator certifies the regime meets Treasury’s substantial-similarity criteria and the Committee unanimously finds it meets or exceeds the standards in section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act.

What counts as substantially similar is still unsettled. Treasury’s separate proposed rule on substantial-similarity principles addresses that comparison, and the September 30 procedural rule explicitly does not finalize those principles. CryptoSlate’s earlier coverage of the July filing deadline had already flagged the difficulty of judging state equivalence while federal, Treasury and OCC rules remained unfinished; that gap persists even with forms and timelines now in place.

Certifications wait on Paperwork Reduction Act clearance ahead of the Nov. 30 comment deadline

The rule took effect September 30, but Treasury says it will not accept any certifications until the underlying information collection clears Paperwork Reduction Act approval. Treasury will post a separate notice announcing when acceptance actually begins.

The rule uses January 18, 2028 as the deadline for initial certifications, built on an expected January 18, 2027 effective date for the GENIUS Act. The statutory filing deadline is one year after the Act takes effect, but the Act can trigger earlier under Section 20, which sets the earlier of 18 months after enactment or 120 days after federal payment stablecoin regulators finalize their implementing regulations.

Public comments on the interim procedures are due November 30.

The BlockWest read. Procedural flexibility does not remove the $10 billion ceiling that separates state-regulated issuers from federal ones. Any issuer planning to scale past that threshold still needs a federal charter path, so treasurers and bank partners weighing state licenses should treat this filing window as a bridge, not a destination, while the substantial-similarity standard remains unresolved.

The next concrete marker is November 30, when the comment period on the interim procedures closes, followed by Treasury’s still-undated notice on when it will start accepting certifications and the unresolved question of when the substantial-similarity principles themselves get finalized.

Load More

Back To Top
© BlockWest 2026
BlockWest Media LLC

Equities, AI, and blue-chip crypto, covered as one connected market.

Sections

Company

Legal

Follow

𝕏 ▶ in

© 2026 BlockWest. All rights reserved.