BNB

Binance

The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Fortune all reported that investigators had been let go after identifying sanctions-violating transactions.

Base has surged to the top of all blockchains in daily stablecoin transaction volume, recording $164 billion in activity in the latest data. The spike places it well ahead of Ethereum, Solana, Tron, and BNB in recent daily flows. Base Pulls Far Ahead of Competitors According to t...

BitcoinWorld Binance Defamation Lawsuit Threat: Explosive Legal Battle Looms Over WSJ’s Iran Sanctions Allegations In a dramatic escalation of tensions between cryptocurrency giants and traditional financial media, Binance has issued a formal legal threat against the Wall Street Journal, promising defamation litigation over the publication’s reporting on alleged Iran sanctions violations. This confrontation, emerging in early 2025, represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle between digital asset platforms and established journalistic institutions regarding regulatory compliance narratives. Binance Defamation Lawsuit Threat Against WSJ Binance Co-CEO Richard Teng delivered a forceful statement on February 15, 2025, formally objecting to the Wall Street Journal’s investigative report. The exchange specifically accused the publication of disseminating false information that damages Binance’s reputation. Furthermore, Teng emphasized the company’s commitment to legal recourse should the WSJ fail to correct what Binance characterizes as misleading reporting. This development follows months of increasing scrutiny regarding cryptocurrency exchanges and international sanctions compliance. The core allegations center on whether Binance maintained business relationships with Iranian entities despite comprehensive U.S. sanctions. According to regulatory experts, cryptocurrency exchanges face particular challenges in sanctions enforcement due to the pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions. However, major exchanges like Binance have implemented sophisticated compliance systems in recent years. The Wall Street Journal’s report suggested potential gaps in these systems, prompting Binance’s aggressive response. Historical Context of Crypto Exchange Sanctions Compliance Cryptocurrency exchanges have navigated complex sanctions landscapes since their inception. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has increasingly focused on digital assets. In 2023, OFAC issued specific guidance for virtual currency compliance. Major exchanges responded by enhancing their screening protocols. Binance, in particular, expanded its compliance team from 300 to over 750 specialists between 2022 and 2024. The table below illustrates key sanctions compliance developments: Year Regulatory Development Industry Response 2021 OFAC sanctions against cryptocurrency addresses Exchanges begin implementing address screening 2022 FinCEN priorities include virtual currency Enhanced transaction monitoring systems deployed 2023 OFAC virtual currency compliance framework Industry-wide compliance standards developed 2024 Increased enforcement actions Major exchanges triple compliance staffing This regulatory evolution provides essential context for understanding the current dispute. Exchanges now operate under significantly stricter requirements than during their early development phases. Legal Precedents in Media Defamation Cases Defamation lawsuits against major media organizations require plaintiffs to demonstrate specific legal elements. First, they must prove the published statements were false. Second, they need to show the statements caused reputational harm. Third, they must establish the publisher acted with actual malice in some jurisdictions. Historical cases reveal the challenges corporations face when suing media outlets. Notably, the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan established the “actual malice” standard for public figures. While Binance is a corporation rather than an individual, similar principles often apply. Legal experts note that corporations must demonstrate the reporting contained factual inaccuracies rather than simply unfavorable interpretations. The burden of proof remains substantial in such cases. Impact on Cryptocurrency Industry Reputation The Binance-WSJ confrontation carries significant implications for the entire digital asset sector. Industry reputation affects multiple stakeholders: Investor confidence in cryptocurrency markets Regulatory relationships with global authorities Institutional adoption by traditional finance Public perception of blockchain technology Legal precedents for future media interactions Market analysts observed immediate reactions following the initial reports. Bitcoin volatility increased by 15% during the news cycle. However, most major cryptocurrencies stabilized within 48 hours. This pattern suggests maturing market resilience to negative media coverage. Nevertheless, prolonged legal battles could create sustained uncertainty. International regulatory bodies monitor such developments closely. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) continues refining its virtual asset recommendations. National regulators balance innovation facilitation with risk mitigation. Clear compliance standards benefit all market participants. Ambiguity creates challenges for legitimate operators while potentially enabling illicit activities. Journalistic Standards in Financial Reporting Financial journalism operates under particular ethical constraints. Accuracy requirements exceed those for general news reporting. The Wall Street Journal maintains rigorous fact-checking protocols developed over decades. However, cryptocurrency reporting presents unique verification challenges. Blockchain analysis requires specialized technical knowledge that traditional financial journalists may lack. Industry experts emphasize the importance of nuanced reporting. Cryptocurrency compliance involves complex technical systems. Simplified narratives risk misrepresenting operational realities. Responsible journalism should contextualize allegations within broader industry practices. Balanced reporting acknowledges both regulatory requirements and implementation challenges. Potential Resolution Pathways Multiple outcomes remain possible in this escalating conflict. The most likely scenarios include: First, negotiated settlement without litigation. Both parties might prefer avoiding prolonged court proceedings. Second, formal retraction and correction if factual errors exist. Third, full-scale defamation litigation with discovery processes. Fourth, regulatory intervention clarifying compliance expectations. Fifth, industry-led transparency initiatives preventing future disputes. Historical patterns suggest media-company disputes often settle confidentially. However, Binance’s public stance indicates possible deviation from this pattern. The exchange’s leadership appears committed to public vindication. This approach reflects broader industry frustration with perceived media bias against cryptocurrency innovation. Conclusion The Binance defamation lawsuit threat against the Wall Street Journal represents a critical juncture for cryptocurrency-media relations. This confrontation highlights evolving tensions between innovative financial platforms and traditional journalistic institutions. Regardless of the specific outcome, the dispute will likely influence how media organizations report on digital asset compliance. Furthermore, it may accelerate transparency initiatives within the cryptocurrency industry. The ultimate resolution will provide important precedents for future interactions between technological innovators and established media gatekeepers. FAQs Q1: What specific allegations did the Wall Street Journal make about Binance? The WSJ report suggested Binance may have violated U.S. sanctions against Iran and potentially covered up internal investigations regarding these matters. The publication based its reporting on unnamed sources and internal documents. Q2: What legal standards apply to defamation cases against media organizations? Defamation cases require proving false statements caused reputational harm. Public figures and corporations often face higher “actual malice” standards requiring evidence the publisher knew statements were false or acted with reckless disregard. Q3: How have cryptocurrency exchanges improved sanctions compliance in recent years? Major exchanges have implemented sophisticated screening systems, expanded compliance teams, developed industry standards, and increased cooperation with regulators. Many now exceed traditional financial institution requirements for transaction monitoring. Q4: What impact could this dispute have on cryptocurrency regulation? Regulators may accelerate clarity around compliance expectations. The case highlights ongoing tensions between innovation and regulation. Clearer guidelines could emerge from the increased attention on sanctions enforcement mechanisms. Q5: How do defamation lawsuits typically resolve between corporations and media outlets? Most cases settle confidentially before trial. Public litigation remains relatively rare due to costs and discovery risks. Settlement terms often include corrections, financial compensation, or agreed statements without admitting liability. This post Binance Defamation Lawsuit Threat: Explosive Legal Battle Looms Over WSJ’s Iran Sanctions Allegations first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

Binance CEO Richard Teng denied WSJ's claim of a $1.7 billion transfer linked to Iran. The WLFI USD1 attack shook the market, ALT at $0.01 with RSI 31 is oversold. Supports are strong at S1 $0.0071...

After a defining year for the ecosystem, the BNB Chain is stepping up its efforts to build on its 2025 momentum and continue scaling its performance, execution capacity, and infrastructure strength amid sustained usage growth. Related Reading: Bitcoin Positioned For More Pain Following Weekly Close Below This Critical Level BNB Chain 2025 Technical Outcomes Pave The Way On Monday, the BNB Chain shared its Tech Roadmap 2026, outlining plans to continue operating at a large scale while supporting sustained growth across trading activity, stablecoins, and real-world assets (RWA). The roadmap noted that 2025 was a “defining year” for the ecosystem, with major milestones achieved without downtime. As they explained, the BNB chain focused on reliability, speed, cost efficiency, and fairness as the four core technical priorities of the year. “These goals translated into tangible network outcomes,” the BNB Chain affirmed, highlighting a 40.5% increase in total value locked (TVL), a 150% year-over-year (YoY) growth in daily transactions, a surge in trading volume and stablecoin market capitalization, and reaching the highest daily active users across blockchains. A recent report by CoinDesk Research pointed out that the BNB Smart Chain (BSC) leads the pack in stablecoin annual growth, soaring 133% YoY. The BSC significantly contributed to the surge in DEX volume, with its annual DEX trading volume surging by over 100% in 2025. The network also overtook Solana and Ethereum in daily volume during peak periods, capturing nearly 30% of the total DEX market share at one point. Meanwhile, the BNB Chain also led in app revenue growth YoY, increasing 48%. At the protocol level, the roadmap emphasized that BNB Chain’s performance improvements were driven by four major hardforks, which reduced block time from 3 seconds to 0.45 seconds and finality from 7.5 seconds to 1.125 seconds, while doubling network bandwidth to 133 million gas per second. Following these changes, the network has “consistently handled up to 5 trillion gas used per day, equivalent to approximately 238 million native transfers.” Meanwhile, gas Price dropped roughly 20 times, from 1Gwei to 0.05Gwei. Building The ‘Next-Generation’ Trading Chain Now, the BNB Chain is working on multiple network optimizations in 2026 to establish the BSC as a “highly optimized EVM trading chain.” It seeks to achieve 20,000 transactions per second (TPS) with sub-second finality, further reduce gas fees through software optimizations, and push finality deeper into sub-second territory with advanced consensus and network latency improvements. The BNB Chain plans to make enhancements for a “performance-optimized” EVM execution engine. These include a new execution engine “focused on best-in-class single-core performance using register-based interpretation and AOT/JIT techniques,” and “conflict-less parallel execution during block chasing using EIP-7928 (BAL).” The network is also planning to redesign storage systems for parallel-friendly access and continue developing middleware to reduce complexity for advanced applications, such as a privacy framework and an AI agent framework. In addition, the BNB Chain shared a long-term plan to design the “next-generation trading chain to support extreme performance requirements” between 2026 and 2028. Related Reading: Investors In Trump Family Memecoins Record $4.3 Billion In Losses As Tokens Sink The main goals include targeting approximately 1 million TPS, requiring sustained execution capacity of ~20 GGas per second; achieving near-instant transaction confirmation, with a best-case target of 150m; adopting a hybrid off-chain and on-chain compute architecture using execution proofs and attestations; strengthening decentralization through improved validator models and fault tolerance; and delivering best-in-class security and production reliability. “The next phase focuses on ensuring that this performance remains sustainable, fair, and extensible as the network continues to grow,” the roadmap concluded. Featured Image from Unsplash.com, Chart from TradingView.com

Crypto lending has matured significantly, and borrowers today are looking beyond headline APRs. A 0% APR offer may sound straightforward, but in practice it is tied to specific loan structures, strict LTV conditions, and usage-based pricing models. Understanding these mechanics is essential for anyone borrowing against BTC, ETH, or diversified collateral. This review explains how 0% APR crypto loans work, why they are not universal, and how platforms structure their LTV thresholds, interest models, and repayment terms. Clapp is featured first because its credit-line structure makes 0% APR both transparent and achievable under defined conditions. Clapp — Usage-Based Interest With 0% APR on Unused Credit Clapp Credit Line is defined by flexibility. It is a revolving credit line where borrowers deposit crypto — BTC, ETH, SOL, or up to 19 supported assets — and receive a credit limit they can draw from when needed. Unused credit carries 0% APR when Loan to Value (LTV) is below 20%. Interest is charged only on the amount actually withdrawn, making borrowing more efficient than fixed loans where interest accrues immediately. This structure aligns cost directly with usage and allows borrowers to keep liquidity available without paying for idle capital. Clapp also combines several risk-oriented features: Real-time LTV monitoring Margin notifications before liquidation thresholds are reached Flexible repayment with no penalties Multi-asset collateral pools that stabilize LTV Institutional credit lines starting from 1% APR with negotiable LTV parameters Clapp’s model makes 0% APR on crypto loans realistic as long as the borrower maintains conservative LTV levels below 20% and uses only the liquidity required. Understanding LTV: The Real Driver of Cost and Liquidation Risk Loan-to-value (LTV) measures the ratio between borrowed capital and the value of collateral. It is the single most important variable in crypto lending. A borrower who deposits $40,000 in BTC and borrows $4,000 operates at 10% LTV — a conservative level. If BTC drops 20%, the LTV rises but remains manageable. Low LTV supports: safer borrowing, lower interest rates, and reduced liquidation risk. High LTV does the opposite. Even a moderate drawdown can push positions into critical territory. Platforms are transparent about LTV limits because they define lending cost and safety far more than APR does. Clapp’s margin notifications, multi-asset collateral support, and flexible repayment structure all exist to help borrowers maintain safe LTV levels during volatility. How Other Platforms Structure LTV, Terms, and Costs Below is an overview of how other major lenders approach LTV and APR. While features vary, one pattern is consistent: 0% APR rarely applies to borrowed balances. Nexo Nexo uses a credit-line model with tiered rates based on loyalty levels. Borrowers benefit from fast access and flexible terms, but 0% APR does not apply to borrowed funds. Rates drop only at low LTV and when holding NEXO tokens. Binance Loans Binance offers fixed-term loans with interest accruing immediately on the full borrowed amount. Borrowers gain access to a wide asset base, but 0% APR is not part of the structure, and LTV thresholds can shift in volatile markets. MakerDAO MakerDAO’s DAI vaults use collateral-backed debt positions. Borrowers pay stability fees instead of APR. Certain vaults can temporarily approach low or near-zero fees, but conditions vary, and borrowers must manage liquidation risk manually. Repayment Terms: The Hidden Cost Factor Borrowers often focus on APR, but repayment terms can be equally important. Fixed-term loans require regular payments and may include penalties for early repayment. This reduces the borrower’s ability to adjust LTV in response to market volatility. Clapp’s flexible repayment model allows borrowers to reduce exposure at any time. This makes liquidation management easier and transforms borrowing from a rigid obligation into an adjustable liquidity tool. Final Assessment 0% APR crypto loans exist, but only within conditional, risk-aware structures. Borrowers should evaluate: LTV requirements, how interest is applied, repayment flexibility, and liquidation protections. Clapp stands out for offering a transparent version of this model — 0% APR on unused credit, usage-based interest on withdrawals, multi-asset collateral, and real-time LTV tools. Other platforms offer competitive features, but none match this combination of flexibility and cost alignment. For users seeking safe, cost-efficient liquidity without selling their crypto, understanding LTV and borrowing structure is more important than the headline APR. Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Borrowing fiat against crypto has become a mainstream liquidity strategy in 2026. Long-term holders use it to access EUR or USD without selling BTC or ETH, while funds and corporate treasuries rely on it to optimize balance sheets. As the market matures, the differentiators are no longer just speed or asset support — but LTV ratios, interest models, and how transparently each platform manages risk. This review explains how fiat borrowing works today and compares the lending conditions across leading platforms, including Clapp, Nebeus, Sopra, and Binance Loans. How Fiat Borrowing Against Crypto Works in 2026 Borrowers deposit crypto as collateral — typically BTC, ETH, or other large-cap assets — and receive fiat currency. The key variable is the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, which determines how much liquidity a user can access relative to collateral value. LTV also determines risk. When collateral prices fall, LTV rises. If it exceeds liquidation thresholds, the platform may sell collateral to protect the loan. Interest rates depend on risk and loan structure. Some platforms use fixed-term loans with immediate interest accrual, while others offer revolving credit lines where interest applies only to withdrawn funds. The latter provides more control in volatile markets. Leading Platforms: LTV and Interest Models Compared 1. Clapp — Flexible LTV and Usage-Based Interest for Fiat Borrowing Clapp offers one of the most adaptable borrowing frameworks in 2026. Users deposit crypto and receive a revolving credit line supporting EUR and stablecoin withdrawals. The structure is designed for risk-aware borrowers: 0% APR on unused credit when LTV is below 20% Interest applies only to borrowed amounts Dynamic LTV management with real-time monitoring Margin notifications ahead of liquidation thresholds Up to 19 collateral assets allowed in a single pool For corporate users Clapp provides custom corporate credit lines with rates starting from 1% APR and negotiable LTV terms. Clapp emphasizes transparency: borrowers see exactly how LTV changes with market fluctuations, making it easier to prevent liquidation. 2. Nebeus — EU-Regulated Fiat Lending With Moderate LTV Options Nebeus is known for strong regulatory alignment in Europe and offers both flexible credit lines and fixed-term loans. It supports EUR borrowing directly into European banking rails. LTV levels tend to be conservative, emphasizing borrower safety Fixed loans accrue interest immediately Credit lines offer more flexibility but no 0% APR model Optional insurance coverage is available for collateral Nebeus is appealing to users who want compliance-forward lending rather than aggressive LTV or low-rate structures. 3. Sopra — Straightforward EUR Loans With Clear Terms Sopra focuses on simple fiat borrowing for EU users. It offers fixed-term crypto-backed loans in EUR with predictable conditions. LTV limits are conservative Rates are competitive for fixed-term borrowing Platform is designed for users prioritizing clarity over flexibility Multi-collateral options are limited compared to newer lenders Sopra is suitable for borrowers who want a traditional loan experience rather than a credit-line structure. 4. Binance Loans — Fast Execution With Variable LTV Policies Binance offers large liquidity and fast approval for crypto-backed loans, though EUR access is available only in supported regions. The platform uses fixed-term loans with standard interest accrual. LTV allowances vary widely by asset Large liquidity makes it useful for high-volume borrowers Less flexible than credit-line models Liquidation policies can be strict during market volatility Binance Loans is best for borrowers who value speed and exchange integration. What Matters Most in 2026 Crypto Lending: Flexibility Over Maximum LTV Borrowers today are less concerned with maximizing LTV and more focused on managing risk, cost exposure, and liquidation triggers. High LTV ratios may unlock more liquidity, but they dramatically increase volatility sensitivity. Platforms that offer transparent LTV tracking, early margin notifications, no penalties for early repayment, and interest tied to actual usage are generally preferred by both retail and institutional borrowers in 2026. Clapp’s credit-line model aligns strongly with this shift, while fixed-loan platforms appeal more to users who want predictable schedules and traditional structures. Final Thoughts Borrowing fiat against crypto in 2026 is no longer simply about access — it is about managing exposure. LTV ratios determine risk, and interest models determine cost. Platforms that allow borrowers to adjust both dynamically offer clear advantages in volatile markets. Clapp leads with its flexible, usage-based credit-line system and institutional borrowing options. Nebeus and Sopra provide strong EU-focused frameworks, while Binance Loans serves high-volume borrowers who prioritize speed. Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Buying Bitcoin with USD is easier than ever, but not all apps offer the same speed, flexibility, or transparency. Some platforms require account verification, others impose buying limits, and many show only one available rate rather than letting users compare options. If you want to purchase BTC quickly — and choose how your transaction is executed — it’s worth comparing different models: traditional exchanges, on-ramp apps, and aggregators. Here are the top five crypto apps for fast BTC purchases with USD rated by flexibility, non-custodial flow, and broad rate comparison. 1. SwapSpace Wins for Flexibility and Rate Transparency SwapSpace tops this list because it operates not as a single exchange, but as a crypto exchange aggregator. Instead of offering one price, it compares live swap and purchase offers from 37 trusted exchange partners, covering nearly 4,000 cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. What makes SwapSpace stand out? Real-time rate comparisonPrices update instantly based on partner liquidity. Users see multiple offers at once — not just one. Fiat on-ramp supportSwapSpace aggregates offers from trusted partners like Guardarian and Mercuryo, enabling users to buy BTC directly with USD using bank cards and other payment methods. 24/7 live supportHuman support ensures smooth execution, even during high-volatility periods. Mobile app for both platformsSwapSpace’s mobile app is available on iOS and Android, offering full functionality for on-the-go BTC purchases. SwapSpace can suit users who prioritize flexibility, rate comparison, and fast settlement. 2. Coinbase — Best for Beginners Who Want a Familiar Brand Coinbase remains one of the most widely recognized crypto apps for buying BTC with USD. The interface is straightforward and supports card payments, bank transfers, and instant purchases. Pros: Trusted U.S.-based brand Simple user experience Built-in educational tools High liquidity Cons: Higher service fees than most alternatives Mandatory KYC Custodial — users must withdraw BTC to hold it independently Best for users who want simplicity and don’t mind fees. 3. Binance — Best for Low Fees (Where Available) Binance offers competitive spot prices, deep liquidity, and multiple USD payment methods. It’s widely used for fast BTC purchases. Pros: Very low trading fees Multiple payment options Fast settlement High liquidity Cons: Availability varies by jurisdiction Mandatory KYC Interface may feel complex for new users Best for users who prioritize cost efficiency over simplicity. 4. Kraken — Best for Bank Transfers and Security Kraken is known for its robust security record and reliable banking integrations in the U.S. and Europe. Pros: Strong security reputation Smooth ACH and wire deposit processes Transparent fee structure Good customer support Cons: No instant card purchases in some regions Requires full verification Not as fast for users who want immediate BTC delivery Best for users who prefer traditional banking rails and a cautious compliance-focused platform. 5. PayPal — Best for Instant Purchases by Mainstream Users PayPal supports buying and selling BTC directly within the app using USD balances or linked payment methods. Pros: Extremely fast onboarding No need for separate crypto app Familiar interface Cons: Limited crypto support Users don’t receive BTC in a self-custodial wallet (unless using the crypto transfer feature available in select countries) Higher pricing than dedicated crypto platforms Best for casual users making small, convenience-driven purchases. Which App Wins for Flexibility? SwapSpace wins in the flexibility category because it: Shows multiple BTC purchase offers at once Works non-custodially Supports fiat purchases through trusted on-ramp merchants Provides fast settlement without locking users into one platform Traditional exchanges offer structure and liquidity, but not comparison. On-ramps offer speed, but not versatility. SwapSpace bridges both worlds, providing a one-stop view of the best available BTC purchase terms without forcing users to commit to a single provider. Final Thoughts This spring, users have more ways than ever to buy BTC with USD — from centralized exchanges to simple fiat on-ramps to comparison-driven aggregators. Coinbase can suit beginners. Binance offers the lowest fees. Kraken emphasizes security. PayPal prioritizes convenience. SwapSpace delivers the most flexibility and transparency. For users seeking fast execution, clear pricing, and non-custodial control, SwapSpace offers a uniquely adaptive approach to buying BTC with USD. Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Massive XRP inflows hit Binance as spot demand stays stubbornly strong.