US Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Pentagon’s Anthropic Ban – Court Cites Likely First Amendment Violation

Key Takeaways

Court Blocks Pentagon’s Supply Chain Risk Designation

A US federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily blocked the Pentagon from enforcing its designation of AI company Anthropic as a national security supply chain risk. Judge Rita Lin of the District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction preventing the US Department of Defense from applying the label while legal proceedings continue.

The order also halts a directive from President Donald Trump that required all federal agencies to cease using Anthropic’s chatbot, Claude. The directive followed the Pentagon’s classification of the company as a security risk.

In her ruling, Judge Lin stated that nothing in the relevant statute supports the idea that an American company can be labeled a potential adversary or saboteur for expressing disagreement with the government. She described the measures taken by the Trump administration and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as broad punitive actions that appeared arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

Background: Failed Pentagon Contract Negotiations

The dispute originates from a July 2025 agreement between Anthropic and the Pentagon. Under that contract, Claude was set to become the first frontier AI model approved for use on classified US government networks.

Negotiations reportedly collapsed in February 2026 when the Pentagon sought to renegotiate the terms. According to the court record, the Department of Defense insisted that Anthropic allow military use of Claude for all lawful purposes and without restrictions.

Anthropic opposed these conditions. The company maintained that its technology should not be used for lethal autonomous weapons or for mass domestic surveillance of Americans. This disagreement marked a turning point in the relationship between the company and the Defense Department.

On Feb. 27, President Trump ordered all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic products. In a public statement on Truth Social, he criticized the company in strong terms, accusing it of attempting to pressure the Department of War.

Legal Challenge and Allegations of Retaliation

Anthropic filed a lawsuit on March 9 in a federal court in Columbia, alleging that Defense Secretary Hegseth exceeded his authority by designating the company a national security supply chain risk.

During a 90 minute hearing in San Francisco on March 24, Judge Lin questioned government lawyers about whether Anthropic was being punished for publicly criticizing the Pentagon’s contracting position. The judge’s March 26 ruling stated that punishing the company for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s stance would constitute classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.

The preliminary injunction indicates that the court believes Anthropic is likely to succeed on the merits of its constitutional claim. In response to the ruling, the company said it was grateful that the court acted swiftly and agreed that it is likely to prevail in the case.

Market Position and Government Impact

Anthropic held a leading position in the enterprise AI market as of 2025, with a reported 32 percent share, ahead of OpenAI at 25 percent, according to Menlo Ventures. A government wide ban on Anthropic products could have affected that position significantly, particularly given the importance of federal contracts in advanced technology sectors.

The temporary injunction prevents immediate enforcement of the federal ban while the legal process unfolds. For companies operating in technology driven markets, including those serving financial services, crypto infrastructure, or digital platforms, federal procurement decisions can influence competitive positioning and access to regulated sectors.

The case highlights how contractual disputes between private technology providers and US government agencies can escalate into broader regulatory and constitutional conflicts. It also underscores the legal limits that courts may impose on executive branch actions when constitutional rights are implicated.

Next Steps in the Legal Process

The preliminary injunction does not resolve the underlying lawsuit. It temporarily preserves the status quo while the court evaluates the full merits of Anthropic’s claims. Further proceedings will determine whether the Pentagon’s designation and the presidential directive can stand under statutory and constitutional scrutiny.

For now, federal agencies are not required to cease using Anthropic’s products under the blocked directive. The final outcome will depend on subsequent court rulings addressing both the scope of executive authority and the application of First Amendment protections in the context of federal contracting.

Our Assessment

The court’s preliminary injunction prevents immediate enforcement of a federal ban on Anthropic and suspends its designation as a supply chain risk. The ruling centers on constitutional concerns, particularly potential First Amendment retaliation. The case remains ongoing, with further judicial review set to determine whether the Pentagon’s actions and the presidential directive comply with US law.

Coinbase Opposes Stablecoin Yield Compromise in Senate Crypto Bill – Dispute Threatens Progress of Market Structure Legislation

Key Takeaways

Coinbase Pushes Back on Revised Stablecoin Yield Language

Coinbase has reportedly voiced opposition to the latest compromise proposal concerning stablecoin yields in the US Senate’s crypto market structure bill. According to Punchbowl News, representatives from the exchange told Senate lawmakers during a meeting on Monday that they had concerns about the revised language dealing with yield payments on stablecoins.

The new proposal, which circulated earlier in the week, would reportedly prohibit third parties such as crypto exchanges from paying yield on stablecoins. The measure is designed to address concerns raised by banking groups. These groups argue that allowing exchanges to offer yield creates a pathway for funds to move out of traditional bank deposits.

Coinbase did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to the report. The company is one of the largest crypto lobbyists in the United States and has played a visible role in discussions around federal digital asset legislation.

Stablecoin Yields at the Center of Industry Dispute

The debate over stablecoin yields has been a central obstacle in efforts to advance the Senate’s crypto bill. The legislation aims to define how US regulators should approach digital assets and provide a broader market structure framework.

Banking groups contend that exchange-paid stablecoin yields represent a loophole in the GENIUS Act. That earlier legislation banned stablecoin issuers from paying yield directly to holders. According to banking advocates, allowing exchanges or other third parties to provide yield could undermine the intent of that prohibition and increase the risk of deposit flight from community and traditional banks.

On the other side, the crypto industry views stablecoin yields as a significant business component. Exchanges generate user engagement and revenue through such offerings. Industry representatives have argued that the risks cited by banks are overstated and have characterized the banking sector’s position as anticompetitive.

The White House has hosted at least three meetings between representatives of the crypto and banking sectors in an effort to reach a compromise. So far, those discussions have not produced a final agreement.

Previous Opposition Contributed to Legislative Delay

The current dispute follows earlier tensions between Coinbase and lawmakers over the bill. In January, Coinbase withdrew its support for the legislation. Shortly after that move, the Senate Banking Committee indefinitely postponed a planned markup session that would have advanced the bill.

That sequence underscored the influence of major industry participants in the legislative process. As one of the largest US-based crypto exchanges and a significant lobbying presence, Coinbase’s position carries weight in negotiations around digital asset regulation.

The Senate effort is being led by Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks. Senator Alsobrooks recently indicated that the compromise under discussion may leave both crypto advocates and banking groups dissatisfied, highlighting the difficulty of balancing competing interests.

Political Timeline Adds Pressure to Ongoing Talks

Republican lawmakers are seeking to pass the crypto market structure bill before the upcoming midterm elections. A shift in the composition of Congress could affect the momentum behind digital asset legislation.

The House of Representatives has already passed its version of the bill, known as the CLARITY Act, in July. The Senate is now working on its own version, with stablecoin yield provisions emerging as one of the most contentious elements.

Senator Cynthia Lummis stated publicly that bipartisan compromise is necessary for the CLARITY Act to pass. She also emphasized the need to protect stablecoin rewards while preventing deposit flight from community banks. Meanwhile, Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, addressed social media commentary around the bill, noting that misinformation was circulating during the latest round of negotiations.

The political calendar has increased urgency around the talks. Lawmakers supporting the bill argue that delaying passage could push comprehensive crypto regulation further into the future.

Implications for Exchanges and Stablecoin Users

For crypto exchanges, stablecoin yield products represent an important offering. If the Senate ultimately adopts language that prohibits third parties from paying yield, exchanges could face restrictions on certain business models tied to stablecoin rewards.

For users, including those who rely on stablecoins for trading, payments, or as a base currency on crypto platforms, changes to yield rules could affect how platforms structure incentives and account features. While the current debate focuses on legislative language rather than immediate operational changes, the outcome of the negotiations may shape how exchanges design stablecoin-related services in the US market.

The discussions also highlight the broader regulatory tension between traditional financial institutions and digital asset firms. The resolution of the stablecoin yield issue is likely to influence the final form of the Senate’s crypto market structure framework.

Our Assessment

The reported opposition from Coinbase to the latest stablecoin yield compromise underscores the central role that yield provisions play in the Senate’s crypto market structure bill. The dispute between crypto exchanges and banking groups has already delayed legislative progress and remains unresolved despite multiple rounds of negotiations. With bipartisan lawmakers continuing talks ahead of the midterms, the final treatment of stablecoin yields will be a key determinant of whether and how the Senate advances comprehensive crypto regulation.

Bitcoin Exchange Outflows Persist in March – Analysts Link Trend to Ongoing Investor Accumulation

Key Takeaways

Persistent Net Outflows From Exchanges Throughout March

Bitcoin has seen consistent net outflows from cryptocurrency exchanges for most of March, based on data cited by CryptoQuant. The trend has remained largely intact, with the exception of a temporary spike in inflows shortly before Bitcoin reached a six-week high of 76,000 US dollars on March 17.

According to the CryptoQuant analyst known as Darkfost, the negative net flow has continued while Bitcoin remains in what he described as a liquidation phase. He stated that the persistent outflow suggests genuine accumulation by investors who are buying Bitcoin and withdrawing it from exchange platforms.

In crypto markets, exchange inflows and outflows are commonly monitored as indicators of investor behavior. Inflows to exchanges are generally considered bearish because they can signal an intention to sell or convert assets into stablecoins, increasing potential selling pressure. Outflows, by contrast, are often interpreted as a sign that investors are moving assets into self custody, which can indicate a longer-term holding strategy.

Analysts Point to Long-Term Accumulation

Darkfost noted that while the observed demand is not yet strong enough to restart a broader upward trend, it clearly indicates ongoing accumulation. He added that this accumulation is likely one of the factors contributing to the range formation that has developed over several months.

Nick Ruck, director of LVRG Research, provided a similar assessment. He told Cointelegraph that the outflows signal genuine long-term accumulation by investors rather than short-term speculation. According to Ruck, the removal of Bitcoin from centralized platforms demonstrates growing confidence in Bitcoin’s fundamentals under current market conditions.

He added that holders appear to show little interest in selling to hedge against price volatility. Instead, the transfer of assets away from exchanges suggests a preference for holding rather than preparing for immediate liquidation.

Market Context: Performance During Geopolitical Tensions

Jeff Mei, chief operations officer at crypto exchange BTSE, linked the recent behavior to broader market dynamics. He said that cryptocurrencies have outperformed stocks and gold since the beginning of the Iran war. In his view, this relative performance may explain why investors are accumulating Bitcoin.

Mei also stated that crypto assets had been oversold in the weeks and months before the conflict. As a result, he argued that Bitcoin has not sold off as sharply as equities during the current period. He added that this dynamic could indicate Bitcoin emerging as a hedge against traditional stocks, alongside signs of increased institutional ownership.

These observations reflect how market participants assess Bitcoin not only as a standalone asset but also in comparison with other financial instruments during periods of geopolitical stress.

Price Structure Shows Higher Highs and Higher Lows

In addition to exchange flow data, analysts have pointed to Bitcoin’s price structure as another relevant indicator. According to TradingView data cited in the report, Bitcoin has formed higher highs and higher lows at least twice so far this month.

This pattern is typically associated with the early stages of potential trend formation. However, despite these signals, Bitcoin continues to trade within a defined range rather than entering a clear directional breakout.

Glassnode, in its weekly on chain summary released on Monday, reported that net unrealized profits and losses across the market have improved slightly. This indicates a modest easing in unrealized losses among holders. At the same time, Glassnode cautioned that overall sentiment remains under pressure despite tentative signs of stabilization.

Together, the exchange flow data, price structure, and on chain metrics suggest a market environment characterized by gradual accumulation but limited momentum.

Why Exchange Flows Matter for Market Participants

For crypto users, including those who actively use Bitcoin for trading or as a funding method on betting and gaming platforms, exchange flows can provide insight into potential liquidity shifts. Sustained outflows may reduce the amount of Bitcoin readily available on centralized exchanges, while inflows may signal increased trading activity.

Although current data points to accumulation, analysts emphasize that demand has not yet reached levels sufficient to trigger a renewed trend. Instead, the market appears to be stabilizing within a range, supported by steady withdrawals from exchanges and modest improvements in unrealized profit and loss metrics.

Our Assessment

Data cited from CryptoQuant shows that Bitcoin has experienced persistent net outflows from exchanges throughout most of March, with a brief inflow spike before reaching 76,000 US dollars on March 17. Analysts from CryptoQuant, LVRG Research, and BTSE interpret the outflows as evidence of ongoing accumulation rather than short-term selling pressure. At the same time, Bitcoin continues to trade in a range, with higher highs and higher lows forming, while on chain data indicates a slight easing of unrealized losses but continued pressure on overall market sentiment.

DV8 Signs Deal to Acquire Rakkar Digital – Public Company Moves Into Licensed Crypto Custody in Thailand

Key Takeaways

DV8 Enters Regulated Digital Asset Custody Through Rakkar Digital Acquisition

Publicly listed DV8, traded on the Stock Exchange of Thailand under the ticker SET: DV8, has signed a Share Purchase Agreement to acquire Rakkar Digital, a licensed digital asset custodian based in Thailand. The transaction represents DV8’s first direct move into regulated digital asset operations.

Rakkar Digital operates under a digital asset custody license in Thailand and currently holds more than $700 million in assets under custody. The company was established as a joint venture between SCBX, the parent company of Siam Commercial Bank, and Fireblocks, a global digital asset infrastructure provider. Early backing from SCB 10X contributed to the company’s development.

For DV8, the acquisition provides immediate access to a regulated operational framework. Custody services in digital assets require licensing, compliance procedures, security infrastructure, and ongoing engagement with regulators. By acquiring an existing licensed entity, DV8 gains an operational platform that already meets these regulatory and institutional standards.

Custody as Core Infrastructure for Institutional Digital Asset Activity

Digital asset custody is a foundational service for institutional participation in crypto markets. Unlike retail storage solutions, institutional custody requires structured governance, security controls, and regulatory oversight. Rakkar Digital’s existing license and operational structure position it as a regulated intermediary within Thailand’s digital asset ecosystem.

According to the information provided, DV8 views the acquisition as a strategic pivot toward building infrastructure that institutional investors can rely on across Asia. The company highlighted Rakkar Digital’s regulatory standing, operational framework, and established institutional trust as key factors behind the transaction.

For market participants evaluating crypto platforms, custody infrastructure plays a central role. Licensed custodians are responsible for safeguarding digital assets, managing private keys, and complying with national regulatory standards. In regulated markets, custody arrangements can influence how institutional capital enters and interacts with crypto services.

Part of a Broader Digital Asset Strategy

The Rakkar Digital deal follows DV8’s earlier investment in Bitplanet, a Korean digital asset treasury platform, in September 2025. Taken together, these moves show a consistent focus on regulated digital asset businesses in multiple Asian jurisdictions.

While DV8 was originally established as a media company, it is now repositioning itself as a builder of regulated digital asset infrastructure. The company’s recent actions indicate a shift from content operations toward financial and technological services linked to digital assets.

By targeting licensed and operational platforms rather than launching new entities from scratch, DV8 is entering markets with existing compliance structures in place. For users and institutional participants, this approach centers on operating within established regulatory frameworks rather than outside them.

Bitcoin Treasury Strategies Provide Broader Context

The announcement also comes against the backdrop of growing corporate interest in bitcoin as a reserve asset. Over the past five years, bitcoin has increasingly been adopted by traditional finance companies as part of treasury strategies.

Strategy, traded under the ticker MSTR, is cited as a prominent example. Under the leadership of Michael Saylor, the company shifted from a traditional software business model to one where bitcoin became its primary reserve asset. Strategy has used capital markets instruments such as equity and convertible debt to finance bitcoin purchases, aligning shareholder value with its bitcoin holdings.

This treasury model has influenced other corporations considering digital asset exposure. While DV8’s acquisition of Rakkar Digital focuses on custody infrastructure rather than direct bitcoin accumulation, both developments reflect the broader integration of digital assets into corporate strategy.

At the time of writing, bitcoin is trading slightly below $70,000 after briefly approaching $71,000 earlier in the day. Price levels remain relevant for companies pursuing treasury strategies or building infrastructure around digital asset markets.

Implications for Thailand’s Digital Asset Ecosystem

Thailand’s digital asset market includes licensed custodians and regulated service providers. By acquiring Rakkar Digital, DV8 enters this ecosystem with an established platform rather than applying for a new license.

Rakkar Digital’s connection to SCBX and Fireblocks links the company to both a major Thai financial group and an international digital asset infrastructure provider. These partnerships formed the basis of its development and operational framework.

For institutional participants in Southeast Asia, the presence of licensed custodians can affect how digital assets are stored and managed. Infrastructure providers that meet regulatory requirements may play a role in enabling broader participation from financial institutions and corporate entities.

Our Assessment

DV8’s agreement to acquire Rakkar Digital marks its first direct step into regulated digital asset custody and signals a structural shift from media operations toward digital asset infrastructure. The transaction gives DV8 access to a licensed custodian in Thailand with more than $700 million in assets under custody and established institutional partnerships. Combined with its earlier investment in Korea’s Bitplanet, the move places DV8 within multiple regulated digital asset markets in Asia while bitcoin trades near the $70,000 level.

Circle Urges European Commission to Lower Crypto Thresholds – Proposal Targets Stablecoin Use in EU Market Integration Framework

Key Takeaways

Circle Responds to the EU Market Integration Package

Circle has formally provided feedback to the European Commission on elements of its proposed Market Integration Package, a broad policy initiative designed to strengthen capital markets across the European Union. The company confirmed that it submitted its response on March 20.

In its statement, Circle described the proposals as a meaningful step toward a digitally enabled financial system. At the same time, the company identified specific areas where it believes adjustments are necessary to improve the practical integration of crypto-assets into European financial infrastructure.

The Market Integration Package, referred to as the MIP, aims to further connect and modernize EU capital markets. According to Circle, clearer guidance within this framework could help define which crypto-assets may be used as collateral and how digital instruments can interact with traditional financial systems.

Lower Thresholds Proposed for E-Money Tokens in Settlement

A central point in Circle’s feedback concerns the market capitalization thresholds applied to e-money tokens under the Central Securities Depositories Regulation. Under the current proposal, only so-called significant e-money tokens would qualify for use in settlement.

Circle argued that restricting settlement activity to significant e-money tokens creates structural barriers. The company stated that no euro-denominated e-money token is currently close to reaching the proposed market capitalization threshold. This includes EURC, Circle’s euro-backed stablecoin that complies with the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation.

According to Circle, limiting settlement eligibility to tokens that already meet a high market capitalization requirement risks excluding euro-denominated instruments altogether. The company described this situation as a chicken-and-egg scenario, where tokens cannot grow because they lack settlement use cases, while at the same time they cannot qualify for settlement because they have not yet reached sufficient scale.

Circle recommended that the European Commission adopt more adaptive thresholds. In its view, criteria such as market uptake and liquidity conditions, combined with supervisory assessments, would provide a more flexible approach than a fixed capitalization benchmark.

Implications for EURC and the European Stablecoin Market

Circle operates USDC as its flagship US dollar-backed stablecoin and also issues EURC, a euro-backed stablecoin that complies with MiCA, the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation. MiCA entered into force in December 2024 and serves as the primary legislative framework for crypto-assets within the European Union.

In its submission, Circle highlighted that no euro-denominated e-money token currently meets the proposed threshold for settlement use under the Market Integration Package. This directly affects the potential role of EURC in regulated settlement systems.

For market participants evaluating euro-backed stablecoins, the discussion around thresholds is relevant because it influences whether such tokens can be integrated into securities settlement processes. The ability to use e-money tokens in settlement may affect liquidity, institutional participation, and secondary market development, as Circle noted in its response.

Call to Expand the DLT Pilot Regime

Beyond market capitalization thresholds, Circle also addressed the DLT Pilot Regime within the proposed framework. The DLT Pilot Regime is intended to enable the use of distributed ledger technology in market infrastructures under a controlled regulatory environment.

According to Circle, the current proposal restricts cash accounts within the regime to credit institutions and central securities depository financial institutions. The company argued that this limitation should be expanded to include crypto-asset service providers.

Circle stated that allowing more crypto-asset service providers to operate within the DLT Pilot Regime would better connect blockchain-based infrastructure with traditional financial systems. The company framed this as part of a broader effort to modernize Europe’s financial architecture.

Regulatory Context Under MiCA

The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation took effect in December 2024 and represents the main crypto-specific legislative framework in the European Union. While MiCA establishes common rules for crypto-asset issuers and service providers, aspects of its implementation have been subject to criticism.

Some legal practitioners have argued that MiCA can be difficult to interpret and that its implementation may vary across EU member states. Within this regulatory landscape, the proposed Market Integration Package is positioned as an additional step toward clarifying how digital assets interact with established financial market rules.

Circle indicated that clearer definitions under the MIP regarding the use of crypto-assets as collateral could provide greater legal certainty for Europe-based market participants.

Our Assessment

Circle’s submission to the European Commission focuses on specific technical aspects of the proposed Market Integration Package, particularly market capitalization thresholds for e-money tokens and participation rules under the DLT Pilot Regime. The company stated that no euro-denominated e-money token currently meets the proposed threshold for settlement use, including its own EURC stablecoin. By recommending adaptive thresholds and broader access for crypto-asset service providers, Circle is seeking regulatory adjustments that would allow euro-backed stablecoins to participate more directly in EU settlement and market infrastructure frameworks.

H100 Signs LOI to Acquire Moonshot and Never Say Die – Planned Deal Would Triple Bitcoin Holdings to 3,500 BTC

Key Takeaways

Planned Acquisition Would Expand H100’s Bitcoin Treasury

H100 Group AB, a Stockholm-based publicly listed bitcoin treasury company, has announced a letter of intent to acquire two Norwegian bitcoin-focused firms, Moonshot AS and Never Say Die AS. The proposed transaction would significantly expand H100’s bitcoin reserves.

According to the company, H100 currently holds 1,051 BTC. The two target companies together hold approximately 2,450 BTC. If the acquisition is completed, the combined entity would hold around 3,500 BTC. This would roughly triple H100’s bitcoin holdings and position the company among the larger listed bitcoin treasury firms in Europe, based on its disclosed reserves.

For market participants who follow institutional bitcoin exposure, treasury size is a key metric. Publicly listed bitcoin treasury companies provide equity market investors with indirect exposure to bitcoin through shares rather than direct ownership of the asset.

Bitcoin-for-Bitcoin Structure and Share-Based Transaction

The proposed deal is structured as a bitcoin-for-bitcoin exchange. Ownership in the combined entity will be determined solely by the number of BTC contributed by each party. H100 states that this approach preserves existing shareholders’ exposure per share while expanding the company’s overall balance sheet.

The acquisition is designed as an all-share transaction, with no cash consideration involved. This structure aligns with H100’s stated strategy of conducting mergers and acquisitions based on bitcoin holdings rather than fiat financing. By avoiding cash payments, the company keeps its treasury composition focused on bitcoin and equity.

Such structures are relevant for investors assessing dilution and capital allocation. In this case, the exchange ratio is directly tied to bitcoin contributions rather than traditional valuation metrics such as revenue or earnings.

Part of a Broader Consolidation Strategy in Europe

The announcement follows H100’s earlier move in January to combine with Switzerland-based Future Holdings AG, another bitcoin treasury company. Together, these transactions indicate an ongoing strategy to consolidate institutional-scale bitcoin holdings within a listed European structure.

H100’s chairman, Sander Andersen, described scale, credibility, and access to capital markets as increasingly important factors for publicly listed bitcoin firms. According to Andersen, the proposed acquisition would strengthen the company in these areas while leaving its listing structure and core operations unchanged.

Both the Norwegian acquisition and the earlier combination with Future Holdings AG have backing from Adam Back, British cryptographer and co-founder of Blockstream. His involvement links the transaction to an established network of bitcoin-focused investors and entrepreneurs.

Management Integration and Operational Expertise

Moonshot AS and Never Say Die AS are led by executives with backgrounds in trading and asset management. Moonshot CEO Eirik Grøttum is described as a former systematic trader and asset manager. Peter Warren, serving as chief investment officer, has experience in hedge funds and markets including equities, derivatives, and foreign exchange. Founder Geir Harald Hansen is known as the pioneer behind the Bitminter BTC mining pool.

Following completion of the transaction, H100 will remain the listed parent company. Management and board roles are expected to include representatives from both H100 and the acquired firms. Current H100 executives, including Chairman Sander Andersen and CEO Johannes Wiik, are set to continue in central positions.

The company states that the Norwegian teams will contribute operational expertise and technology capabilities that complement H100’s treasury management and capital markets activities.

Timeline, Approvals, and Ongoing Business Operations

H100 aims to finalize definitive agreements by April 22, 2026. Completion is expected shortly after the company’s annual general meeting on May 21, subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions.

In addition to its bitcoin treasury strategy, H100 continues to operate a health technology business. This segment focuses on digital health tools and AI-powered solutions for providers of health and lifestyle services. The company has stated that its core business model and listing structure will remain unchanged despite the planned expansion of its bitcoin holdings.

For investors and market observers, the combination of an operating technology business with a growing bitcoin treasury remains a defining feature of H100’s corporate structure.

Our Assessment

The planned acquisition of Moonshot AS and Never Say Die AS would increase H100’s bitcoin holdings from 1,051 BTC to approximately 3,500 BTC, based on disclosed figures. The bitcoin-for-bitcoin, all-share structure ties ownership directly to contributed BTC and avoids cash consideration. Together with its earlier combination with Future Holdings AG, the transaction forms part of H100’s stated strategy to consolidate larger bitcoin reserves within a publicly listed European entity while maintaining its existing listing and operating model.

Fidelity Calls on SEC to Expand Crypto Broker-Dealer Framework – Focus on Tokenized Securities and Alternative Trading Systems

Key Takeaways

Fidelity Responds to SEC Crypto Task Force on Broker-Dealer Rules

Fidelity Investments has formally asked the US Securities and Exchange Commission to continue refining the regulatory framework that governs how broker-dealers can offer, custody, and trade crypto assets. The request was made in a letter responding to a call for comments issued earlier in March by the SEC’s Crypto Task Force.

According to Fidelity, it is critical for the regulator to establish a comprehensive set of rules for tokenized securities trading. This includes not only tokenized instruments issued directly by market participants but also tokenized securities issued by third parties and traded on alternative trading systems, commonly referred to as ATS.

Alternative trading systems operate as regulated trading venues that differ from traditional exchanges. Fidelity’s letter focuses on how broker-dealers should be allowed to use these systems when dealing with crypto-based instruments and tokenized versions of traditional financial assets.

Tokenized Securities Require Clear and Specific Regulatory Treatment

In its submission, Fidelity emphasized that tokenized instruments vary significantly in their structure, legal characteristics, and valuation models. Tokenized real-world assets can represent different asset classes, including equities, real estate, bonds, and private credit.

The company noted that tokenization models differ in the rights they grant to holders. In some cases, a crypto asset may represent an indirect interest in an underlying security through what is described as a securities entitlement. In other cases, a tokenized instrument may qualify as a securities-based swap. Under existing rules, such swaps may only be offered to eligible contract participants.

By outlining these distinctions, Fidelity signaled that a single, generalized approach to crypto regulation may not sufficiently address the complexity of tokenized financial products. The company’s position is that clear and tailored rules would help broker-dealers understand how to structure offerings and comply with securities laws when listing or trading tokenized assets.

For market participants, including platforms that integrate tokenized instruments or rely on broker-dealer infrastructure, regulatory clarity directly affects how products can be structured and who can access them.

Bridging the Gap Between Centralized and Decentralized Trading Venues

Another central element of Fidelity’s letter concerns the regulatory differences between centralized trading platforms and decentralized finance systems.

Fidelity urged the SEC to consider how intermediated and disintermediated trading venues can evolve and coexist within the same regulatory environment. Centralized platforms typically operate under identifiable management structures and can comply with detailed reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Decentralized systems, by contrast, often lack a central authority capable of producing the type of financial reports currently required by the SEC.

The company argued that existing reporting rules should be updated to reflect this technological reality. According to the letter, decentralized platforms and other disintermediated systems cannot generate the same forms of detailed financial reporting because no single entity controls the system.

Fidelity also recommended that the SEC issue guidance allowing broker-dealers to use distributed ledger technology for alternative trading systems and other recordkeeping purposes. In its view, adapting reporting obligations to blockchain-based infrastructure would remove undue burdens from decentralized systems while maintaining regulatory oversight.

For crypto users and platforms operating in regulated markets, these discussions are relevant because reporting standards and infrastructure requirements determine how trading venues can legally function and what level of transparency regulators expect.

Regulators Maintain Capital Rules for Tokenized Assets

Fidelity’s request comes at a time when US regulators have signaled support for innovation in capital markets. Under SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, the agency has expressed openness to the concept of 24-7 capital markets and has approved certain experiments with tokenized trading.

At the same time, US banking regulators have clarified that tokenized securities are subject to the same capital treatment as their underlying assets. In a joint policy statement published in March by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the agencies stated that the technology used to issue or transact in a security does not generally change its capital requirements.

This means that whether an equity, debt instrument, real estate investment trust, or other asset is held in traditional form or as a tokenized representation, the same capital rules apply. For broker-dealers and financial institutions, this clarification establishes continuity between traditional securities regulation and tokenized markets.

Implications for Crypto Market Infrastructure

Fidelity is the third-largest asset manager in the United States, and its engagement with the SEC adds institutional weight to ongoing regulatory discussions around crypto market structure. The company’s focus on alternative trading systems, tokenized securities, and decentralized platforms highlights areas where traditional financial regulation intersects with blockchain-based infrastructure.

For international users evaluating crypto trading or tokenized asset exposure, developments in US regulatory policy can influence product availability, platform design, and compliance standards. Broker-dealer permissions, reporting obligations, and capital treatment rules shape how regulated entities participate in digital asset markets.

Our Assessment

Fidelity’s letter to the SEC centers on expanding and clarifying the regulatory framework for broker-dealers involved in crypto and tokenized securities trading. The company calls for detailed rules covering alternative trading systems, differentiated treatment of tokenization models, updated reporting standards for decentralized platforms, and explicit permission to use distributed ledger technology for recordkeeping. At the same time, US regulators have reaffirmed that tokenized securities remain subject to the same capital requirements as their underlying assets. Together, these elements show that discussions are moving toward integrating tokenized instruments into existing securities law rather than creating a separate regulatory regime.

SEC and CFTC Issue Digital Asset Taxonomy – New Interpretive Rule Redefines US Crypto Oversight

Key Takeaways

SEC and CFTC Publish Five-Category Taxonomy for Digital Assets

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has released new guidance that establishes a formal taxonomy for digital assets. Developed in coordination with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the framework divides digital assets into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles such as non-fungible tokens, digital tools, stablecoins, and tokenized securities.

According to the SEC, the taxonomy clarifies which digital assets qualify as securities. By distinguishing between categories, the agency sets out how it interprets existing statutory provisions in relation to cryptocurrencies and tokens. The majority of cryptocurrencies and tokens fall outside the definition of securities under this structure.

For market participants, including exchanges, token issuers, and service providers, classification determines which regulatory requirements apply. Assets categorized as securities are subject to securities law obligations, while others may fall under different oversight regimes.

Shift From Legislative Rule to Interpretive Guidance

The new framework has been issued as an interpretive rule rather than a legislative or substantive rule. Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at investment firm Galaxy, highlighted the procedural distinction under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Under previous SEC policy, determinations about which cryptocurrencies met the legal criteria of investment contracts were treated as legislative rules. Legislative rules must go through a notice-and-comment process and carry the force and effect of law. They bind both the agency and regulated parties.

By contrast, interpretive rules are exempt from notice-and-comment requirements. They do not carry the same legal force and instead explain how the agency understands and intends to apply existing statutes. Courts are not legally bound to enforce interpretive guidance in the same way as legislative rules.

Thorn described the new approach as marking a break from the regulatory posture associated with former SEC Chair Gary Gensler. In his view, the interpretive format provides greater flexibility for both regulators and the industry as digital asset markets evolve.

Implications for the Crypto Industry Over the Next 30 Months

The guidance is positioned as providing clarity for approximately the next 30 months. During that period, market participants can refer to the taxonomy to assess how their products or services are likely to be treated under federal securities laws.

However, Thorn noted that longer-term certainty depends on legislative action. Specifically, he referenced the CLARITY crypto market structure bill, which aims to define regulatory responsibilities and market rules more comprehensively. Without codification into statutory law, the interpretive guidance remains subject to future administrative changes.

For international operators and platforms that serve US users, including those in adjacent sectors such as crypto payments or token-based services, the classification framework may influence compliance strategies and product design. Whether a token is considered a digital commodity, a stablecoin, or a tokenized security affects registration, disclosure, and reporting obligations.

Status of the CLARITY Act and Points of Contention

The CLARITY Act stalled in January 2025 following objections from several crypto companies, including Coinbase. Industry concerns focused on provisions that would prohibit stablecoin yield from passive balances and limit protections for open-source software developers.

Additional criticism centered on decentralized finance. Some companies and industry representatives argued that proposed reporting requirements and know-your-customer controls would significantly affect DeFi protocols.

According to a recent report by Politico, there are indications of a tentative agreement between the White House and lawmakers to move the bill forward. Specific terms have not been publicly detailed. Senator Angela Alsoboorks stated that the emerging deal includes a ban on stablecoin yield derived from passive balances.

If enacted, the legislation would provide statutory backing for elements of the market structure and potentially redefine the regulatory perimeter for stablecoins and DeFi services.

Regulatory Coordination Between SEC and CFTC

The joint nature of the taxonomy underscores ongoing coordination between the SEC and the CFTC. The two agencies have historically shared oversight responsibilities in areas where digital assets may resemble both securities and commodities.

By formally categorizing digital assets into distinct groups, the agencies aim to clarify jurisdictional boundaries. Digital commodities and certain other non-security tokens are generally associated with commodities oversight, while tokenized securities remain within the SEC’s remit.

For users of crypto platforms, including those engaging with token-based services, staking mechanisms, or stablecoins, regulatory classification can affect platform availability, product offerings, and compliance requirements. Clearer delineation between categories may reduce uncertainty in how platforms operate within the United States.

Our Assessment

The SEC’s publication of a five-part digital asset taxonomy, issued as an interpretive rule and developed with the CFTC, formally redefines how the agency classifies cryptocurrencies and tokens under existing law. Most digital assets are categorized as non-securities within this framework. The move alters the procedural basis of prior policy and provides interim regulatory clarity. Long-term legal certainty depends on whether Congress advances and enacts the CLARITY Act, which remains under negotiation following earlier industry objections.