Standard Chartered Deepens Crypto Push With Zodia Custody Deal

TL;DR

Standard Chartered plans to acquire Zodia Custody’s custody business and integrate it into its regulated banking operations.
The deal separates infrastructure operations into Zodia Solutions, which will operate under SC Ventures.
The move highlights how major banks are expanding institutional digital asset services through regulated financial structures.

Standard Chartered is moving to acquire Zodia Custody’s custody business, bringing a key part of its digital asset strategy closer to the bank’s core operations.

The London-based bank said Zodia Custody shareholders and noteholders accepted its non-binding offer for the business. The Zodia Custody acquisition still requires regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions before it can be completed.

What Standard Chartered Is Buying

Zodia Custody is a digital asset custodian built to serve institutional clients. Its customers include banks and financial firms that need secure storage for crypto and tokenized assets. Custody is a basic but important part of digital finance because institutions usually cannot hold assets through ordinary retail wallets.

Under the planned transaction, Standard Chartered will integrate Zodia Custody’s regulated custody activities into its Financing and Securities Services business. The bank said with the move it wants to consolidate its digital asset custody operations and create a broader offering for custody clients globally.

Why the Business Is Being Split

The deal does not mean every part of Zodia will disappear into Standard Chartered. As part of the transaction, Zodia Custody will separate its institutional digital asset infrastructure platform into a new entity called Zodia Solutions.

Zodia Solutions will sit under SC Ventures, Standard Chartered’s venture-building arm. Its role will be to provide bank-grade infrastructure to financial institutions that want to launch or expand digital asset services.

This structure gives Standard Chartered two related but separate tracks. The bank can bring regulated custody services closer to its own clients, while Zodia Solutions can continue serving institutions that need technology infrastructure rather than direct custody from the bank.

What It Means for Institutional Crypto

The Zodia Custody acquisition reflects a broader shift in how large financial institutions approach crypto services. Digital asset custody is no longer an experimental product or a side venture.

For traditional banks, custody connects directly with securities services, tokenization, settlement, and institutional trading. Bringing custody inside a regulated banking division may make it easier to offer crypto services in a format familiar to large clients.

Standard Chartered has already been expanding its digital asset presence. Standard Chartered launched digital asset custody services in the UAE in September 2024, with Brevan Howard Digital as an inaugural client.

Clients Are Not Expected to Face Disruption

Standard Chartered said it expects to continue servicing existing Zodia Custody clients, with no expected disruption from the transaction.

That point matters because custody clients depend on continuity. Institutions need confidence that asset storage, controls, compliance processes, and client support will remain stable during ownership or structural changes.

The Zodia Custody acquisition also gives Standard Chartered more direct control over a business it had already backed through SC Ventures. For clients, the practical change may be less about branding and more about deeper integration with the bank’s broader digital asset services.

What Comes Next

The transaction is not final yet. Regulators still need to approve the deal, and the closing process must be completed.

If approved, the move would strengthen Standard Chartered’s position in institutional digital asset custody. At the same time it leaves Zodia Solutions to focus on infrastructure for financial firms. It is another sign that major banks are building crypto services around regulated, client-facing systems. Digital assets are no longer a separate experiment.

Bitcoin Depot Files for Chapter 11 as ATM Network Goes Offline

Editor

TL;DR

Bitcoin Depot filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after regulatory pressure, falling revenue, and mounting operational costs weakened its business.
The company shut down its network of more than 9,000 Bitcoin ATMs across the United States, Canada, and Australia.
A recent $3.665 million Bitcoin theft and prior going-concern warning added further strain before the bankruptcy filing.

Bitcoin Depot has filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Texas. The company was previously the largest Bitcoin ATM operator in North America, holding roughly 28% of the U.S. crypto ATM market.

Bitcoin Depot’s Chapter 11 filing is intended to support an orderly wind-down of operations and a sale of the company’s assets. Before the filing, the company had already issued a formal “going concern” warning, stating there was substantial doubt about its ability to continue operating over the next 12 months.

Preliminary Q1 2026 revenue fell 49.2% year-over-year. The company also posted a net loss of $9.5 million, compared to net income of $12.2 million during the same quarter a year earlier.

The company also said its Bitcoin ATM network has been taken offline. Bitcoin Depot previously operated more than 9,000 kiosks across the United States, Canada, and Australia for customers seeking cash-based Bitcoin purchases.

Regulatory pressure hits the ATM model

Bitcoin ATMs allow users to convert cash into Bitcoin through physical kiosks, often placed in retail stores, gas stations, and convenience locations. For mainstream users, they have offered a simple entry point into crypto without needing to use a traditional exchange.

That model has come under heavier scrutiny. Bitcoin Depot said stricter compliance obligations and state-level restrictions have materially affected its business. The company also pointed to transaction limits, litigation, bans in some jurisdictions, and broader regulatory enforcement pressure.

The company was also dealing with operational fallout from a recent security incident. On March 23, 2026, Bitcoin Depot discovered that an unauthorized party had obtained credentials connected to corporate crypto wallets. The attacker then transferred approximately $3.665 million worth of Bitcoin, or around 50.9 BTC.

The incident was later disclosed in an SEC filing on April 8, 2026. Bitcoin Depot said customer accounts, personal data, and user-facing platforms were not affected. However, the breach added further financial and reputational pressure to an already strained business.

The company said it had strengthened fraud-prevention procedures. Those measures included identity verification checks, customer warnings, and lower transaction limits. Even with those changes, management concluded that the current business model was no longer sustainable.

Asset sale now becomes the focus

The Chapter 11 process gives Bitcoin Depot a court-supervised structure to manage claims and wind down operations. It also creates a framework for seeking buyers for company assets.

Chapter 11 does not always mean a company disappears immediately, but in this case Bitcoin Depot has clearly framed the process around winding down rather than returning to normal operations.

Its Canadian entities are included in the U.S. court-supervised process. Other non-U.S. entities are expected to wind down under applicable foreign laws. That makes the filing broader than a single domestic restructuring.

The immediate practical impact is clear for customers. The company’s kiosk network is offline, meaning users can no longer rely on Bitcoin Depot machines to buy Bitcoin with cash.

Why this matters for crypto access

The Bitcoin Depot Chapter 11 filing highlights a larger tension in crypto adoption. Cash-to-crypto kiosks were designed to make Bitcoin easier to access. They also appealed to users who were uncomfortable using online exchanges.

But the same features that made these machines accessible also created regulatory concerns. Cash transactions and fraud risk created regulatory pressure. Consumer complaints and inconsistent state rules also made the sector harder to operate at scale.

For readers outside the crypto industry, the key point is simple. Crypto infrastructure does not only depend on technology. It also depends on crypto compliance costs, legal exposure, and whether regulators believe consumer protections are strong enough.

A warning for kiosk operators

Bitcoin Depot’s collapse does not mean all crypto ATM operators will face the same outcome. However, it does show that growth alone is not enough if regulation and operating costs move faster than revenue.

The company had once promoted its broad kiosk footprint as a way to connect cash users to digital finance. Now, Bitcoin Depot‘s bankruptcy shows how quickly that advantage can weaken when rules change and legal risks accumulate.

The next stage will depend on the bankruptcy process and interest in the company’s assets. Court decisions involving creditors and stakeholders will also shape the outcome.

For the wider crypto ATM sector, the message is already visible: accessible crypto services will need stronger compliance foundations if they want to survive in a stricter regulatory environment.

Zondacrypto Probe Reshapes Poland’s Fight Over Crypto Regulation

Editor

TL;DR

Polish lawmakers approved a MiCA-aligned crypto bill as the country races to meet the EU’s July compliance deadline.
The legislation advances while prosecutors investigate Zondacrypto over missing funds, inaccessible wallets and alleged fraud affecting thousands of users.
President Karol Nawrocki previously vetoed two earlier versions of the bill, leaving the final outcome uncertain.

Polish lawmakers have adopted a new crypto regulation bill as the country races to implement the European Union’s MiCA framework before a July deadline.

Poland’s crypto bill passed while prosecutors investigate Zondacrypto, once Poland’s largest crypto exchange. Thousands of users have reportedly been unable to withdraw funds, with prosecutors estimating losses of more than 350 million zlotys, or about $96 million.

The vote links two issues that had previously moved on separate tracks. One is Poland’s delayed compliance with EU crypto rules. The other is a politically charged exchange scandal now driving calls for tighter supervision.

Poland moves to implement MiCA

MiCA is the EU’s main regulatory framework for crypto assets. It sets common rules for crypto service providers across the bloc, including licensing, disclosure, governance and consumer protection. Poland was the last EU member state without the necessary legislation to align itself with MiCA.

Under the bill the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) has a central role in overseeing Poland’s crypto market. The regulator would gain powers to suspend offerings, block accounts and impose penalties for market abuse. Without the bill, Polish crypto firms faced a stark choice. They could obtain a MiCA license in another EU country or risk losing the ability to operate across the bloc entirely.

The bill was one of four competing crypto proposals the Sejm debated simultaneously from May 12. The other proposals came from President Nawrocki, the Poland 2050 party and the Confederation party. The situation reflected how deeply divided Polish politics remains on crypto regulation.

Zondacrypto turns regulation into a political issue

The timing of the crypto bill has been shaped almost entirely by the Zondacrypto collapse. Zondacrypto, formerly known as BitBay, was founded in 2014 and grew into the largest crypto exchange in Poland. The first public sign of serious trouble came in April 2026. On-chain analysis revealed the exchange’s hot wallet Bitcoin reserves had fallen by 99.7%. Holdings dropped from approximately 55.7 BTC in August 2024 to just 0.18 BTC by March 2026.

Missing wallets and fraud investigation

The situation worsened when CEO Przemysław Kral disclosed that the company held a cold wallet with approximately 4,500 BTC worth around $330 million. However, the company reportedly had no access to it. The private keys were held by founder Sylwester Suszek, who disappeared in 2022 and is presumed dead by Polish prosecutors. Kral has since departed to Israel, where he holds citizenship. That significantly complicates any extradition effort. The entire supervisory board of Zondacrypto‘s parent company resigned, citing material inconsistencies in the company’s accounts. Prosecutors in Katowice opened a formal investigation into large-scale fraud and money laundering. Up to 30,000 Polish customers may have been affected.

Political fallout and Russian influence allegations

Tusk’s allegations against the exchange were specific and explosive. He named the Tambov group, a powerful Russian criminal network allegedly connected to figures close to the Kremlin. He also said Zondacrypto had financed foundations linked to right-wing and far-right politicians. The exchange was the main sponsor of the 2025 CPAC conference in Poland, where former US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem backed Nawrocki’s presidential candidacy. Zondacrypto was also the general sponsor of the Polish Olympic Committee. Athletes are still owed approximately 1.1 million zlotys in medal rewards. The Kremlin has denied the allegations, while opposition figures have rejected the political claims.

Previous vetoes still matter

The bill may not be the final word. Nawrocki vetoed two earlier versions of the crypto regulation legislation in quick succession, first in December 2025 and again in February 2026. The second veto came just weeks before Zondacrypto began its collapse. Both Sejm override attempts fell short. The April 2026 vote failed by just 20 votes.

Nawrocki argued the measures overregulated the sector and would push business abroad. He pointed to countries like the Czech Republic and Hungary, which implemented MiCA-aligned rules far more concisely. His second veto came despite a classified briefing from Poland’s Internal Security Agency. The briefing had reportedly linked Zondacrypto to Russian-connected financial networks.

A separate proposal from four Law and Justice party MPs sought to ban crypto activity outright, though the Sejm Speaker confirmed it will only be processed after the primary regulatory bills are concluded.

Why the bill matters

Poland’s crypto bill matters because it turns MiCA compliance into a test of domestic enforcement. EU crypto rules create the framework, but national authorities decide how supervision works in practice.

For users, the key question is whether regulation can reduce the risk of exchange failures and frozen withdrawals. For companies, the concern is whether the rules create a clear licensing path or add prohibitive compliance costs.

The Zondacrypto probe has made that balance harder. It gives regulators a strong argument for stricter oversight of the Polish crypto market. At the same time, it raises the risk that legislation gets shaped by political pressure rather than stable long-term policy.

For now, Poland has moved closer to aligning with EU crypto rules. Whether the bill survives further political resistance, and whether it can restore confidence after one of the country’s most damaging crypto scandals, remains to be seen.

Crypto Market Structure Bill Clears Senate Committee After Long Fight

Editor

TL;DR

The Senate Banking Committee advanced the CLARITY Act in a largely partisan 15-9 vote after months of negotiations and industry disputes.
Lawmakers remain divided over stablecoin rewards, DeFi oversight, and ethics provisions as the bill moves toward a tougher Senate phase.
The legislation must still clear a 60-vote Senate threshold and later be reconciled with the House-passed version before reaching the president.

The Senate Banking Committee has advanced the CLARITY Act, moving a long-debated crypto market structure bill one step closer to a full Senate vote. The legislation cleared the committee in a 15-9 vote on May 14 after months of negotiations surrounding stablecoin provisions, oversight rules, and industry opposition.

The CLARITY Act committee vote marks one of the most significant crypto policy developments in Washington this year. Only two Democrats, Sens. Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, voted alongside all 13 Republicans to advance the bill, underscoring the largely partisan nature of the vote.

The process leading to the markup stretched across several months. It included a cancelled January 2026 committee session, a lobbying push from banking groups, temporary opposition from Coinbase, and more than 100 filed amendments. The White House has also played an active role in negotiations between banks and crypto industry groups. The administration now reportedly targets July 4 for a presidential signature if legislation reaches the president’s desk.

Senate Banking Committee Advances Market Structure Push

The bill is designed to clarify how federal agencies regulate digital assets. One of its central goals is defining which cryptocurrencies fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission and which should be overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Supporters argue the current regulatory environment relies too heavily on enforcement actions instead of formal legislation. The proposed framework would establish rules for crypto exchanges, brokers, and digital asset issuers while creating a more standardized approach to compliance.

The committee approval does not immediately send the legislation to the Senate floor. The bill must first be merged with a separate version already passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee on January 29, 2026. Only then can the Senate leadership schedule a broader vote.

Stablecoin Rewards Became a Major Flashpoint

Negotiations around stablecoin incentives played a major role in delaying the markup process earlier this year. Banking groups warned lawmakers that allowing crypto firms to offer yield-like rewards on stablecoin balances could draw deposits away from traditional financial institutions.

Updated language in the legislation reportedly restricts certain interest-style payments on idle balances while still allowing some transaction-related rewards. That compromise helped move the bill forward, although several banking organizations said loopholes may still remain.

The issue has become increasingly important. Stablecoins are growing beyond crypto trading and are moving deeper into payments and financial infrastructure discussions.

Democrats Remain Divided on Crypto Oversight

The committee vote also exposed continued divisions among Democrats over the CLARITY Act and how aggressively the crypto industry should be regulated. Several lawmakers raised concerns about decentralized finance platforms, sanctions enforcement, and ethics rules connected to public officials’ digital asset holdings.

Some amendments introduced during the markup process failed to gain enough support. This included proposals tied to broader oversight authority and stricter compliance requirements for DeFi activity.

Alsobrooks, one of the two Democrats who voted in favor of the bill, said her committee support does not guarantee a future floor vote. She said unresolved issues, including ethics provisions and DeFi oversight, still need to be addressed.

Despite those disagreements, the bill still secured narrow bipartisan backing. It gave the crypto industry a legislative victory after months of uncertainty surrounding market structure negotiations.

>>> Read more: Ethics Dispute Adds New Roadblock to CLARITY Act

Crypto Markets React to Legislative Momentum

Crypto-related stocks and major digital assets rallied following the committee approval. Shares tied to the crypto sector moved higher alongside gains in Bitcoin, XRP, Dogecoin, and Ethereum as investors reacted to signs of regulatory progress in Washington.

While the market response reflected optimism around clearer crypto rules, analysts cautioned against attributing all price movement solely to the legislation. Broader market sentiment and macroeconomic conditions also continue to influence digital asset trading activity.

Still, the reaction highlighted how closely investors are watching U.S. regulatory developments after years of uncertainty between crypto firms and federal agencies.

Senate Floor Vote Becomes the Next Major Test

The bill still faces several hurdles before becoming law. After Senate committees finalize a combined version of the legislation, the measure will require at least 60 votes to advance through the full Senate. That means several additional Democrats would likely need to support the bill.

The House already passed its own version of the CLARITY Act on July 17, 2025, in a 294-134 vote. If the Senate eventually approves its version, lawmakers from both chambers would still need to reconcile differences between the two bills. Only then could final legislation be sent to the president.

Even so, the committee approval represents a major step forward for the broader crypto market structure effort. The outcome of the Senate process could shape how digital assets, stablecoins, and crypto trading platforms are regulated in the United States for years to come.

The CLARITY Act committee vote may ultimately be remembered as the moment Congress moved closer to establishing a comprehensive federal framework for the crypto industry.

CFTC Backs Prediction Markets as States Push for Restrictions

Editor

TL;DR

The CFTC issued regulatory relief for certain event-contract reporting requirements while defending federal oversight of prediction markets in court.
The agency argues that federally regulated event contracts fall under CFTC jurisdiction rather than state gambling laws.
State governments, including Minnesota, are increasing pressure on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket as legal conflicts over prediction markets intensify.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is moving to strengthen its authority over event-based trading platforms as legal and political pressure around the sector continues to grow.

This week, the agency issued a no-action letter easing certain compliance obligations for fully collateralized event contracts. At the same time, they are defending federal oversight powers in an ongoing court dispute involving Kalshi. Together, the moves suggest Washington is becoming more willing to accommodate CFTC regulated prediction markets even as some states attempt to restrict them.

CFTC eases compliance requirements

The no-action relief applies to swap data reporting and related record-keeping rules tied to certain event contracts. The agency said the temporary relief is intended to reduce operational burdens while regulators continue evaluating how these products should be supervised.

Industry participants viewed the decision as a positive signal for platforms offering contracts tied to elections, economic indicators, sports outcomes, and other real-world events. Companies operating in the sector have argued that existing derivatives reporting requirements were designed for traditional swaps markets rather than newer retail-focused event products.

The relief arrives while the CFTC continues reviewing broader rules for event contracts. That includes review of public comments submitted by firms such as Paradigm. Supporters argue that regulated event contracts improve market transparency and provide useful forecasting data. Critics, however, continue to question whether some products resemble online gambling more than financial hedging tools.

Federal and state regulators move toward conflict

At the same time, the CFTC is escalating its defense of federal jurisdiction.

In a recent amicus brief tied to Kalshi’s dispute in Ohio, the agency argued that states cannot independently classify federally regulated event contracts as illegal gambling products. The filing reinforced the regulator’s position that exchanges and prediction markets approved under federal commodities law fall primarily under CFTC supervision.

That argument is becoming increasingly important as state lawmakers and gaming regulators attempt to limit access to event-trading platforms. Minnesota lawmakers have now passed a bill banning prediction markets, sending the measure to Gov. Tim Walz for signature and potentially setting up another legal challenge over regulatory authority.

The dispute reflects a broader policy question. Should event contracts be treated as financial instruments, sportsbooks, or a separate category entirely? State regulators and casino groups have warned that some contracts may bypass gambling regulations and licensing requirements already imposed on sports betting operators.

Sports contracts draw new scrutiny

Sports-related event contracts have become one of the fastest-growing areas of attention.

According to multiple reports, the CFTC is communicating with major U.S. sports leagues regarding insider-trading protections and market integrity standards. The discussions appear aimed at preventing misuse of nonpublic information connected to athletes, injuries, or game-related developments.

CFTC Chair Michael Selig has publicly argued that event contracts differ from conventional sportsbooks because they operate within federally regulated derivatives markets rather than state gaming systems. That distinction is central to the agency’s broader legal strategy.

Still, opposition remains strong. Some state officials argue that allowing federally regulated exchanges to offer sports-related contracts could weaken local gaming oversight and reduce tax revenue connected to licensed sportsbooks.

Industry watches for clearer federal rules

The latest developments indicate that regulators are no longer treating event contracts as a niche market.

Instead, the sector is becoming part of a wider debate involving financial regulation, gambling policy, retail trading access, and federal preemption. Companies such as Kalshi and Polymarket are likely to remain at the center of that debate as lawmakers, regulators, and courts attempt to define the legal boundaries of the industry.

For now, the CFTC appears focused on building a framework that allows regulated event-trading activity to continue. Nevertheless, it strives to introduce stronger oversight mechanisms around reporting, market surveillance, and insider-trading safeguards. Whether states accept that approach remains uncertain, and additional lawsuits may determine how prediction markets evolve across the United States.

1...252627...247 Page 26 of 247

TL;DR

What Standard Chartered Is Buying

Why the Business Is Being Split

What It Means for Institutional Crypto

Clients Are Not Expected to Face Disruption

What Comes Next

TL;DR

Regulatory pressure hits the ATM model

Asset sale now becomes the focus

Why this matters for crypto access

A warning for kiosk operators

TL;DR

Poland moves to implement MiCA

Zondacrypto turns regulation into a political issue

Missing wallets and fraud investigation

Political fallout and Russian influence allegations

Previous vetoes still matter

Why the bill matters

TL;DR

Senate Banking Committee Advances Market Structure Push

Stablecoin Rewards Became a Major Flashpoint

Democrats Remain Divided on Crypto Oversight

Crypto Markets React to Legislative Momentum

Senate Floor Vote Becomes the Next Major Test

TL;DR

CFTC eases compliance requirements

Federal and state regulators move toward conflict

Sports contracts draw new scrutiny

Industry watches for clearer federal rules

FEATURED

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

AWARDS