BitMEX to Cease Operations After 11 Years
Crypto derivatives pioneer BitMEX will shut down after 11 years in the market, closing the chapter on one of the industry’s most recognizable early exchanges. The decision, reported in Cointelegraph’s daily roundup under the headline “Crypto Today: BitMEX to Shut Down, $31.6M Bridge Hacks,” marks a significant moment for a platform that was once synonymous with leveraged crypto trading.
BitMEX’s closure is not just a corporate wind-down. It is the removal of a nameplate that helped define the first era of cryptocurrency trading. Founded during a period when crypto was largely unregulated and dominated by retail speculators, BitMEX built its reputation on perpetual futures contracts and high leverage. At its peak, the exchange was among the highest-volume venues in the entire market. Its influence extended beyond trading volumes. The platform’s founders and leadership were vocal participants in debates about crypto self-custody, decentralisation, and the relationship between the industry and traditional finance.
The shutdown comes at a time when the competitive landscape for crypto derivatives has shifted dramatically. A new generation of exchanges has captured market share with lower fees, deeper liquidity, and more sophisticated product offerings. Institutional demand has also migrated toward regulated venues and established traditional finance players that now offer crypto exposure. BitMEX’s departure underscores how difficult it has become for legacy platforms to maintain relevance without adapting to a market that increasingly rewards scale, compliance, and integration with broader financial infrastructure.
For the wider market, the end of BitMEX as an operating exchange is a reminder of how quickly the crypto industry turns over its leading names. Platforms that once seemed indispensable have been overtaken by technological change, regulatory pressure, and user expectations. The closure also raises questions about what happens to existing open positions, customer funds, and any outstanding contractual obligations. While the Cointelegraph report does not detail the wind-down process, any orderly shutdown of a derivatives exchange requires careful handling of client assets and settlement procedures.
Readers following exchange developments can find more in our exchange coverage.
$31.6 Million Lost in Two Cross-Chain Bridge Exploits Hours Apart
On the same day that BitMEX announced its closure, hackers stole more than $31.6 million in two cross-chain bridge exploits that occurred just hours apart. The incidents underscore a persistent and troubling reality for the crypto sector: bridge security remains one of its most significant structural weaknesses.
Cross-chain bridges are protocols that allow assets to move between different blockchain networks. They have become essential infrastructure as the crypto ecosystem has fragmented across multiple chains, each with its own native tokens, decentralised applications, and user communities. Without bridges, liquidity would remain siloed. With them, users can transfer value across networks. The trade-off is that bridges concentrate large amounts of capital in complex smart contract systems, making them attractive targets for attackers.
The $31.6 million figure reported by Cointelegraph reflects the combined losses from the two exploits. The fact that they happened within hours of each other is particularly notable. It suggests either a coordinated campaign or, more likely, that attackers are continuously scanning bridge protocols for vulnerabilities and striking whenever they find an opening. The speed and frequency of these attacks demonstrate that the security model for bridges has not yet matured to a level that can reliably protect the value flowing through them.
Bridge hacks have been among the most damaging exploits in crypto history. Some of the largest thefts in the sector’s history have involved bridge protocols. The recurring pattern is well known to developers and security researchers. Bridges often require custodial or semi-custodial arrangements where assets are locked on one chain and minted or released on another. This creates a central point of failure. If the smart contracts governing the lock-and-mint process contain bugs, or if the multisig wallets holding locked assets are compromised, attackers can drain substantial sums in a single transaction.
The latest incidents reinforce the case for alternative interoperability solutions. Some projects are exploring trust-minimised bridges that rely on light clients or zero-knowledge proofs rather than trusted committees. Others are pushing for greater use of formal verification and repeated auditing. None of these approaches has eliminated the risk entirely. The $31.6 million lost in a single day is evidence that the problem persists even as the broader market grows and institutional participation increases.
For institutional investors and corporate treasurers considering crypto exposure, bridge risk is a relevant factor in operational due diligence. Custody arrangements, exchange selection, and chain selection all carry security implications. The latest exploits are a reminder that the infrastructure layer of crypto remains a work in progress.
E*TRADE Opens Spot Crypto Trading and Srinivasan Seeks Malaysian Assurances
Morgan Stanley’s E*TRADE expanded into spot crypto trading for eligible retail clients, allowing them to buy, sell, and hold Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana through infrastructure provider Zero Hash. The move is a significant step for a platform that has long served mainstream retail investors with access to equities, options, and other traditional financial products.
The inclusion of spot crypto trading on E*TRADE matters for several reasons. First, it brings crypto directly to a large existing customer base that may not have previously opened accounts with dedicated crypto exchanges. Second, it signals that Morgan Stanley, one of the largest wealth management firms in the world, sees sufficient regulatory clarity and operational maturity in the crypto market to offer direct exposure through a consumer-facing brand. Third, the choice of Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana as the initial trading pairs reflects a curated approach. These three assets represent different segments of the market: Bitcoin as the dominant store-of-value asset, Ether as the leading smart contract platform token, and Solana as a high-performance layer-1 with significant retail and developer traction.
The use of Zero Hash as the infrastructure provider is consistent with a broader trend in which traditional financial institutions partner with crypto-native technology firms rather than building their own custody and execution systems from scratch. This model allows firms like E*TRADE to offer crypto products without taking on the full burden of regulatory compliance, key management, and blockchain operations. It also concentrates activity among a small number of infrastructure providers, which has its own implications for systemic risk and competition.
The expansion of E*TRADE into spot crypto comes at a time when traditional finance is deepening its involvement in the sector. Brokerages, asset managers, and banks have been gradually increasing their crypto offerings. The trend has been driven by client demand, competitive pressure, and a gradual softening of regulatory hostility in some jurisdictions. The E*TRADE development suggests that the integration of crypto into mainstream brokerage accounts is continuing despite ongoing regulatory uncertainty in the United States and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Balaji Srinivasan sought legal assurances from Malaysia after a government probe into Network School. The details of the probe are limited in the reported roundup, but the development is significant given Srinivasan’s profile in the crypto and technology communities. Srinivasan has been a prominent commentator on crypto, technology, and political economy. His decision to seek formal legal assurances from a national government highlights the increasing intersection of crypto-related projects and state regulatory power.
The Network School matter and the E*TRADE expansion together illustrate two sides of the same coin. On one side, traditional financial institutions are integrating crypto into their product suites with increasing confidence. On the other, individuals and projects operating in the crypto space continue to face legal and regulatory scrutiny that can escalate into formal government action. The contrast between a Wall Street brokerage adding crypto trading and a crypto figure seeking legal protection from a foreign government captures the uneven landscape in which the industry operates.
US Senate Unanimously Opposes Clemency for Sam Bankman-Fried
The United States Senate unanimously adopted a resolution opposing executive clemency for former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. The resolution is a political statement rather than a binding legal instrument, but its unanimous adoption sends a clear signal about the current sentiment in Washington toward one of crypto’s most notorious figures.
Bankman-Fried was convicted in connection with the collapse of FTX, which was one of the largest failures in the history of the cryptocurrency industry. The exchange’s implosion in 2022 resulted in billions of dollars in customer losses and triggered a wave of regulatory enforcement actions, civil lawsuits, and criminal proceedings. Bankman-Fried’s conviction represented a high point in the government’s response to the FTX collapse.
The Senate resolution matters because it demonstrates that the political fallout from FTX has not faded. Lawmakers in both major parties remain hostile to any suggestion that Bankman-Fried’s punishment could be reduced or overturned. The unanimous vote indicates that there is no significant constituency in the Senate for leniency. This is relevant because the power to grant clemency rests with the executive branch, not the legislature. A Senate resolution cannot prevent a pardon or commutation, but it creates a political cost for any such action by making it clear that the legislative branch opposes it.
The resolution also has broader implications for the crypto industry’s relationship with Washington. The FTX collapse has been used repeatedly by policymakers as a justification for stricter regulation of crypto exchanges, custody providers, and token issuers. The unanimous Senate vote reinforces the narrative that crypto remains a sector associated with fraud and failure in the minds of many legislators. This perception affects the legislative agenda. Bills related to stablecoin regulation, market structure, and digital asset custody have progressed slowly, and the FTX legacy is one reason why some lawmakers remain sceptical of industry lobbying efforts.
For crypto firms operating in the United States, the Senate resolution is a reminder that the political environment remains challenging. Even as institutional adoption advances and traditional financial firms expand their crypto offerings, the regulatory and legislative mood is still shaped by the memory of FTX. Companies seeking to build credibility with policymakers must contend with the fact that the industry’s largest collapse continues to influence the debate.
What the Day’s Events Signal for the Market
The combination of these stories paints a picture of a market in transition. BitMEX’s closure after 11 years shows that the first generation of crypto exchanges is being displaced by newer, better-capitalised, and more compliant competitors. The $31.6 million in bridge hacks demonstrates that infrastructure security has not kept pace with the growth in cross-chain activity. E*TRADE’s expansion into spot crypto trading confirms that traditional finance is continuing to embed crypto into mainstream investment products. The Senate’s unanimous opposition to clemency for Bankman-Fried shows that the political consequences of the FTX collapse are still active.
Taken together, these developments suggest that the crypto market is simultaneously maturing and exposing new vulnerabilities. Institutional adoption is advancing, but the infrastructure layer remains fragile. Political engagement is intensifying, but the regulatory climate is still shaped by past failures. The industry’s next phase will be defined by how effectively it addresses these tensions.
