According to Jeremy Koven, Canadian crypto firms may have a better regulatory environment than ones in the United States, benefitting users in a number of ways.

According to Jeremy Koven, Canadian crypto firms may have a better regulatory environment than ones in the United States, benefitting users in a number of ways.
Markets continue to slump, giving advantage to the bears and hinting at a trend change to the downside.
Bitcoin (BTC) continues to trade inside a narrow range with no clear signs of a breakout from it. Trading platform QCP Capital said in their latest market update that Bitcoin may remain quiet for a few more weeks before making its move in September.
Delphi Digital co-founder Kevin Kelly believes that the cryptocurrency markets are in the early stages of a new bull cycle. Based on a study of Bitcoin’s four-year cycle patterns, Kelly expects Bitcoin to hit a new all-time high by Q4 2024 and a new cycle peak by Q4 2025.
Daily cryptocurrency market performance. Source: Coin360Similarly, Bitcoin investor and author Jesse Myers also maintains a bullish view for the long term but he does not expect Bitcoin to reach $100,000 before the next halving. Myers believes that the market will take 12-18 months after halving to price-in the effects.
Will Bitcoin and the major altcoins remain range-bound in the near term or is a breakout on the horizon? What are the important levels to watch out for? Let’s study the charts of the top-10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
Bitcoin rose above the 20-day exponential moving average ($29,383) on Aug. 14 but the long wick on the candlestick shows selling at higher levels.

Markets continue to slump, giving advantage to the bears and hinting at a trend change to the downside.
The legal team for Binance.US filed a motion for a protective order on Aug. 14, claiming it was necessary to protect the firm from the SEC’s “fishing expedition” during discovery.
SpiritSwap, a decentralized exchange (DEX) on Fantom, will no longer shut its doors in September after having treasury funds stuck on troubled cross-chain protocol Multichain.
In an Aug. 16 community vote, SpiritSwap users passed a resolution to transfer the project to Power, a fellow nonfungible token platform and DEX that is also based on Fantom. In consideration, Power will deploy 200,000 USD Coin (USDC) into the SpiritSwap treasury.
“Initially, I had requested a deposit of 20-30K to the treasury to cover the essential costs of SpiritSwap. However, the Power team is willing to go above and beyond by depositing 200,000 USDC," wrote Nzaru, head manager at SpiritSwap, who announced that he would depart the DEX after receiving a new job offer. “On the 30th, I will finalize the new team and conduct orientation sessions to prepare for the upcoming month,” he said.
Snapshot of the SpiritSwap takeover proposal. Source: SnapshotPrior to the acquisition, Power developers stated: “We have the means and the desire to inherent SpiritSwap. This would be a direct benefit to the PNFT holders, the POWER community, and the SpiritSwap community.”
On Aug. 9, SpiritSwap said it would wind down operations by Sept. 1 if it could not find a team to take over after the Multichain exploit drained its entire treasury. Interestingly, Power was also exposed to the Multichain fiasco but only suffered “small” losses, as its treasury assets were not bridged to Multichain.
SpiritSwap previously had its entire treasury drained due to the ongoing Multichain exploit.
Asset management firm Valkyrie has filed for an Ether futures ETF with the U.S. SEC on Aug. 16.
Asset management firm Valkyrie has filed for an Ether futures ETF with the U.S. SEC on Aug. 16.
1,005 BTC valued at $29 million have been moved from an old Bitcoin wallet after 13 years, drawing parallels to recent dormant BTC movements.
1,005 BTC valued at $29 million have been moved from an old Bitcoin wallet after 13 years, drawing parallels to recent dormant BTC movements.
A successful cyberattack on critical infrastructure — such as electricity grids, transportation networks or healthcare systems — could cause severe disruption and put lives at risk.
Our understanding of the threat is far from complete since organizations have historically not been required to report data breaches, but attacks are on the rise according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. A recent rule from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission should help clarify matters further by now requiring that organizations “disclose material cybersecurity incidents they experience.”
As the digital world continues to expand and integrate into every facet of society, the looming specter of cyber threats becomes increasingly more critical. Today, these cyber threats have taken the form of sophisticated ransomware attacks and debilitating data breaches, particularly targeting essential infrastructure.
A major question coming from policymakers, however, is whether businesses faced with crippling ransomware attacks and potentially life threatening consequences should have the option to pay out large amounts of cryptocurrency to make the problem go away. Some believe ransoms be banned for fear of encouraging ever more attacks.
Following a major ransomware attack in Australia, its government has been considering a ban on paying ransoms. The United States has also more recently been exploring a ban. But other leading cybersecurity experts argue that a ban does little to solve the root problem.

The U.S. and Australia are considering banning ransomware payments, but will it solve the problem, or harm people and destroy businesses?
A successful cyberattack on critical infrastructure — such as electricity grids, transportation networks or healthcare systems — could cause severe disruption and put lives at risk.
Our understanding of the threat is far from complete since organizations have historically not been required to report data breaches, but attacks are on the rise according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. A recent rule from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission should help clarify matters further by now requiring that organizations “disclose material cybersecurity incidents they experience.”
As the digital world continues to expand and integrate into every facet of society, the looming specter of cyber threats becomes increasingly more critical. Today, these cyber threats have taken the form of sophisticated ransomware attacks and debilitating data breaches, particularly targeting essential infrastructure.
A major question coming from policymakers, however, is whether businesses faced with crippling ransomware attacks and potentially life threatening consequences should have the option to pay out large amounts of cryptocurrency to make the problem go away. Some believe ransoms be banned for fear of encouraging ever more attacks.
Following a major ransomware attack in Australia, its government has been considering a ban on paying ransoms. The United States has also more recently been exploring a ban. But other leading cybersecurity experts argue that a ban does little to solve the root problem.

A successful cyberattack on critical infrastructure — such as electricity grids, transportation networks or healthcare systems — could cause severe disruption and put lives at risk.
Our understanding of the threat is far from complete since organizations have historically not been required to report data breaches, but attacks are on the rise according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. A recent rule from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission should help clarify matters further by now requiring that organizations “disclose material cybersecurity incidents they experience.”
As the digital world continues to expand and integrate into every facet of society, the looming specter of cyber threats becomes increasingly more critical. Today, these cyber threats have taken the form of sophisticated ransomware attacks and debilitating data breaches, particularly targeting essential infrastructure.
A major question coming from policymakers, however, is whether businesses faced with crippling ransomware attacks and potentially life threatening consequences should have the option to pay out large amounts of cryptocurrency to make the problem go away. Some believe ransoms be banned for fear of encouraging ever more attacks.
Following a major ransomware attack in Australia, its government has been considering a ban on paying ransoms. The United States has also more recently been exploring a ban. But other leading cybersecurity experts argue that a ban does little to solve the root problem.

The U.S. and Australia are considering banning ransomware payments, but will it solve the problem, or harm people and destroy businesses?
The U.S. and Australia are considering banning ransomware payments, but will it solve the problem, or harm people and destroy businesses?
The U.S. and Australia are considering banning ransomware payments, but will it solve the problem, or harm people and destroy businesses?
Participants in the round include Blockchain.com, Sky9 Capital, Jane Street Capital, VistaLabs, Human Capital, VY Capital, CMT Digital, among other investors.
OPNX CEO Leslie Lamb and executives Kyle Davies, Su Zhu and Mark Lamb were all issued a $58,000 fine for violating marketing regulations in the emirate.
