Clear Street Direktur Utama Owen Lau menunjukkan bahwa kekuatan pemotongan suku bunga Federal Reserve pada tahun 2026 akan menentukan apakah investor ritel akan kembali ke pasar kripto. Saat ini, indeks ketakutan dan keserakahan kripto terus berada di zona "ketakutan ekstrem" sejak 13 Desember, dengan skor hanya 23 pada hari Rabu. Bitcoin telah jatuh 29,3% dari puncak sejarah 125.100 dolar AS pada bulan Oktober, dan harga saat ini berkisar di sekitar 88.439 dolar AS.

Perusahaan pialang New York dengan dukungan untuk perusahaan treasury kripto, Clear Street, menantikan pencatatan publik senilai $10–12 miliar. Penawaran Umum Perdana (IPO) ini diperkirakan akan terjadi pada Januari 2026, dan Goldman Sachs telah tercatat sebagai pemimpin penawaran tersebut. Secara khusus, IPO Clear Street

Clear Street Bersiap untuk IPO Senilai $10-12 Miliar di Tengah Dinamika Perbendaharaan Kripto yang Berubah Clear Street, sebuah perusahaan pialang terkemuka yang berbasis di New York dan dikenal akan perannya yang aktif dalam pembiayaan perbendaharaan kripto, sedang bersiap untuk penawaran umum perdana yang dapat menilai perusahaan tersebut antara $10

Clear Street, sebuah perusahaan pialang di New York yang telah menjadi salah satu penjamin emisi paling aktif dalam ledakan treasury kripto, sedang bersiap untuk go public dengan valuasi yang diperkirakan antara $10 miliar hingga $12 miliar. IPO tersebut bisa terjadi paling cepat bulan depan, dengan Goldman Sachs yang akan memimpin penawaran tersebut,

Clear Crypto Podcast membahas lanskap pengalaman pengguna cryptocurrency yang terus berkembang, dengan fokus pada akun pintar yang dapat diprogram dan pergeseran dari frasa benih tradisional. Dengan menitikberatkan pada kemudahan penggunaan, privasi, dan self-custody, model baru seperti Ready bertujuan untuk menyederhanakan manajemen crypto bagi pengguna arus utama.

Pada 10 November 2025, pendiri Cardano, Charles Hoskinson, secara terbuka meramalkan bahwa blockchain perlindungan privasi akan menjadi inti dari teknologi blockchain generasi keempat. Pernyataan ini bertepatan dengan lonjakan harga Zcash (ZEC) sebesar 150% dalam tahun ini, serta partisipasi yang melebihi ekspektasi dari lembaga pengujian jaringan testnet privasi Cardano, Midnight. Evolusi teknologi dan perubahan regulasi membentuk resonansi: Undang-Undang Jelas (Clear Act) dan Undang-Undang Genius (Genius Act) di Amerika Serikat menyediakan kerangka kepatuhan untuk teknologi privasi, sementara GDPR Uni Eropa mengimplementasikan adaptasi teknologi melalui mesin virtual Kachina di jaringan Midnight. Data industri menunjukkan bahwa total nilai terkunci (TVL) di jalur blockchain privasi telah menembus 8 miliar dolar AS, meningkat 300% dibandingkan tahun 2024, membuktikan kebutuhan mendesak pasar terhadap solusi blockchain yang menggabungkan privasi dan kepatuhan.

Ethereum tampilkan momentum bullish di $4,463, membentuk bull flag pada grafik mingguan. Analis memprediksi target $6,900 menunggu clear resistensi di $4,505, didukung oleh aktivitas pasar yang kuat dan aliran institusional.

YOU menawarkan teknologi identitas yang aman, termasuk platform verifikasi identitas biometrik, untuk pelanggan di perencanaan acara, perawatan kesehatan, olahraga dan hiburan, dan lainnya. Laporan pendapatan kuartal kedua fiskal 2025 menunjukkan pendapatan sebesar $219,5 juta ( dengan kenaikan tahunan 17,5%), 33,5 juta aktif

Hackensack Meridian Health bermitra dengan CLEAR untuk meningkatkan pengalaman pasien melalui solusi identitas digital yang aman, memungkinkan akses MyChart yang lebih mudah dan pemeriksaan janji temu melalui verifikasi biometrik.

Ditulis oleh: Luke, Sam, Li Zhongzhen, Pang Meimei Baru-baru ini, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Amerika Serikat telah meloloskan tiga rancangan undang-undang mengenai regulasi kripto dengan suara yang sangat mendukung, yaitu RUU "Genius", RUU "Clear", dan RUU "Anti-CBDC Monitoring Nation". RUU "Genius" yang disebut sebagai "langkah penting untuk memperkuat dominasi Amerika Serikat di bidang keuangan global dan teknologi kripto" telah resmi ditandatangani oleh Trump pada tanggal 18 dan juga dilaporkan oleh media domestik seperti CCTV dan Caijing. Pada edisi ini, kami mengajukan 5 pertanyaan kepada anggota luar biasa dari kelompok penelitian kepatuhan Web3: "Apa yang ingin dicapai oleh 'Undang-Undang Jenius'?", "Bagaimana memahami pembagian pengawasan antara SEC dan CFTC menurut 'Undang-Undang Jelas'?", "Mengapa Amerika Serikat menentang CBDC?", "Apakah ketiga undang-undang ini akan memicu negara lain untuk mengadopsi regulasi cryptocurrency?", "Apa yang akan mereka lakukan?

Konten Editorial yang Dipercaya, ditinjau oleh para ahli industri utama dan editor berpengalaman. Pengungkapan Iklan Dalam perkembangan yang signifikan untuk industri ini, Divisi (SEC) Keuangan Perusahaan Komisi Sekuritas dan Bursa AS membagikan pandangannya tentang staking kripto setelah seruan baru-baru ini untuk clear

Bank investasi Clear Street mengumumkan perluasan bisnis Blockchain dan aset digital, dengan menambah talenta senior Nakul Mehta dan Collin Finnerty. Mereka akan memimpin bisnis aset kripto, Blockchain, infrastruktur enkripsi, dan lainnya. Perusahaan akan menawarkan strategi listing, strategi keuangan aset kripto, dan layanan lainnya, yang saat ini telah memberikan konsultasi untuk perdagangan senilai lebih dari 23,5 miliar USD, termasuk proyek IPO.

Pada Clear Summit 2025 di Milan, Italia, momentum kripto menjadi sorotan utama. Survei baru mengungkapkan bahwa 68% investor Italia menginginkan bank mereka menawarkan layanan Bitcoin dan aset kripto—menandai pergeseran bersejarah dalam sentimen publik terhadap aset digital. Dengan 24% responden sudah berinvestasi di koin kripto

Sui dan Ledger mengumumkan integrasi asli, pengguna dapat mengelola token ekosistem Sui dengan aman di Ledger Live. Pengguna Sui dapat meningkatkan verifikasi transaksi melalui Clear Signing, perangkat Ledger melindungi kunci pribadi dari ancaman. Ledger melindungi 20% pangsa pasar aset kripto global, integrasi ini merupakan tonggak penting dalam pengembangan DeFi Sui.

Clear Street dalam laporan terbarunya menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan pertambangan Bitcoin Hut 8 mungkin akan melepaskan anak perusahaan American Bitcoin Corp yang didirikan bekerja sama dengan keluarga Trump, untuk lebih fokus pada bisnis penyimpanan data yang menguntungkan, dan mempertimbangkan akuisisi penyedia layanan komputasi skala besar (Hyperscaler). Lembaga tersebut memberikan peringkat "beli" untuk Hut 8, dengan target harga 23 dolar. (CoinDesk)

Perusahaan tambang Bitcoin Hut 8 mungkin akan melepaskan anak perusahaan American Bitcoin yang bekerja sama dengan keluarga Trump, dan fokus pada bisnis pengelolaan pusat data. Sementara itu, mereka juga mungkin mempertimbangkan untuk mengakuisisi seorang super distributor. Keluarga Trump memiliki 20% saham perusahaan tersebut.

* * * * * If the SEC were a sports team measured by its “win” rate, it would be a runaway champ. But that win-loss record suffered a mild hit — and its first ever loss in an “ICO” case — one that refers to the controversial method of crowd fundraising and that borrows from the public company “IPO” or initial public offering. A federal judge denied the SEC a preliminary injunction against Blockvest after he granted a temporary restraining order on the same issue. We chat with Amit Singh, attorney and shareholder in Stradling’s corporate and securities practice group about the SEC’s fresh loss. His take? They’ll be out for blood, next. **For those not in the know, share the legal background leading up to this case.** In October of this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Blockvest LLC and its founder, Reginald Buddy Ringgold III. According to the complaint, Blockvest falsely claimed its planned December initial coin offering was “registered” and “approved” by the SEC and created a fake regulatory agency, the Blockchain Exchange Commission, which included a phony logo that was nearly identical to that of the SEC. The SEC also alleged Blockvest conducted pre-sales of its digital token, BLV, ahead of the ICO and raised more than $2.5 million. The SEC’s complaint alleged violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange and the Securities Act and violations of the Securities Act’s prohibitions against the offer and sale of unregistered securities in the absence of an exemption from the registration requirements. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a temporary restraining order “freezing assets, prohibiting the destruction of documents, granting expedited discovery, requiring accounting and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted” on October 5, 2018. On Tuesday, November 27, in the SEC’s first loss in stopping an ICO, judge Gonzalo Curiel stated that the SEC had not shown at this stage of the case that the BLV tokens were securities under the Howey Test, a decades-old test established by the U.S. Supreme Court for determining whether certain transactions are investment contracts and thus securities. If the tokens weren’t securities, all the SEC’s other allegations automatically fail Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract (or security) if: – It is an investment of money; – There is an expectation of profits from the investment; – The investment of money is in a common enterprise; and – Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party Later cases have expanded the term “money” in the Howey Test to include investment assets other than money. The judge said that the SEC failed to show investors had an expectation of profits. “While defendants claim that they had an expectation in Blockvest’s future business, no evidence is provided to support the test investors’ expectation of profits,” the judge wrote. Blockvest argued that the pre-ICO money came from 32 “test investors” and said the BLV tokens were only designed for testing its platform. It presented statements from several investors who said they either did not buy BLV tokens or rely on any representations that the SEC has alleged are false. The SEC responded by noting that various individuals wrote “Blockvest” or “coins” on their checks and were provided with a Blockvest ICO white paper describing the project and the terms of the ICO. Judge Curiel said that evidence, by itself, wasn’t enough: “Merely writing ‘Blockvest or coins’ on their checks is not sufficient to demonstrate what promotional materials or economic inducements these purchasers were presented with prior to their investments. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated that ‘securities’ were sold to [these] individuals.” **Won’t the case proceed? Why is the denial of an injunction important here?** This does not mean that the SEC cannot pursue an action against the defendants Rather it just means that the SEC didn’t meet the high burden required to receive a preliminary injunction of proving “(1) a prima facie case of previous violations of federal securities laws, and (2) a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated.” The court determined that, at this stage, without full discovery and disputed issues of material facts, the Court could not decide whether the BLV token were securities. Since the SEC didn’t meet its burden of proving the tokens were securities in the first place, it couldn’t have shown that there was a previous violation of the federal securities laws So, the first prong was not met Further, the defendants agreed to stop the ICO and provide 30 days’ prior notice to the SEC if they intend to move forward with the ICO So, the court determined that there was not a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated As a result, the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. Nonetheless, this is an important case as it is the first time the SEC went after an ICO issuer and the issuer pushed back and won (if only temporarily) It reminds us that, though most people think of the SEC as judge and jury in securities actions, that isn’t the case Ultimately, an issuer that pushes back may have a chance if it has the wherewithal to fight and if it has good arguments However, this does not mean that the SEC is done with them and we may very well see this case continue. **Won’t media coverage of this case ultimately impair Blockvest’s ability to raise funds — its ultimate goal?** That may very well be the case. Unfortunately, unsophisticated investors could ultimately merely remember the Blockvest name and decide that it must be a good investment since they’ve heard of it (ala PT Barnum – “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.”). But I may be too cynical (hopefully I am). In any case, I would be surprised if Blockvest attempts to pursue an ICO without either registering the tokens or utilizing an exemption from the registration requirements. They clearly have a target on their back, so the SEC would love another crack at them I’m sure. Plus, even though a preliminary injunction was denied here, the SEC still got what it wanted as Blockvest agreed not to pursue the ICO without giving the SEC 30 days’ prior notice of its intent to do so. So, the investing public was ultimately protected. **What is the SEC’s current stance on what constitutes a security based on this case?** The SEC will still point to the Howey Test Further, as stated in recent speeches by Hinman and others, the SEC seems to be focused not only on the utility of any tokens (i.e., they can be used on the platform for which they were created), but also on decentralization (that the efforts of the promoters are no longer required to maintain the value/utility of the tokens/platform). However, the court in this case looked at the investment of money prong differently than has historically been the case Normally, the investment of money prong is assumed with little analysis as any consideration is considered “money” for purposes of the test But this case looked at the investment not from the purchaser’s subjective intent when committing funds, but instead based the analysis on what was offered to prospective purchasers and what information they relied on So, issuers are well advised to be very careful in how they advertise an offering. Further, the expectation of profits prong wasn’t met because, according to Blockvest, these were just test investors So, it wasn’t clear these folks invested for a profit The tokens were never even used or sold outside the platform. **Where does the Ninth Circuit sit in regards to what is a security?** The Ninth Circuit follows the Howey Test. However, the common enterprise element has received extensive and varied analysis in the federal circuit courts For example, while all circuits accept “horizontal” commonality as satisfying the common enterprise prong of the Howey Test, a minority of circuits (including the ninth) also accept “vertical” commonality in this analysis. Horizontal commonality involves the pooling of assets, profits and risks in a unitary enterprise, while vertical commonality requires that profits of investors be “interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment or of third parties” (narrow verticality), or “that the well-being of all investors be dependent upon the promoter’s expertise” (broad commonality). SEC v. SG Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit is the only one to accept the narrow vertical approach (though it also accepts horizontal commonality), which finds a common enterprise if there is a correlation between the fortunes of an investor and a promoter.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Eurobond Exchange, Ltd., 13 F.3d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir., 1994). Under this approach a common enterprise is a venture “in which the ‘fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment….'” Investors’ funds need not be pooled; rather the fortunes of the investors must be linked with those of the promoters, which suffices to establish vertical commonality. So, a common enterprise exists if a direct correlation has been established between success or failure of the promoter’s efforts and success or failure of the investment. **Which Federal Circuits might offer an equal or even bigger split with the SEC?** I wouldn’t really say that any courts split with the SEC as the SEC’s decisions take precedent over any decisions of those courts. However, there is a split among the circuits as described above with respect to what type of commonality is sufficient to find a common enterprise. **What impact could the outcome of this case have on ICOs at large?** This case may embolden companies who have already conducted ICOs to push back on any SEC actions that they might not otherwise fight as it shows that the SEC will always have to meet the burden of proving all factors of the Howey Test are met before the SEC has jurisdiction over the offering in the first place. **Has the Supreme Court addressed anything crypto, crypto related, or analogous?** The only case I know of where the Supreme court has addressed crypto currencies is Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States. That was a case about whether stock counts as “money remuneration” The dissent in that case talked about how our concept of money has changed over time and said that perhaps “one day employees will be paid in bitcoin or some other type of cryptocurrency.” This goes against the IRS’s position that cryptocurrencies are property and should be taxed as such But, it was just a passing comment in the dissent. So, it has no precedential value. But, it may embolden someone to fight the IRS’s position.

Interaksi Cross-Chain layer clear protokol Everclear mengumumkan peningkatan token NEXT menjadi CLEAR, dan memperkenalkan mekanisme voting vbCLEAR. Dengan desain bertingkat, efisiensi secara keseluruhan ditingkatkan melalui spesialisasi kerja. Mekanisme vbCLEAR memungkinkan pemegang stake untuk melakukan voting tata kelola dan alokasi insentif, mengatasi likuiditas Interaksi Cross-Chain, dan menyediakan lebih banyak cara untuk berpartisipasi. Peningkatan ini merupakan bagian dari strategi masa depan Everclear, dan memiliki nilai jangka panjang untuk lapisan clear dalam jalur perlombaan ini.

Connext telah diupgrade menjadi Everclear, berkembang menjadi lapisan penyelesaian lintas-rantai pertama, Token $NEXT bermigrasi menjadi $CLEAR dan memperkenalkan sistem pengikatan suara vbCLEAR. Para stakeholder dapat berpartisipasi dalam tata kelola on-chain, dan mendapatkan imbalan dari aktivitas protokol. Mereka yang memegang $NEXT perlu mengonversinya secara manual menjadi $CLEAR dan berpartisipasi dalam stake. Para investor, jangan lewatkan kesempatan investasi ini.

SHIB menunjukkan potensi untuk mengakhiri tren penurunannya dengan pergerakan harga positif, lebih dari $2.69 miliar dalam transaksi dari pemegang besar, dan peningkatan volume perdagangan. $0.00003 bisa menjadi target berikutnya jika tetap di atas $0.000025. Namun, konsentrasi pemegang besar dapat menyebabkan volatilitas. Investor baru mungkin bergabung dengan adanya break clear di atas $0.000025, tetapi pengambilan keuntungan dari pemegang besar dapat memperlambat pertumbuhan.