US Treasury Sanctions Alleged North Korea IT Fraud Facilitators – 21 Crypto Addresses Added to OFAC List

Key Takeaways

US Treasury Targets Alleged Facilitators of North Korea IT Worker Network

The US Department of the Treasury has imposed sanctions on six individuals and two entities accused of facilitating an IT worker fraud scheme linked to North Korea. The measures were announced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees US sanctions enforcement.

According to the Treasury, the sanctioned network operated across North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Spain. Authorities allege that the scheme generated revenue for North Korea’s weapons program.

The sanctions freeze any US-based assets connected to the named individuals and entities. They also prohibit US persons and businesses from engaging in financial transactions or other dealings with them. Violations can result in civil and criminal penalties.

Named Entities and Individuals

Among the sanctioned entities is Amnokgang Technology Development Company, described as a North Korean firm accused of managing overseas IT workers. The Treasury also sanctioned Nguyen Quang Viet, identified as the CEO of Quangvietdnbg International Services Company Limited, a Vietnam-based company.

Authorities allege that Nguyen Quang Viet’s company laundered 2.5 million US dollars through cryptocurrency on behalf of the network. In addition, five individuals were designated for their alleged roles in the IT worker operations: Do Phi Khanh, Hoang Van Nguyen, Yun Song Guk, Hoang Minh Quang and York Louis Celestino Herrera.

All listed persons and entities are now subject to US sanctions restrictions, including asset freezes and transaction bans involving US jurisdictions.

21 Cryptocurrency Addresses Added Across Ethereum and Tron

As part of the enforcement action, OFAC included 21 cryptocurrency addresses in its sanctions designation. The addresses span the Ethereum and Tron blockchains.

Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis stated that the inclusion of addresses on multiple networks reflects what it described as North Korea’s increasingly multi-chain approach to moving funds. By designating specific wallet addresses, authorities aim to limit the ability of sanctioned actors to transact in digital assets through compliant platforms and intermediaries.

For cryptocurrency exchanges, payment processors and other digital asset businesses, the addition of wallet addresses to the sanctions list requires updated compliance screening. Businesses operating internationally, including those serving crypto betting and iGaming platforms, must ensure that they do not process transactions linked to sanctioned addresses.

Fraudulent IT Worker Schemes Target Blockchain Companies

The Treasury action follows reports that fraudulent IT workers with alleged ties to North Korea have targeted a wide range of industries. Blockchain companies have been among the affected sectors.

An April 2025 report by Google found that the infrastructure supporting these schemes had spread worldwide. According to Chainalysis, the operations rely on stolen identities and fabricated personas to obtain employment with legitimate companies.

Beyond receiving salaries under false pretenses, some workers have allegedly introduced malware into company networks. Chainalysis stated that this tactic has been used to extract proprietary and sensitive information. The firm described the IT worker schemes as a sophisticated and growing threat.

For companies handling cryptocurrency transactions, including exchanges and service providers connected to online gambling platforms, such tactics raise operational and compliance risks. Screening counterparties against updated OFAC sanctions lists and monitoring for unusual payment patterns form part of standard risk management procedures when new designations are issued.

Compliance Implications for Crypto and iGaming Businesses

The addition of individuals, entities and wallet addresses to the OFAC sanctions list has direct consequences for businesses that interact with US financial systems or serve US customers. Any assets within US jurisdiction linked to the sanctioned parties are blocked.

Crypto businesses must ensure that they do not facilitate transactions involving the 21 listed addresses on Ethereum and Tron. Failure to comply with sanctions requirements can expose companies to enforcement action.

For international users of crypto betting and iGaming platforms, sanctions actions can affect the availability of certain payment routes or counterparties if platforms adjust their compliance controls. Operators typically respond by updating internal blacklists, transaction monitoring systems and onboarding procedures.

Our Assessment

The US Treasury’s sanctions designate six individuals, two entities and 21 cryptocurrency addresses connected to an alleged North Korea-linked IT worker fraud network. The measures freeze US-based assets and prohibit transactions with US persons. The case highlights how authorities are targeting both individuals and blockchain wallet addresses in response to schemes that have affected multiple industries, including blockchain companies.

Danish Gambling Authority Updates FATF High-Risk Country Lists – What the AML Changes Mean for Gambling Operators

Key Takeaways

Spillemyndigheden Aligns Guidance With Latest FATF Decisions

The Danish Gambling Authority, known as Spillemyndigheden, has revised its compliance guidance for licensed gambling operators following updates to the Financial Action Task Force lists of high-risk jurisdictions. The update was issued on March 6, 2026 and reflects changes adopted during the FATF Plenary meeting held in Mexico City in February.

The FATF lists, commonly referred to as the Black List and the Grey List, are used internationally to identify jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in their frameworks for combating money laundering and terrorist financing. For Danish gambling operators, these lists form part of the risk assessment process required under the Danish Anti-Money Laundering Act.

By updating its guidance shortly after the FATF Plenary, the Danish regulator signals that licensed operators are expected to incorporate the latest international risk classifications into their compliance procedures.

Kuwait and Papua New Guinea Added to the Grey List

The most significant change concerns the Grey List, which identifies jurisdictions under increased monitoring. According to the updated guidance, Kuwait and Papua New Guinea have been added to this list. Countries on the Grey List have committed to addressing identified strategic deficiencies within agreed timeframes.

The full list of jurisdictions currently subject to increased monitoring includes Algeria, Angola, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, the British Virgin Islands, and Yemen.

For gambling operators, the presence of a jurisdiction on this list represents a relevant risk indicator. Players with connections to these countries may require closer scrutiny as part of an operator’s internal risk-based approach.

Black List Remains Unchanged

The FATF Black List, which identifies jurisdictions subject to a call for countermeasures to protect the international financial system, remains unchanged following the February Plenary.

The jurisdictions currently on the Black List are the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, and Myanmar. These countries are considered to present the highest level of risk under the FATF framework.

Although the Danish Gambling Authority’s update does not introduce new Black List entries, operators must continue to treat these jurisdictions as posing significant compliance risks within their anti-money laundering controls.

Enhanced Customer Due Diligence Under the Danish AML Act

Under Section 17(1) of the Danish Anti-Money Laundering Act, gambling operators are required to carry out Enhanced Customer Due Diligence when a player is assessed as posing a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing.

The Danish Gambling Authority clarified that inclusion on a FATF list does not automatically trigger a legal obligation to apply Enhanced Customer Due Diligence. Instead, FATF classification must be treated as a significant risk factor within the operator’s broader risk assessment framework.

This means that operators must evaluate the individual circumstances of each customer. A connection to a Grey List jurisdiction increases the risk profile but does not in itself mandate enhanced measures in every case.

By contrast, the situation differs when it comes to the EU Regulation of High-Risk Third Countries. Pursuant to Section 17(2) of the Danish AML Act, Enhanced Customer Due Diligence is a mandatory legal requirement for all customers from jurisdictions listed under that EU regulation.

The distinction is important for compliance teams. While FATF listings influence risk scoring and monitoring procedures, EU-listed jurisdictions create a direct and automatic legal obligation to apply enhanced checks.

Operational Impact for Licensed Gambling Platforms

For licensed operators in Denmark, the updated guidance requires adjustments to internal compliance documentation, risk matrices, and customer onboarding procedures where relevant. Systems used to flag high-risk jurisdictions must reflect the addition of Kuwait and Papua New Guinea to the Grey List.

Operators must also ensure that compliance staff understand the difference between risk indicators and mandatory legal triggers. Misinterpreting FATF listings as automatic Enhanced Customer Due Diligence requirements could lead to inconsistent application of controls, while failing to account for increased monitoring obligations could expose an operator to regulatory risk.

Given that the FATF lists are periodically revised, the Danish Gambling Authority’s update underscores the need for continuous monitoring of international AML developments and timely implementation within licensed gambling businesses.

Our Assessment

The Danish Gambling Authority’s March 2026 update formally integrates the latest FATF decisions into national AML guidance for gambling operators. The addition of Kuwait and Papua New Guinea to the Grey List expands the range of jurisdictions that must be considered elevated risk factors in customer assessments. At the same time, the unchanged Black List maintains existing high-risk classifications. The clarification that FATF listing does not automatically require Enhanced Customer Due Diligence, while EU-listed jurisdictions do, defines the practical compliance obligations for Danish-licensed gambling operators under the current AML framework.

Bloomberry Resorts Launches Live Studio Casino Games on megaFUNalo – Digital Investment Weighs on Earnings

Key Takeaways

Bloomberry Expands Digital Casino Offering Through Live Studio Launch

Bloomberry Resorts Corp has introduced a new set of live studio casino games through its online platform megaFUNalo. The launch marks a further step in the company’s digital casino strategy, which operates under authorization from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp, the regulator overseeing online gaming operations in the country.

The new studio environment is designed specifically for online and mobile players in the Philippines. According to the company, the setup integrates high definition streaming, floor to ceiling LED visuals, and live dealer interaction. The live sessions are streamed directly to users on the megaFUNalo platform.

The development builds on megaFUNalo’s soft launch in June last year. Since then, Bloomberry has continued investing in digital gaming technology while maintaining its core operations at Solaire Resort and Casino in Manila, the group’s flagship integrated resort.

Transparent Tables and Multi Angle Streaming Aim to Increase Visibility

A central feature of the new studio is the use of transparent gaming tables. These glass table layouts allow players to see dealer hand movements and card handling directly through the surface of the table. According to reporting cited by InsiderPH, the design is intended to remove doubts around gameplay by making each movement clearly visible during live sessions.

The studio also uses integrated video production tools to create a three dimensional visual effect for online viewers. Mobile users can watch gameplay from multiple angles while dealers operate the games in real time. The LED studio environment forms part of the visual setup, combining lighting and digital backdrops with the live table feed.

Cyrus Sherafat, executive vice president and head of gaming at megaFUNalo, said the glass table environment and integrated studio were designed to elevate user trust and deliver a new type of immersive experience in the local market. Sherafat also serves as executive vice president and head of gaming at Solaire Resort and Casino.

In addition to the technical setup, the studio integrates live hosts who interact with players during gameplay. This format is positioned as a bridge between traditional casino floor experiences and digital gambling platforms.

Initial Game Portfolio Includes Roulette, Baccarat, and Dragon Tiger

The first titles available in the live studio include Classic Roulette, Transparent Baccarat, and Dragon Tiger. All games stream directly through the megaFUNalo platform.

These formats are established table games in both land based and online casino environments. By adapting them to a studio with transparent tables and enhanced visual production, Bloomberry is applying a live dealer model that combines physical dealer interaction with remote digital access.

The integration of live hosts and real time gameplay places the offering within the live casino segment of online gambling, where players connect to a studio environment rather than a computer generated table. In this case, the company emphasizes direct visibility of dealer actions through the table surface as a defining feature of the setup.

Digital Investment Reflected in Financial Results

Bloomberry’s expansion into online gaming has had a measurable impact on its financial performance. The company reported full year EBITDA of PHP10.17 billion, equivalent to about US$172.7 million. This represented a decline of around 39 percent compared with the previous year.

According to company filings, part of the decrease was attributed to development and operating costs related to the megaFUNalo platform. Expenses connected to the online project reached PHP723.9 million during the reporting period.

The figures indicate that the digital rollout required significant upfront investment. While Bloomberry continues to operate Solaire Resort and Casino as one of the largest integrated casino resorts in the Philippines, the company is allocating capital toward expanding its online presence under regulatory oversight.

For users, the financial disclosures provide context on the scale of the company’s digital initiative and the cost structure behind the platform’s development.

Regulatory Framework and Market Positioning in the Philippines

The live studio initiative forms part of Bloomberry’s strategy under authorization from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. The regulator oversees online gaming operations in the country, including digital casino offerings.

By launching live studio games within this framework, Bloomberry is operating inside the domestic regulatory structure. For players evaluating online casino platforms in the Philippines, regulatory authorization is a key operational factor, as it determines the legal basis for offering games and processing player activity.

The company describes the concept as a long term direction for the local market, combining studio technology with real time hosting. The approach connects the brand’s land based casino identity with its online product through shared management and technical integration.

Our Assessment

Bloomberry Resorts has expanded megaFUNalo with a live studio casino offering that features transparent tables, LED environments, and multi angle streaming. The launch operates under authorization from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp and forms part of a broader digital strategy initiated with the platform’s soft launch last year. Financial disclosures show that development and operating costs for megaFUNalo contributed to a 39 percent decline in full year EBITDA, with PHP723.9 million allocated to the online project. The rollout demonstrates a continued shift of resources toward regulated online gaming alongside the company’s land based operations at Solaire Resort and Casino.

ASIC Fintech Chief Says Crypto Is Not a Separate Asset Class – Australia Signals Technology-Neutral Regulatory Approach

Key Takeaways

ASIC Advocates Technology-Neutral Regulation for Crypto

Australia’s corporate and financial services regulator is signaling that digital assets should not be treated as a separate category under the law. Speaking at the Melbourne Money & Finance Conference, Rhys Bollen, head of fintech at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, said blockchain-based assets perform the same core financial functions as traditional instruments.

According to Bollen, regulation should focus on “economic substance rather than technological form.” He argued that distributed ledger technologies represent new infrastructure for longstanding activities such as capital allocation, payments and risk management. While issuance, transfer and record keeping mechanisms have changed, the underlying economic purpose remains comparable to traditional finance.

Bollen drew a parallel to earlier shifts in financial infrastructure, noting that regulators did not introduce entirely new legal systems when markets moved from paper-based records to electronic systems. Instead, existing principles such as consumer protection, market integrity and systemic stability were adapted to new technologies. He said a similar approach should apply to blockchain-based systems.

Application of Existing Laws to Tokenized Assets and Stablecoins

Under the approach outlined by Bollen, tokenized securities would fall within established securities legislation. Stablecoins, depending on their function, could trigger payment services laws. Other crypto-related products and services may be subject to consumer protection frameworks.

This model contrasts with crypto-specific regulatory regimes introduced in other jurisdictions, including the CLARITY Act in the United States and the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework in the European Union. Rather than creating a standalone crypto statute, Australia is integrating digital assets into its existing regulatory architecture.

Bollen said this method reduces opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. By focusing on economic characteristics instead of labels such as “token” or “digital asset,” regulators can apply consistent standards across financial products that serve similar functions.

For users of crypto trading platforms, payment services or tokenized investment products, this approach means that the legal classification will depend on how a product operates in practice. A digital asset that functions as a security, derivative, managed investment scheme interest or non-cash payment facility may fall within the existing perimeter of financial regulation.

Digital Asset Framework Bill Amends Corporations Act

Australia’s main legislative initiative in this area, the Digital Asset Framework bill, reflects this integration strategy. According to Bollen, the bill does not abandon the current financial services framework. Instead, it introduces targeted amendments to the Corporations Act to incorporate digital asset platforms into established law.

This signals that crypto businesses operating in Australia may be brought under licensing, conduct and disclosure obligations already applicable to traditional financial service providers, depending on the nature of their activities.

In addition, ASIC Information Sheet 225 provides guidance on how existing definitions of “financial product” and “financial service” under the Corporations Act apply to digital assets. The document explicitly rejects the idea that digital assets constitute a discrete asset class for regulatory purposes. Instead, it assesses whether a given product falls within established categories based on function.

For international operators assessing the Australian market, this means regulatory analysis will focus less on branding or technical structure and more on the economic role played by a token or platform.

Focus on Intermediaries and Consumer Harm

ASIC’s regulatory emphasis is directed primarily at intermediaries rather than the tokens themselves. Bollen noted that most consumer harm in the digital asset sector has stemmed from the conduct of crypto platforms offering custody, trading, lending or yield services.

By concentrating oversight on service providers, the regulator seeks to address risks arising from operational practices, governance and client asset handling. This is particularly relevant for centralized platforms that control user funds or facilitate complex financial products.

For market participants, including crypto payment providers and betting platforms that integrate digital assets, intermediary obligations may become a key compliance consideration if their activities fall within the scope of financial services regulation.

Decentralized Structures Present Classification Challenges

Bollen acknowledged that decentralized products and services can raise classification issues. In such cases, the regulatory assessment should focus on practical control and economic benefit rather than formal claims of decentralization.

He stated that where identifiable parties exercise influence over protocol design, governance or economic outcomes, regulatory obligations can and should attach. This indicates that labeling a system as decentralized will not automatically remove it from oversight if individuals or entities retain meaningful control.

For projects structured around decentralized governance or automated protocols, the analysis may therefore examine who makes key decisions, who benefits financially and how the system operates in practice.

Our Assessment

ASIC’s position outlines a technology-neutral regulatory model that integrates digital assets into existing financial law rather than creating a separate asset class. Tokenized securities, stablecoins and platform services are assessed based on their economic function. The proposed Digital Asset Framework bill and ASIC guidance reflect this approach by amending established legislation and focusing on intermediaries. For market participants, regulatory treatment in Australia will depend on how products and services operate, not on their technological label.

Bitcoin Trades Around $67,000 as Analysts Warn of Potential Bull Trap – On-Chain Data Signals Ongoing Bear Market Phase

Key Takeaways

Willy Woo Flags Potential Bull Trap Based on Liquidity Trends

On-chain analyst Willy Woo has warned that Bitcoin could experience a short-term rally that may mislead investors before the broader downward trend resumes. In a recent post on X, Woo described the current setup as a potential bull trap, referring to a temporary breakout that creates the impression of a sustained uptrend.

According to Woo, such a move could extend toward the end of April. His analysis is not based on price targets but on liquidity conditions. He stated that if capital returns in force and is driven by long-term investors, he would reassess his outlook. For now, he sees the current structure as vulnerable to further downside.

For market participants, a bull trap can have practical implications. If you are evaluating entry points or managing risk exposure, a short-lived rally followed by renewed selling pressure may increase volatility in the near term.

Bitcoin Remains in Middle Phase of Bear Market, Says Woo

From a longer-term liquidity perspective, Woo said Bitcoin is solidly in the middle of its bear market. He noted that after rapid downward movements, Bitcoin typically trades sideways and stages a rally that tests resistance levels before determining the next direction.

Bitcoin has declined approximately 46.82% since reaching its October all-time high of $126,000. At the time of publication, the asset was trading at $67,012, according to CoinMarketCap data cited in the report. Over the past 30 days, Bitcoin has gained 3.74%.

Despite this recent monthly increase, Woo stated that the current level does not represent a confirmed market bottom. He indicated that further downside remains possible before a true cycle low forms.

Whale Selling and Retail Buying Highlight Diverging Flows

Market behavior among different investor groups also reflects mixed signals. Crypto sentiment platform Santiment reported that large holders, often referred to as whales, have been selling aggressively while retail investors have been buying below the $70,000 level.

Santiment stated that when retail participants buy while whales sell, it typically signals that a correction is not yet over. This divergence suggests that although smaller investors are stepping in at current price levels, larger holders may be reducing exposure.

Woo, however, also noted that investor flows have been in consistent recovery since the middle of February. He pointed out that Bitcoin failed to maintain levels in the mid-70,000 range after rising to $74,000 on Wednesday, but underlying flows have shown improvement during recent weeks.

For those monitoring liquidity and participation trends, this combination of recovering flows and distribution by larger holders presents a complex market structure.

Other Analysts and Data Providers Echo Bear Market View

Woo is not alone in characterizing the current environment as a bear market. Crypto analyst Benjamin Cowen recently described 2026 as a bear market year for Bitcoin and said new all-time highs are unlikely within that timeframe.

On-chain analytics firm CryptoQuant also stated that Bitcoin remains in a bear market despite the recent rally. This assessment aligns with Woo’s broader view that the market has not yet reached a definitive bottom.

In addition, the Crypto Fear and Greed Index, a widely used gauge of investor sentiment, has returned to extreme fear levels. The index had briefly recovered earlier in the week but subsequently fell back, indicating persistent caution among market participants.

For traders and long-term holders, sentiment indicators such as the Fear and Greed Index can influence short-term positioning and volatility, particularly when combined with large price swings.

Market Context for Crypto Users and Platform Participants

Bitcoin’s current position in what several analysts describe as a bear market has broader implications across the digital asset ecosystem. Price volatility and liquidity conditions affect trading volumes, collateral values, and risk management strategies across exchanges and crypto-based platforms.

For users who rely on Bitcoin for payments, including within crypto betting or iGaming environments, price movements can influence deposit values and bankroll management. A market characterized by potential short-term rallies followed by renewed declines may lead to rapid changes in asset value over a limited timeframe.

At the same time, diverging behavior between retail investors and large holders adds another layer of uncertainty. If whale selling continues while smaller investors accumulate, price stability may remain limited in the near term.

Our Assessment

Based on statements from Willy Woo, CryptoQuant, Benjamin Cowen, and data referenced from Santiment and the Crypto Fear and Greed Index, Bitcoin is currently described by multiple analysts as being in the middle phase of a bear market. Although short-term rallies are possible, including what Woo characterizes as a potential bull trap, there is no confirmation that a cycle bottom has formed. Price levels remain significantly below the October all-time high, and sentiment indicators reflect elevated caution among investors.

US Court Dismisses Terrorism Lawsuit Against Binance – Judge Finds No Plausible Link to Specific Attacks

Key Takeaways

US District Court Dismisses Claims Under Anti-Terrorism Laws

A judge at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed a lawsuit that accused Binance, its former CEO Changpeng Zhao, and Binance.US operator BAM Trading Services of assisting terrorist organizations through cryptocurrency transactions.

The case was brought by hundreds of victims and relatives of victims of terrorist attacks. According to the court filing, the plaintiffs represented 535 individuals connected to 64 attacks that occurred between 2016 and 2024. The attacks were attributed to groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The plaintiffs sought damages under the US Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. These laws allow victims to pursue claims against entities alleged to have provided assistance to terrorist acts.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed the case at the pleading stage. In her ruling, she found that the complaint did not sufficiently establish a connection between Binance’s operations and the specific attacks that caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. While the filing described alleged compliance failures and illicit activity on the platform, the court concluded that it did not plausibly link the exchange’s conduct to the terrorist incidents in question.

The judge stated that any amended complaint must be filed within 60 days.

Plaintiffs Alleged Exchange Facilitated Fund Transfers

The lawsuit argued that attackers or affiliated organizations benefited from cryptocurrency transactions conducted through Binance. According to the complaint, terrorist groups were able to move funds using the exchange’s infrastructure.

However, the court determined that the allegations, as presented, did not meet the legal threshold required to proceed. The decision effectively ends the case in its current form, unless the plaintiffs submit a revised complaint within the timeframe set by the court.

For users of centralized exchanges, the ruling highlights the legal standards required to hold platforms liable under US anti-terrorism legislation. Courts require a direct and plausible link between an exchange’s conduct and specific acts of terrorism, rather than general allegations of illicit activity on a platform.

Changpeng Zhao Responds to Court Decision

Following the dismissal, Changpeng Zhao commented publicly on the case. In a post on X, he stated that centralized crypto exchanges have “zero motive” to assist terrorist organizations.

Zhao argued that the economic structure of crypto trading makes such activity commercially illogical for exchanges. He wrote that terrorist actors are unlikely to generate meaningful trading revenue and would typically deposit funds only briefly before withdrawing them.

His comments addressed the broader question of incentives for centralized exchanges, which generate revenue primarily from trading activity. Zhao’s statement did not introduce new evidence but framed the issue in terms of business incentives.

Ongoing Scrutiny Over Sanctions Compliance

The court ruling comes as Binance faces additional scrutiny in the United States related to transactions involving sanctioned entities.

A group of 11 US senators recently raised allegations that the exchange facilitated transactions linked to Iranian entities. According to media reports referenced in the inquiry, Binance allegedly processed more than $1 billion in cryptocurrency transactions connected to Iranian entities Hexa Whale and Blessed Trust. The reports also claimed that employees who raised concerns internally were dismissed.

In a letter sent to Senators Richard Blumenthal and Ron Johnson, Binance rejected the allegations. The company stated that the February inquiry relied on reports that were “demonstrably false” and lacked credible evidence.

These developments illustrate the regulatory and political scrutiny that large crypto exchanges continue to face in the United States, particularly in relation to anti-terrorism financing rules and sanctions enforcement.

Implications for Crypto Platforms and Users

The dismissal of the lawsuit clarifies that, in this instance, the court did not find sufficient grounds to hold Binance liable under US anti-terrorism statutes based on the claims presented.

For crypto users, including those who use digital assets for trading or payments on online platforms, the case underscores the legal complexity surrounding centralized exchanges. Allegations of illicit finance can lead to significant legal proceedings, even when a case does not proceed beyond the initial stage.

For exchanges operating internationally, the ruling demonstrates the importance of compliance frameworks and the evidentiary standards required in US federal courts when claims relate to terrorist financing.

Our Assessment

The US District Court’s decision dismisses the terrorism-related claims against Binance, Changpeng Zhao and Binance.US at the pleading stage due to insufficient linkage between the platform’s operations and specific attacks. Plaintiffs have 60 days to amend their complaint. At the same time, Binance continues to face separate scrutiny from US lawmakers regarding alleged transactions involving sanctioned Iranian entities, which the company denies. Together, these developments reflect ongoing legal and regulatory examination of large centralized crypto exchanges in the United States.

USDC Surpasses Tether in Monthly Transfer Volume – Stablecoin Activity Reaches $1.8 Trillion Record

Key Takeaways

Stablecoin Transfer Volume Hits All Time High in February

Stablecoin transaction activity reached a new monthly record in February, with total transfer volume climbing to $1.8 trillion, according to data from Allium. The figure represents the highest monthly level recorded for stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value, typically pegged to fiat currencies such as the US dollar.

Stablecoins operate across multiple blockchains and are widely used for trading, settlement and transferring value within the digital asset ecosystem. The February data highlights a sharp increase in onchain movement of these dollar-pegged tokens.

The record volume reflects aggregate transfers across major stablecoins, with two issuers accounting for the majority of activity: Circle’s USDC and Tether’s USDt.

USDC Accounts for 70 Percent of Monthly Stablecoin Volume

USDC recorded $1.26 trillion in transfer volume in February, representing 70 percent of all stablecoin transactions during the month. This marks a new milestone for the second largest stablecoin by market capitalization since its launch in September 2018.

By comparison, Tether’s USDt registered $514 billion in transfer volume over the same period. Despite USDt maintaining a significantly larger market capitalization, USDC has overtaken it in terms of transactional activity.

USDC currently has a market capitalization of $77.4 billion, while USDt stands at $184 billion. The divergence between market capitalization and transfer volume indicates that USDC is being moved onchain more frequently relative to its size.

According to Simon Dedic, founder at Moonrock Capital, USDC has consistently surpassed USDt in transfer volume over the past few months. The February data continues that trend and underscores a shift in transactional dominance, even though USDt remains the larger asset by total supply.

USDC Supply Expands as New Tokens Are Minted

Recent issuance data points to accelerated growth in USDC supply. Market intelligence firm Arkham reported that more than $3 billion in new USDC was minted in the first week of March alone. During the same period, USDt supply remained relatively unchanged.

One reported mint included $250 million in USDC issued on the Solana blockchain. The continued expansion of circulating supply corresponds with the elevated transfer activity recorded in February.

Circle Internet Group, the issuer of USDC, previously reported strong earnings for the fourth quarter of 2025. The company attributed its performance to rapid growth in USDC-related business and expanding payments operations. While detailed financial figures were not disclosed in the available data, the earnings report aligns with the observed increase in usage and supply.

Rising Stablecoin Supply Signals Increased Market Liquidity

Beyond individual token performance, aggregate stablecoin data indicates a broader rise in market liquidity. The Stablecoin Supply Ratio, or SSR, which measures the ratio between Bitcoin’s market capitalization and the total stablecoin market capitalization, has been steadily recovering after declining in February, according to CryptoQuant analyst Sunny Mom.

A lower SSR generally reflects higher relative stablecoin supply compared to Bitcoin’s market value, which can indicate greater available capital for crypto purchases. The recent recovery in the ratio coincided with increased stablecoin inflows to exchanges.

On March 5, approximately $5.14 billion in stablecoins were transferred to exchanges, compared with $1.14 billion on March 1. By Friday of the same week, total stablecoin supply held on exchanges had risen to $66.5 billion, a three week high.

The increase in exchange balances occurred alongside Bitcoin’s latest move toward $74,000. Historically, higher stablecoin balances on exchanges have provided additional buying power for cryptocurrencies, as these tokens are frequently used as base trading pairs.

Implications for Crypto Markets and Platform Users

For market participants, including users of crypto trading and betting platforms that rely on stablecoin liquidity, the shift in transfer volume highlights changes in how capital moves across the ecosystem. USDC’s higher transaction share suggests that it is currently playing a central role in onchain settlement and exchange activity.

The rise in total stablecoin volume and exchange balances also reflects renewed capital movement within the crypto market. Stablecoins often serve as an entry point for trading, hedging and transferring funds between platforms. Higher transactional activity can therefore influence liquidity conditions across exchanges and services that accept crypto payments.

At the same time, the data shows that market capitalization alone does not determine transactional dominance. Although USDt remains the largest stablecoin by supply, USDC led in actual transfer volume during the latest reporting period.

Our Assessment

February marked a record month for stablecoin activity, with $1.8 trillion in total transfer volume. USDC accounted for the majority of that activity, surpassing USDt despite having a smaller market capitalization. At the same time, new USDC issuance and rising stablecoin balances on exchanges coincided with Bitcoin’s move toward $74,000. The data indicates increased onchain activity and higher stablecoin liquidity within the crypto market.

Bitcoin Holdings Turn Profitable After Three Years – Historical Data Highlights Impact of Long-Term Strategy

Key Takeaways

Historical Cycle Data Shows Sharp Contrast Between Two and Three-Year Holding Periods

Bitcoin’s price history since 2017 shows a consistent pattern in how entry timing and holding duration affect returns. Investors who purchased Bitcoin near major cycle peaks experienced significant drawdowns within the following two years. However, extending the holding period to three years materially changed the outcome in most cases.

During the 2017 market peak, investors who bought at high levels recorded a 48.6 percent loss after two years, as the 2018 bear market unfolded. When the same position was held for three years, the loss converted into a 108.7 percent gain.

A comparable development occurred in the next cycle. Buyers who entered near the 2021 high saw a 43.5 percent loss after two years. By the third year, that position showed a 14.5 percent profit.

These figures underline that two-year holding periods historically exposed investors to high volatility, especially when purchases were made near market tops. In contrast, extending exposure to three years has, in past cycles, shifted most positions into positive territory.

For you as a market participant, this distinction between shorter and longer time frames is critical. Historical data suggests that Bitcoin’s volatility has had a different impact depending on how long positions were maintained.

Bear-Market Entries Produced the Strongest Multi-Year Gains

The data also shows that buying near bear-market lows resulted in substantially higher returns over similar holding periods.

Investors who entered close to the 2019 bottom recorded returns of 871 percent after two years and 1,028 percent after three years. A similar pattern followed the 2022 cycle low. Positions initiated near that period generated roughly 465 percent returns after two years and about 429 percent after three years.

In both cases, bottom entries delivered significantly stronger percentage gains than positions opened near cycle highs. While three-year holding periods improved outcomes for high-level entries, the largest expansions occurred when purchases were made during deep market drawdowns.

Taken together, the cycle comparisons indicate two recurring characteristics: short-term exposure around peaks has historically carried higher downside risk, and accumulation during depressed price phases has been associated with stronger multi-year growth.

Onchain Realized Price Metrics Identify Historical Accumulation Zones

Onchain valuation metrics provide additional context for where long-term accumulation has historically occurred. One such metric is Bitcoin’s realized price, which reflects the average acquisition price of coins based on their last onchain movement.

Deeper market drawdowns have frequently extended toward what is known as the shifted realized price. This forward-adjusted metric smooths price data and has highlighted stronger value zones over time.

Since 2015, realized price bands have repeatedly coincided with cycle lows. Recoveries from these zones have historically marked the beginning of multi-year rallies. At present, Bitcoin’s realized price is near 55,000 US dollars, while the shifted realized price stands around 42,000 US dollars.

Historically, investors who accumulated when Bitcoin traded around or below these valuation bands were positioned near bear-market lows. These entry points align with the earlier data showing that bottom buyers captured the most substantial returns over two to three years.

For users evaluating long-term exposure to Bitcoin, realized price metrics have served as reference points for identifying past accumulation phases.

Probability of Loss Declines Sharply Over Longer Time Horizons

Research cited by Bitwise further quantifies how holding duration has influenced risk. A review of Bitcoin data from July 2010 through February 2026 found that the probability of loss drops to 0.7 percent when Bitcoin is held for three years. Over a five-year period, that risk falls to 0.2 percent. Across ten-year holding periods, the data shows zero instances of loss.

Shorter time frames show materially higher uncertainty. Day traders have historically faced a 47.1 percent chance of losses. Even over one-year holding periods, the probability of being underwater stands at 24.3 percent.

Separate research cited by Bitwise chief information officer Matt Hougan indicates that adding Bitcoin to a traditional 60 40 portfolio increased cumulative and risk-adjusted returns in every three-year period studied. The win rate across two-year periods was 93 percent, with an allocation of roughly 5 percent producing the strongest balance between return and risk in the study.

These findings do not eliminate volatility, but they quantify how risk exposure has shifted across different time frames in past data.

Implications for Crypto Users Monitoring Market Cycles

Bitcoin’s double-digit drawdowns have often deterred new buyers, particularly those entering during late-stage rallies. The historical record since 2017 shows that such entries frequently led to temporary losses over two-year windows.

However, the same data demonstrates that extending the investment horizon to at least three years has, in prior cycles, significantly reduced the probability of loss and increased the likelihood of positive returns. Bottom entries, particularly those near realized price bands, have historically produced the strongest gains.

For users who interact with crypto markets through trading, long-term holding, or as part of broader portfolio strategies, these time-based differences are central to understanding past performance patterns.

Our Assessment

The data presented shows a consistent historical pattern: two-year holding periods exposed Bitcoin investors to substantial drawdowns when buying near market highs, while three-year or longer horizons significantly reduced the probability of loss. Entries near bear-market lows generated the strongest multi-year returns, often aligning with realized price valuation bands. Statistical reviews from 2010 to 2026 indicate that the likelihood of loss declines sharply as holding periods extend, with the lowest historical risk observed over five to ten years.