hodler

22 May 2026, 12:06

South Korean lawmakers review crypto tax after petition quickly surpasses 50,000 signatures

A public petition in South Korea opposing the proposed taxation of virtual assets received more than 50,000 signatures on Thursday, prompting lawmakers to formally investigate the proposal. As of Wednesday at 3 p.m., the National Assembly’s online petition portal reported that the petition had received over 45,000 signatures in just one week after it was uploaded on May 13. The action coincides with mounting pressure on legislators to review the tax system due to concerns about investor effect, market circumstances, and fairness. According to crypto investors, the proposed tax structure unfairly targets owners of digital assets while treating traditional financial investors more leniently. The petition claims that South Korea has already eliminated taxes on stock and bond investments, leading many traders to believe the country’s crypto policy is inconsistent . Authorities plan to introduce a 22% tax on Bitcoin revenue exceeding 2.5 million Korean won, or around $1,650. However, due to ongoing criticism and infrastructure issues, the administration has already postponed the initiative three times. Originally scheduled to take effect in January 2025, the measures were postponed for 2 years after a bipartisan agreement was reached in December 2024. SK’s crypto investors push back against planned taxation Korea is one of the biggest retail cryptocurrency markets in the world, with an estimated 13 million virtual asset investors. According to critics, the government abandoned plans to introduce a financial investment income tax on stock gains in December 2024 due to strong opposition from ordinary investors and concerns about a market downturn, rendering the decision to tax profits from digital assets unjust. “This issue goes beyond a simple debate over tax rates and reflects broader concerns about how Korea intends to foster the future digital asset industry,” the petition read. It also argued that taxing cryptocurrency assets in the absence of adequate investor safeguards and international norms could deter investment and undermine the domestic cryptocurrency market. According to the National Assembly of South Korea’s public petition portal, the planned cryptocurrency tax structure in SK does not adequately account for investor losses. It could result in tax burdens even when traders are still recuperating from downturns. Many experts believe the government should focus on promoting innovation rather than increasing tax pressure. Industry leaders argue that blockchain technology could improve South Korea’s digital economy in the future. They also caution that overly strict regulations could drive talent and investment outside. Some investors have cited foreign instances of investment-promoting regulations, such as the United States, where long-term holdings are subject to lower tax rates based on income levels. Despite regulatory uncertainty, retail and institutional interest in major cryptocurrencies continues to grow. Adoption of Bitcoin has been continuously rising, while tokens tied to AI and Ethereum have also grown in popularity. South Korea’s crypto trading volumes remain among the world’s largest The South Korean cryptocurrency market remains one of the most active digital asset ecosystems in the world despite legislative uncertainties. According to research firm Kaiko, trades denominated in won have accounted for almost 30% of the global spot cryptocurrency volume thus far in 2026. The weekly turnover on SK exchanges exceeded $26 billion, driven by retail activity on two domestic platforms, Bithumb and Upbit. In the first half of 2025, Upbit alone had an average daily trade volume of around $3.36 billion, while Bithumb processed about $1.2 billion daily. From 2024 to 2026, Upbit and Bithumb combined accounted for the majority of Korea’s average weekly cryptocurrency turnover. Approximately 85% of weekly trades on those platforms were for tokens other than Bitcoin, suggesting a strong retail preference for altcoins with more volatility. During the same time frame, Korean technology stocks increased. Up till March 11, 2026, the iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY) has a year-to-date return of more than 37%. Approximately 45% of the ETF’s assets were in Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix. The notional value of EWY’s call open interest reached an all-time high of almost $5.5 billion. Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free .

22 May 2026, 11:41

4 Beginner-Friendly Crypto Wallets With Most Responsive Customer Support in 2026

Crypto wallet customer support in non-custodial wallets is genuinely rare. Most major wallets handle user questions through help centers, FAQ pages, and Discord communities. Live human responses, fast email replies, and 24/7 chat availability are the exception, not the standard. Four wallets deliver on responsive crypto wallet 2026 support standards: IronWallet, Zengo, Guarda Wallet, and Exodus. Each takes a different approach to keeping users unstuck when something goes wrong, with each functioning as a beginner-friendly crypto wallet that goes past the help-center-only model. The sections ahead compare their support models directly, then walk through each wallet's broader value proposition as a crypto wallet for beginners. What Responsive Customer Support Looks Like in Non-Custodial Wallets Beginners run into problems that experienced users rarely encounter. Recovery phrase confusion. Address format mistakes. Wrong-network sends. Transaction approval errors. Stuck swaps. These situations need real human help, fast. Finding a crypto wallet with 24/7 support for these cases narrows the field considerably. Non-custodial wallets generally weren't built around live support. They were built around self-sovereignty, with the assumption that users would either figure things out independently or ask the community. That model breaks down for beginners. Genuine responsive customer support means one or more of the following: non-custodial wallet live chat staffed by humans, 24/7 availability, fast email response times, and no paid tier required to get help. The four wallets profiled below each meet most of these criteria. How the Four Wallets Compare on Support A direct comparison of support models across the four wallets: Wallet Live Chat Email Support Availability Cost IronWallet Yes, in-app with human agents Yes 24/7 Free Zengo Yes, with human agents Yes 24/7 Free Guarda Wallet Yes, no bots (human agents) Yes 24/7 Free Exodus VIP tier only Yes, worldwide team 24/7 Free email and chatbot; VIP live chat paid 1. IronWallet: Non-Custodial Multi-Chain Wallet With No KYC, 24/7 Live Support, and Gasless Stablecoin Transfers IronWallet is a non-custodial multi-chain wallet with no KYC, 10,000+ supported assets, gasless stablecoin transfers, and WalletConnect Pay integration. The wallet has grown to 3+ million users globally and pairs strong customer support with a privacy-first signup flow that removes friction for beginners. Support is delivered through 24/7 live chat staffed by humans, accessed directly through the app. Because IronWallet collects no email, no phone, and no KYC at signup, support interactions don't require identity verification or account lookups. A user with a question can open chat, get a human response, and resolve the issue without the back-and-forth that custodial platforms require. For beginners, IronWallet addresses the most common stumbling blocks of early crypto use. Gasless stablecoin transfers (TRC-20 USDT and ERC-20 USDC) remove the need to acquire native gas tokens before sending. Multi-chain support across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, Tron, Polygon, and Base means a beginner doesn't need to switch wallets when exploring different ecosystems. The mobile-first design (iOS and Android) keeps the interface simple. 2. Zengo: Non-Custodial Wallet With MPC Architecture, 3FA Recovery, and 24/7 Live Human Chat Zengo built its reputation on a no-seed-phrase recovery model and pairs that with what the company calls "Legendary 24/7 Support." Users can chat with human agents directly through the app at any time. MPC (multi-party computation) architecture means there's no 12-word recovery phrase to lose. Instead, Zengo uses 3FA recovery: email verification, 3D FaceLock biometric scan, and an encrypted recovery file. For beginners specifically anxious about seed phrase responsibility, this approach removes one of crypto's biggest sources of anxiety. Fiat on-ramps through PayPal, bank transfer, credit and debit cards, and Apple Pay make the wallet accessible to users moving between traditional finance and crypto for the first time. Asset coverage spans six blockchains plus four Layer 2 networks. 3. Guarda Wallet: Multi-Platform Non-Custodial Wallet With Broad Asset Support and 24/7 Live Human Support Guarda Wallet confirms on its own support documentation that the team offers 24/7 live chat staffed by real humans with no bots involved. As a crypto wallet live support option, the wallet works across web, desktop, mobile, and browser extension formats, with non-custodial wallet help accessible from each. Asset coverage is extensive: more than 50 blockchain networks, including major stablecoins (USDT, USDC, DAI, BUSD, GUSD, TUSD, EURS) across multiple network standards. Guarda Wallet explicitly operates as a non-custodial and no-KYC option. Multi-platform availability matters for new users. Someone who starts on mobile can continue on desktop without learning a new wallet, and the live chat is accessible from any of the platforms, so the support experience stays consistent across devices. 4. Exodus: Beginner-Friendly Non-Custodial Wallet With 24/7 Email Support and Tiered Live Chat Options Exodus has long positioned itself as a beginner-friendly non-custodial wallet, with a clean interface and broad asset support across mobile, desktop, and browser extensions. The support model is tiered: free 24/7 email support staffed by a worldwide team plus an in-app chatbot for instant responses to common questions, with paid VIP tier access for live human concierge support . Free-tier support handles most user needs reasonably well. Email responses arrive within hours instead of days, and the chatbot answers many standard questions instantly. Users facing complex or urgent issues can step up to the VIP tier for direct human concierge support. Built-in swaps, staking, and Trezor hardware wallet integration extend the wallet past basic asset holding. Conclusion Four wallets that genuinely respond when beginners need help. IronWallet combines 24/7 live human chat with a no-KYC privacy model and gasless stablecoin transfers across multiple networks. Zengo removes seed phrase anxiety through MPC architecture. Guarda Wallet delivers consistent live human support across every platform format. Exodus offers a tiered support model with free email and chatbot, plus paid VIP live chat. Each of these options qualifies as a strong candidate for the best wallet for new crypto users in 2026, depending on individual priorities. Which wallet fits best depends on what else the beginner wants from a non-custodial option. The support is real in all four cases. Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

22 May 2026, 11:31

Verus Bridge Exploiter Returns Majority Of Stolen Funds Following Structured Bounty Deal With Project Team

The hacker behind the Verus Ethereum bridge exploit has returned a large part of stolen funds after signing an official settlement with the project team. According to blockchain security specialist PeckShield, 4,052 ETH was sent back to the Verus team wallet, with a market value of about $8.5 million, representing one of the largest recoveries in some last DeFi bridge attacks. This compensation came in response to a straightforward proposal by the Verus protocol, which advocated negotiation rather than long-term confrontation. The team incentivized the exploiter with a financial payment in tandem with promises of legal certainty, and successfully convinced them to return most of the exploit. This result is also a representation of a trend in decentralized finance, with even more protocols moving to incentive-based models to reduce losses. Verus Bridge Exploiter Returns 75% of Stolen $ETH After Bounty Agreement. The attacker behind the Verus bridge exploit has returned 4,052 ETH, worth about $8.5 million, to the project’s team wallet, according to blockchain security firm PeckShield. The transfer followed a… pic.twitter.com/S1qt5FIsuu — TheCryptoBasic (@thecryptobasic) May 22, 2026 How the Bounty is Impacting the Outcome of The Incident At the heart of that resolution was a painstakingly constructed bounty agreement striking a pragmatic balance between recovery of funds and concession. The exploiter was promised a bounty of 1,350 ETH (around $2.8m) in exchange for returning 4,052.4 ETH in an agreed time frame of just 24 hours. The conditions were specific and timely, leaving little room for doubt. Setting a firm deadline, and specifying the amount to be returned and the reward offered for doing so created an incentive structure where compliance became attractive. The condition is ultimately performed by the exploiter then being paid the bounty and returning approximately 75% of all stolen assets. This approach embodies a change that is seen across the DeFi protocols with how they have been responding to exploits. Teams are relying more on economic incentives rather than simply enforcement or escalation to induce attacker behavior that minimizes total harm done. Clear Definitive Terms Outlined by Verus Community And Developers The Verus team outlined the agreement in a public statement, underscoring transparency and collective decision-making. And the proposal was born out of discussions between developers and members of the community, showing an organized way in which people are responding to the crisis. To the Verus Ethereum Bridge Exploiter: Members of the Verus community and its developers have discussed a set of terms, detailing the size of the bounty, obligations from your side and ours, and how the funds can be returned. 1. We have agreed that the bounty amount will be… — Verus – The Internet of Value (@VerusCoin) May 21, 2026 The conditions included that the exploiter returned 4,052.4 ETH to a specified wallet within 24 hours, minus the agreed bounty of 1,350 ETH and the project would consider funds retained as a legitimate bounty. The team also vowed to halt any continued investigations and not to pursue any further legal or extralegal actions against the assailant. It continued, defining the address claiming 1,350 ETH as an official bounty address in support of the legitimacy of the agreement. The level of detail had been necessary for building trust and assured the exploiter that, should he comply, the protocol would have no issue in honoring its commitments. Decision To Avoid Overly Lengthy Warfare Choosing negotiation instead of escalation shows the Verus teams calculation. Many bridge exploits consist of multi-lock movement operations that make them challenging to ‘recover’ once the money is out. Verus structured such a deal, pitching it almost immediately, and their rapid action raised the odds they’d be able to recover many of Seikonia’s stolen assets. Such an approach also solves the uncertainty and wastefulness that accompany long-running investigations. Whether in decentralized settings, legal cases are slow, expensive, and often ineffectual, especially when the alleged perpetrators operate across borders. By comparison, the bounty format produces direct and quantifiable results. Compared with many previous incidents, it is a strong result, assets are often not recoverable. That also leads to (or is at least one of the implications for) a considerably modified social contract related to DeFi security and incentives design. This incident with Verus shows that cross-chain bridges are still one of the weakest links in the DeFi ecosystem. Bridge exploits tend to result in high losses as they hold large liquidity pools. This model does not put robust security architecture in place to ensure process within perimeters, rather provides a fair play when vulnerability has been exploited. It also begs important questions surrounding what defines ethical hacking in industry, the accountability of varying parties and distinction between exploitation and responsible disclosure. The Degree of Confidence in the Market and Future Expectations The recovery from the fund is immediate but how Verus re-establishes trust in its ecosystem will be long-lasting. In cross-chain infrastructure, risks are particularly well-known, and security breaches may leave long-term impacts on user confidence. However, the transparency of dealing with the event and returning most of these assets should mitigate any reputational damage. Communicating openly with the community and providing a concrete solution makes Verus seen as a protocol that can manage crises. This was bad enough to be a cautionary tale, as well as something that continued to be studied. It highlights the necessity for proactive security, but illustrates the benefits of flexible, incentive-based response to breaches. In conclusion, as decentralized finance (DeFi) inevitably matures, balancing security with incentives and rapid response remains imperative for defining how protocols tackle upcoming challenges. Disclosure: This is not trading or investment advice. Always do your research before buying any cryptocurrency or investing in any services. Follow us on Twitter @nulltxnews to stay updated with the latest Crypto, NFT, AI, Cybersecurity, Distributed Computing, and Metaverse news !

22 May 2026, 11:06

Stablecoin Limits in the UK: Why Regulators Are Rethinking the Rules

The UK is moving from discussion to design on how stablecoins should work in everyday payments. After a string of market scares and global policy shifts, officials are signalling tighter guardrails and, in some cases, explicit limits on what stablecoins can do in the UK. That does not mean a crackdown on innovation. The aim is to make fiat-backed tokens usable in shops and apps without importing bank-run dynamics or offshore risks into UK payments infrastructure. This guide breaks down what “stablecoin limits” could actually mean, where the proposals stand, and how issuers, exchanges, wallets, and merchants can get ahead of the rulebook. PointDetailsPolicy focusUK authorities are prioritising fiat-backed stablecoins used for payments; algorithmic designs are not expected to qualify as payment instruments.Where limits may applyReserve composition, redemption at par/within set timeframes, marketing to UK consumers, use in UK payment systems, and potential constraints on foreign‑currency tokens in retail payments.Supervisory splitFCA for conduct/issuance/custody, Bank of England for systemic payment systems using stablecoins, PSR for competition and access in payment systems.Legal baseThe Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 enables regulation of “digital settlement assets” used in UK payments, with secondary rules to follow.TimingRules are expected to arrive in phases after consultations; firms should plan for authorisation, safeguarding, transparency, and resilience obligations.Business impactIssuers and payment firms may face UK establishment requirements, reserve attestation, redemption SLAs, and clearer liability in payment chains. UK stablecoin rulebook: what is actually on the table? The UK’s policy path was set by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (FSMA 2023), which gives authorities the power to regulate “digital settlement assets” (a category that includes fiat‑backed stablecoins) when used in UK payment chains. HM Treasury has outlined a phased approach: stabilise payments first with fiat‑backed tokens, then expand to broader cryptoasset activities. As part of this, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Bank of England (BoE) published discussion materials in late 2023 that flagged the areas they expect to hard‑wire into rules. Key documents include the FCA’s paper on regulating fiat‑backed stablecoins and the BoE’s discussion on a regime for systemic payment systems using stablecoins. You can find the official materials here: FCA DP23/4: Regulating fiat-backed stablecoins Bank of England: Regime for systemic stablecoin payment systems FSMA 2023 (primary legislation) HM Treasury cryptoassets collection Payment Systems Regulator: Digital payments & stablecoins While the final rule texts are being drafted, several themes are clear: Scope: The near‑term regime targets fiat‑backed stablecoins used as a means of payment, not trading tokens or algorithmic designs. Authorisation and location: Issuers and certain service providers active in UK payment chains may need UK authorisation and an appropriate legal presence. Redeemability: Consumers should have a clear claim at par in fiat, with timely redemption and robust complaints/redress channels. Reserves and custody: Backing assets should be high‑quality and segregated, with controls over concentration, liquidity, and where assets are held. Systemic perimeter: If a stablecoin payment system becomes systemically important, BoE rules would kick in with bank‑like resilience and resolution standards. What does “limit” mean here? The knobs regulators can turn “Limits” do not always mean hard caps on usage. In payments regulation, limits often appear as design constraints that cap risk rather than volume. The UK could deploy a mix of the following: 1) Reserve quality and concentration Expect strict eligibility criteria for backing assets (for example, short‑dated government securities, central bank deposits, or similarly liquid instruments), plus limits on exposure to any single counterparty or asset class. This effectively caps run risk by constraining the riskiness of the reserve portfolio. 2) Redemption service levels Rules can impose time‑bound redemption standards (for example, same‑day or T+1 for verified customers) and prohibit fees that undermine par convertibility. Setting a redemption SLA is a limit on delay risk and an incentive to hold ample liquidity. 3) Marketing and distribution to UK consumers The FCA may require firms to present risks prominently, avoid misleading “cash‑equivalent” claims, and target only appropriate users. This caps mis‑selling risk rather than token supply. 4) Use in UK payment systems The BoE and the Payment Systems Regulator could set participation criteria for payment systems that settle in or route stablecoins. If a token or issuer does not meet those thresholds, UK payment firms may be limited from integrating it in customer‑facing flows. 5) Systemic triggers Once volumes, users, or interconnectedness pass certain thresholds, a system can be designated “systemic,” bringing in much tougher liquidity, operational resilience, and resolution planning requirements. These are limits tied to scale, not hard caps on transactions. 6) Currency‑specific constraints Policymakers globally worry about “currency substitution” if non‑domestic stablecoins dominate retail payments. The UK has signalled interest in managing this risk. That could translate into guardrails for the use of foreign‑currency stablecoins in UK retail payments until they meet higher standards, or into proportional frictions that favour sterling‑denominated options. 7) Location and accountability Requiring a UK‑regulated entity (issuer or distributor) in the payment chain limits jurisdictional arbitrage. It also enables enforcement of redemption rights and consumer protection rules. Pro tip: For product teams, treat these limits as product requirements. Design the reserve, redemption, and disclosure experience first; the on‑chain token mechanics come after. Why the rethink? Lessons from MiCA, depegs, and bank funding Three developments are shaping the UK conversation. 1) Market stress exposed run dynamics High‑profile depegs, including those triggered by exposure to stressed banking partners, showed how quickly confidence can evaporate when reserves are not ultra‑liquid or when redemption is gated. The lesson for supervisors: if a token is used like money, it needs money‑like backstops. 2) Europe’s MiCA created a reference model—with caps The EU’s Markets in Crypto‑Assets Regulation (MiCA) distinguishes between e‑money tokens and asset‑referenced tokens, and layers extra requirements on “significant” tokens. European authorities have also consulted on potential constraints for tokens referencing non‑EU currencies in day‑to‑day payments to limit substitution effects. The UK is not copying MiCA, but the debate on usage caps for foreign‑currency tokens is now part of the global policy toolkit. 3) Bank disintermediation risk If stablecoin reserves sit in commercial bank deposits, large‑scale adoption could pull funds out of bank balance sheets during stress. UK proposals have floated the idea that reserves for systemic tokens must be held primarily in central bank money and top‑tier liquid assets to mitigate those spillovers. Opinion: The UK appears to be aiming for “payments‑grade” stablecoins that feel like cash at the point of sale but are backed like narrow‑bank liabilities behind the scenes. GBP vs USD stablecoins in the UK payments lane The UK’s approach could reshape incentives across currencies: Sterling‑denominated stablecoins may gain an advantage in retail acceptance if rules steer payment systems toward domestic‑currency tokens that meet UK standards. USD stablecoins will likely remain central to trading and cross‑border settlement but may face additional conditions before being embedded in UK consumer payments. Merchants could see less FX exposure and fewer chargebacks by using GBP tokens for local flows—provided redemption and liquidity are robust. None of this precludes multi‑currency support. It simply means each currency token must clear a policy bar aligned with its real‑world use case—and some uses may be discouraged if they raise currency‑substitution or financial‑stability concerns. Readiness checklist for issuers and wallets Firms that want to be UK‑compliant should prepare as if the core planks below will be required. This is not a substitute for legal advice; it is a practical starting point. Establish a UK‑authorised entity responsible for issuance or distribution in UK payment chains, with an accountable senior management function. Define a narrow, liquid reserve policy (e.g., short‑dated gilts, central bank money where possible). Set hard internal limits on duration, concentration, and custody providers. Implement same‑day or T+1 redemption for verified customers, with published SLAs, clear cut‑off times, and contingency liquidity lines. Segregate and legally ring‑fence reserves from operating capital, with audited trust or safeguarding arrangements and daily reconciliation. Independent attestation of reserves and control design at frequent intervals; publish plain‑English reserve reports alongside technical attestations. Robust custody for both reserves and user tokens: multi‑sig or MPC policies, segregation by client, and documented key‑management procedures. Operational resilience: incident response, disaster recovery, and tested failover for mints/burns and redemption portals. AML/CFT and Travel Rule compliance integrated into issuance/redemption and wallet transfers, including sanctions screening and suspicious activity reporting. Consumer communications that avoid cash‑equivalence claims; present risks (depegs, smart‑contract risks, redemption delays during stress) clearly. Wind‑down and resolution playbooks, including triggers for halting new issuance, partial redemptions from liquidity sleeves, and regulator notifications. Pro tip: Design your treasury as if you will be systemic one day. If the product succeeds, you will not have time to re‑platform your reserve and reporting stack. For payment firms and merchants: should you integrate stablecoins? Stablecoins may lower acceptance costs, enable instant settlement, and simplify reconciliation. But under a stricter UK regime, integration choices matter. Use this due‑diligence lens: Token design: Is the coin fiat‑backed with transparent, high‑quality reserves? Algorithmic or mixed‑collateral designs are unlikely to be payments‑eligible. Issuer accountability: Is there a UK‑regulated counterparty with enforceable redemption rights and a UK complaints pathway? Redemption reliability: Check historic uptime, published SLAs, redemption windows, and any past gating events. On/off‑ramps: Which UK banks and payment systems (FPS, CHAPS, cards) support loading/unloading? What are cut‑off times and fees? FX implications: For USD tokens used in the UK, who bears FX risk, and how is conversion priced? Smart‑contract risk: Is the token contract upgradeable? Who controls admin keys? What is the bug‑bounty and audit cadence? Compliance load: Assess Travel Rule tooling, screening, and record‑keeping. Will you need additional licensing to distribute or redeem? Customer support: Escalation paths for failed transfers, stuck redemptions, or blocked wallets should be contractually clear. Pro tip: Run a tabletop exercise for a depeg scenario. Map how you would pause acceptance, notify customers, and unwind balances while meeting UK consumer‑protection duties. The risks of over‑tightening Well‑calibrated limits can support trust in digital money. But if rules are too tight or ambiguous, three risks loom: Offshore leakage: UK users may shift to unregulated offshore tokens and venues, undermining policy goals. Liquidity fragmentation: Caps or currency‑specific frictions could split liquidity across multiple tokens, widening spreads and increasing settlement risk. Innovation flight: Startups might base issuance and treasury operations elsewhere, even if they still serve UK users indirectly. Regulators are acutely aware of these trade‑offs. That is why consultation papers emphasise proportionality, transitional arrangements, and close coordination across authorities. A proportionate path forward What would a balanced UK regime look like in practice? Phased entry: Start with clear reserve and redemption standards for non‑systemic issuers; layer on BoE requirements as volumes and interconnectedness increase. Transparency first: Frequent, standardised reserve disclosures, including look‑through to custody and repo, so markets can self‑discipline weak designs. Domestic rails: Encourage sterling‑based settlement for UK retail flows without banning foreign‑currency tokens outright; make higher‑risk uses conditional rather than prohibited. Central bank money where it matters: For systemic tokens, prioritise central bank deposits and very high‑quality liquid assets to minimise bank‑run externalities. Interoperability and portability: Avoid locking merchants into single issuers; promote common messaging and token standards to enable switching during stress. Cross‑border coordination: Seek pragmatic alignment with MiCA and major jurisdictions to reduce duplicative compliance for global issuers. Pro tip: If you rely on USD stablecoins for treasury or settlement, model a UK scenario where retail acceptance is nudged toward GBP tokens. Build automated FX and routing logic now. How UK rules may differ from the EU and US Although the UK is informed by MiCA and US practice, it is carving out its own approach: Functional perimeter: The UK is prioritising tokens used “as a means of payment,” whereas MiCA creates comprehensive categories covering broader token types. Systemic oversight: The BoE’s role over systemic payment systems using stablecoins is more akin to its oversight of critical financial market infrastructures, potentially yielding bank‑like resilience requirements for very large tokens. Reserve detail vs. hard caps: Expect the UK to lean more on reserve‑quality constraints and redemption SLAs than on blunt transaction caps, though currency‑substitution safeguards remain possible. Location policy: The UK may be firmer in requiring an on‑shore accountable entity for tokens used in UK payments, compared with some US state‑level regimes that allow more operational dispersion. For firms operating across regions, that means building a compliance spine that can flex between EU, UK, and US expectations without maintaining three completely separate products. What this means for crypto platforms Exchanges, brokerages, and lending platforms will need to distinguish between stablecoins used for trading collateral and those embedded in customer payments. Even if you do not issue a token, distributing or facilitating redemptions in UK payment chains could bring you into scope. Collateral management: If a token used as collateral faces tighter redemption SLAs or reserve constraints, your liquidity stress testing needs to reflect those design changes. Wallet labelling: Consider flagging which stablecoins are “payments‑eligible” under UK rules (once finalised) versus “trading‑only” to avoid consumer confusion. Consumer duty: The UK Consumer Duty raises the bar for fair value and clear communications—especially relevant if you market stablecoin payment features to retail users. Outsourcing governance: Where you rely on third‑party issuers or custodians, you will need documented oversight, exit plans, and resilience testing. If you want ongoing coverage as secondary legislation lands, you can follow updates at Crypto Daily . Frequently Asked Questions When will the UK’s stablecoin rules take effect? Authorities have indicated a phased rollout following consultations and secondary legislation. Timelines are subject to change, but firms should plan now for authorisation, reserve, and redemption obligations to come into force in stages. Will USD stablecoins be capped for UK users? No specific caps have been finalised at the time of writing. However, policymakers are considering tools to manage currency‑substitution risks. That could mean additional conditions for using foreign‑currency tokens in UK retail payments compared to sterling‑denominated options. Are algorithmic stablecoins allowed in UK payments? The policy focus is on fiat‑backed tokens with full, liquid reserves and par redemption. Algorithmic designs are unlikely to qualify as permitted payment instruments under the initial regime. What counts as “fiat‑backed” under the proposals? While final criteria are pending, expect backing assets to be high‑quality, liquid instruments (e.g., short‑dated government securities and central bank money) that support immediate par redemption. Mixed or illiquid collateral will face hurdles. How will systemic stablecoins be treated? If usage or interconnectedness crosses systemic thresholds, the Bank of England would apply stricter requirements similar to those for critical financial market infrastructures, including enhanced liquidity, operational resilience, and resolution planning. Will wallets and exchanges need FCA permissions? Firms that issue, distribute, or facilitate redemption of fiat‑backed stablecoins in UK payment chains may require FCA authorisation and will have to meet conduct and consumer‑protection standards. The exact perimeter will depend on final rules. What should merchants ask before accepting a stablecoin? Confirm reserve quality, issuer accountability in the UK, redemption SLAs, on/off‑ramp partners, fees, smart‑contract controls, and how the provider will handle a depeg or outage. These checks reduce operational and consumer risks. Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

22 May 2026, 10:58

WSJ Says Iran Moved Billions Through Binance — CEO Richard Teng Fires Back

The Wall Street Journal published a report on May 22 alleging that a covert payments network linked to Iran moved approximately $850 million through Binance — the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange — with activity continuing as recently as December 2025, as a military confrontation between the US and Iran escalated. Binance CEO Richard Teng rejected the report hours later, calling it fundamentally inaccurate and accusing the publication of withholding material facts. The WSJ report, citing an internal Binance compliance document, alleged the network was operated by Iranian businessman Babak Zanjani — who has described himself as an “antisanction operator” — and processed approximately $850 million in transactions over roughly two years through a single account on the platform. The activity allegedly continued through December 2025, a period during which US-Iran tensions were escalating sharply following military strikes. Teng’s Point-By-Point Response Richard Teng, CEO of Binance, responded directly on X within hours of the report’s publication. His statement, posted to his official account (@_RichardTeng), addressed three specific claims. First, he stated that Binance did not permit any transactions with sanctioned individuals on its platform, and that the transactions referenced by the WSJ occurred before the individuals involved were formally sanctioned. Second, he stated that Binance proactively investigated the issues in question before the WSJ made contact — and that this material fact was provided to the newspaper but not published. Third, he reiterated that Binance maintains a zero-tolerance policy for illicit activity and operates what he described as a best-in-class, industry-leading compliance program, adding that the exchange continues to work closely with US and global law enforcement to combat financial crime. A Dispute That Has Become A Legal Battle The May 22 report is not the first clash between Binance and the Wall Street Journal on this subject. In February 2026, the Journal published a separate report on alleged $1 billion in Iran-linked crypto transfers, which Teng publicly described at the time as false and defamatory. Binance filed a lawsuit against Dow Jones, the Journal’s publisher, on March 11, per multiple reports — escalating what had been a public dispute into formal litigation. Binance has pointed to its own compliance metrics as evidence of material progress since its landmark 2023 guilty plea to US anti-money laundering and sanctions violations, which resulted in a $4.3 billion settlement with the Department of Justice and the appointment of an independent compliance monitor. The exchange has stated that sanctions-related exposure as a share of total volume fell 96.8% between January 2024 and July 2025, and that direct exposure to four major Iranian crypto exchanges declined 97.3% over the same period, per earlier reporting. The exchange also processed more than 71,000 law enforcement requests in 2025. The US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations separately sent a formal letter to Teng in February 2026 demanding records related to Binance’s role in alleged Iranian money laundering — citing the earlier WSJ and New York Times reporting — a demand that signals congressional scrutiny has not receded alongside the exchange’s compliance improvements. This development marks a critical and uncomfortable moment for Binance as it works to rebuild institutional credibility following its 2023 settlement. Whether the WSJ’s latest allegations translate into fresh regulatory action, expanded DOJ scrutiny, or accelerated congressional investigation will depend heavily on the underlying facts that neither side has yet fully disclosed in a public forum — and a legal battle that is only just beginning. Cover image from Grok, BTCUSD chart from Tradingview

22 May 2026, 10:44

Bitcoin Waits on US-Iran Peace Talks Resolution: Next Big Move Loading?

Bitcoin is unable to get decent upside traction, while by the same token a sizable dip has been avoided up to now. It seems that the Bitcoin bulls and bears are waiting on the confirmation or failure of a US-Iran peace deal. Expect Bitcoin to rise or fall significantly depending on the deal resolution. Another rejection amid lower lows Source: TradingView In the short-term time frame it can be seen that the bulls struggled to get back into the descending channel . A brief climb back inside was rejected in fairly quick order. Getting back inside the channel is still the next checkbox to be ticked off by the bulls, but it rather looks as though the $BTC price may be rejected and come back to the $76K support level. All the while it must be noted that lower highs are continuing to be made. Could a lower low below that $76K horizontal support spark another sizeable tumble to the downside? Beautifully matching Fibonacci levels with price action Source: TradingView Zooming out into the daily time frame, the Fibonacci levels are drawn from the beginning of the last rally at the bottom of the bear flag up to the local top. It must be noted just how beautifully the levels line up with the price action. The probability is that the bearish leg downwards has now begun. So far the price has been down to the 0.382 Fibonacci level. If it was only going to come down this far before heading to the upside again it would be very bullish. However, it is perhaps more likely that the $BTC price is rejected from the bottom of the small bull flag or the $78K resistance, and it carries on down. The 0.5, 0.618, or 0.786 Fibonaccis are the levels that a proper retracement would be expected to hit. Of these, the 0.786 is the deepest retracement, and the one that lines up with the bottom of the bear flag, although this could be the 0.618 depending on how long it might take for the price to potentially get down there. A crash down to the 0.618 Fibonacci at $58K? Source: TradingView We draw the Fibonacci levels again, this time in the weekly time frame. They are taken from the very bottom of the last bear market, to the top of this bull market. It can be noted that the $60,000 low almost came down to the 0.618 golden Fibonacci level. If there is a crash in the $BTC price from its current position, it could come all the way down to tag the 0.618 Fibonacci. This move could then retest and confirm the bear market trendline and perhaps end up holding above the 200-week SMA with a potential double bottom underneath from which the new bull market could spring. Finally, and for the sake of the ultra bears, it has to be acknowledged that the 0.786 Fibonacci could also be a potential bottom. This matches up with the often-seen $40K predictions across social media, and also speculated upon on this platform . That said, would the $BTC price be likely to fall back through the bear market trendline, especially after spending so much time above it? Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.