Navigating the Digital Frontier: A Deep Dive into Crypto’s Evolving Landscape

You know, it’s truly an exhilarating, if not a bit dizzying, time to be tracking the digital asset space. From the halls of Congress to the bustling streets of Hong Kong, a palpable sense of urgency is gripping policymakers and innovators alike. This past week, it seems everyone was making moves, laying down markers for what they hope will be the future of finance. Let’s really dig into what’s been happening, because I’m telling you, it’s shaping up to be quite the pivotal moment.

The Senate Banking Committee Weighs In: A Call for Clarity

On July 9, 2025, the Senate Banking Committee convened a hearing titled ‘From Wall Street to Web3: Building Tomorrow’s Digital Asset Markets.’ It wasn’t just another committee meeting; this felt like a genuine attempt to grapple with the monumental task of establishing a federal regulatory framework for digital asset markets. And frankly, it’s about time, isn’t it? The air in that hearing room, even through a livestream, felt charged, a mix of cautious optimism and underlying frustration.

Assistance with token financing

Committee Chair Senator Tim Scott, a voice I’ve always found pretty pragmatic, articulated a vision where ‘the market, not Washington, should decide what works.’ That’s a powerful statement, suggesting a preference for innovation to flourish organically, rather than being stifled by heavy-handed bureaucracy. He underscored the critical need for legislation that would firmly position the United States as a global leader in blockchain innovation. Because, let’s be honest, we can’t afford to lag behind. Countries like Singapore and the UAE, they’re already moving at a rapid clip, actively courting these technologies and the talent that comes with them. Imagine the capital flight, the brain drain, if we simply stand still. It’s a real threat.

What truly struck me, however, wasn’t just the policy differences, but the surprising consensus that emerged on core principles. Regardless of their political stripes, senators seemed to agree on the dire need for regulatory clarity, robust consumer protections, and effective measures to prevent illicit finance. It makes sense, right? Without clear rules, honest businesses struggle, and bad actors find fertile ground. It’s a lose-lose situation for everyone.

Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple Labs Inc., delivered some stark figures that really put things in perspective. He noted that crypto now boasts over 55 million U.S. participants, and we’re looking at a staggering $3.4 trillion global market capitalization. That’s not some niche hobby anymore; it’s a significant economic force. Garlinghouse didn’t mince words, warning that the current absence of clear rules has ‘prohibited meaningful progress’ and, perhaps more chillingly, can be ‘weaponized’ against responsible industry participants. Think about it: without defined lines, any novel interpretation of existing, decades-old laws can suddenly turn a legitimate business into a regulatory target. I remember hearing about a small startup, innovating in the tokenized real estate space, that had to shut down just because they couldn’t get a definitive answer from regulators on whether their fractionalized property tokens were securities or something else entirely. The uncertainty alone can be a death knell.

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, echoed Garlinghouse’s sentiments, pushing for a framework that supports innovation while safeguarding investors. The Blockchain Association, as you know, has long advocated for clear definitions, urging Congress to delineate responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC, which is truly the Gordian knot of US crypto regulation. They envision a regulatory environment that encourages capital formation within the US, rather than driving promising projects overseas. She likely presented specific recommendations on how to achieve strong consumer protections without stifling nascent technologies, emphasizing the need for adaptable rules that don’t become obsolete the moment a new innovation emerges. It’s a fine line to walk.

Former CFTC Chair Timothy Massad provided the unique perspective of a seasoned regulator, offering insights from his tenure navigating complex financial markets. His input, I’d wager, focused on the practicalities of implementation and the challenges of fitting novel digital assets into existing regulatory boxes. He probably emphasized the importance of inter-agency cooperation, recognizing that no single regulator can effectively oversee this multifaceted market alone. His experience with derivatives markets gives him a particular lens on how digital assets might be classified and regulated, especially those that behave like commodities.

This hearing, though just one step, definitely set the stage for the highly anticipated ‘Crypto Week’ in the House. It felt like Washington was finally, albeit slowly, waking up to the scale and significance of this technology. The pressure is mounting, and it’s coming from all sides – industry, investors, and even international competitors who are watching our every move.

SEC Commissioner Peirce’s Stance: Tokenization Doesn’t Change the Rules

On the very same day the Senate was talking about Web3, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, affectionately known as ‘Crypto Mom’ for her consistently pragmatic and often dissenting views on digital asset regulation, issued a formal statement that, frankly, didn’t surprise many of us. She reiterated, quite clearly, that tokenized securities remain firmly subject to federal securities laws, regardless of the underlying technology. It’s a point she’s made time and again, and it’s a crucial one for market participants to understand.

While Peirce acknowledged the undeniable benefits of tokenization – improved capital formation, enhanced asset mobility, fractional ownership, instant settlement, you name it – she stressed that merely putting something on a blockchain doesn’t magically alter its legal nature. If it’s a security, it’s a security. The technology is just a wrapper, a new kind of ledger, not a legal loophole. This perspective is vital for maintaining market integrity and ensuring investor protection, even as innovation races forward.

She highlighted two particularly relevant scenarios where tokenized securities are likely to fall under federal securities laws, and these are worth unpacking because they speak directly to the mechanics of these digital instruments:

• When a token functions as a ‘receipt for a security,’ the token itself is considered a security, even if distinct from the underlying asset it represents. Imagine a company tokenizing shares of its stock. The token isn’t the share itself, but it represents ownership, a claim on the underlying security. So, even if the actual share still exists in a traditional ledger, the digital ‘receipt’ that confers rights and interests in that share becomes a security in its own right. This means all the traditional disclosure requirements, anti-fraud provisions, and trading rules apply. You can’t just slap a blockchain onto an equity and assume it’s suddenly exempt from SEC oversight.

• If a token does not provide the holder with legal and beneficial ownership of the underlying security, it could potentially be viewed as a ‘security-based swap.’ Now, this is a tricky one. Security-based swaps are complex financial instruments, typically reserved for sophisticated institutional investors, and they certainly cannot be traded ‘off exchange’ by a retail investor. If a token is structured in such a way that you get exposure to the price movement of an underlying security, but not direct ownership of it, the SEC might well classify it as a swap. This has massive implications for market access and liquidity, effectively shutting off retail participation in such instruments unless they meet very specific regulatory hurdles.

Peirce’s message was clear: token issuers and intermediaries absolutely must carefully consider their disclosure requirements. What information are you giving to potential investors? Is it clear? Is it complete? Are you telling them about the risks? Furthermore, she urged them to consult with the CFTC when structuring their tokenized product offerings, acknowledging the perennial tug-of-war between the SEC’s securities jurisdiction and the CFTC’s commodities purview. It’s a nod to the reality that some digital assets might straddle both worlds, or at least have characteristics that make their classification ambiguous. Her invitation for market participants to engage directly with the SEC to craft exemptions and modernize rules isn’t just lip service; it’s a critical olive branch. The regulator knows it can’t create rules in a vacuum, especially with technology moving so quickly. The agency needs industry input to understand what works and what doesn’t, though whether that input will truly translate into meaningful, agile regulation remains the million-dollar question.

Senator Lummis Pushes for Crypto Tax Reform: Easing the Burden

Moving away from the regulatory skirmishes for a moment, on July 3, 2025, Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) stepped forward with a piece of legislation that could significantly alleviate some of the persistent headaches for crypto users and businesses: a comprehensive tax reform bill. Senator Lummis, as you might know, is one of Congress’s most vocal and knowledgeable proponents of digital assets, seeing Wyoming as a potential blockchain hub. So, this bill isn’t just political posturing; it’s deeply aligned with her vision for fostering innovation in her state and across the nation.

This proposed bill zeroes in on modernizing the federal tax framework for digital assets, which, let’s be honest, currently feels like trying to fit a square peg into a very, very round, old hole. The core of the problem stems from applying tax rules designed for traditional assets to a fundamentally new technology.

Here are some of the key provisions, and why they’re so important:

• De Minimis Exemption for Routine Transactions: This is probably the most talked-about part of the bill, and for good reason. It proposes a $300 de minimis exemption for routine crypto transactions, effective in 2026, with an annual cap of $5,000 and adjustments for inflation thereafter. If you’ve ever tried to use crypto for small purchases, you’ll immediately grasp the significance. Imagine buying a coffee with Bitcoin: under current rules, every single transaction, no matter how small, technically triggers a taxable event. You’re supposed to calculate the capital gain or loss on that coffee purchase based on Bitcoin’s price since you acquired it. It’s an administrative nightmare, a real barrier to crypto being used as actual currency. This exemption would simplify things immensely, making everyday crypto use far more feasible and less of an accounting headache.

• Deferring Tax Recognition for Mining, Staking, and Airdrops: This provision is a huge win for network participants. The current interpretation often treats these activities as immediate income events, meaning you’re taxed on the value of the crypto you receive the moment you receive it, even if you haven’t sold it yet. This creates a liquidity crunch for miners and stakers, who might have to sell some of their newly acquired assets just to pay the tax bill, rather than holding them for long-term growth or reinvesting them. The bill aims to defer tax recognition until these assets are actually sold, aligning with the taxation of many other forms of property.

• Extending Securities-Lending Safe Harbor: This might sound a bit technical, but it’s critical for market liquidity. The securities-lending safe harbor allows financial institutions to lend out securities without triggering a taxable event. Extending this to digital assets would facilitate more robust and liquid markets, encouraging institutional participation without immediate adverse tax consequences. It’s about leveling the playing field with traditional finance.

• Applying the Wash-Sale Rule: This is a move towards greater fairness and consistency. The wash-sale rule prevents investors from selling a security at a loss, only to repurchase it within 30 days to claim an artificial tax deduction. Currently, this rule doesn’t apply to crypto, which has allowed some to engage in what’s called ‘tax loss harvesting,’ repeatedly selling and repurchasing crypto to generate paper losses. Applying this rule to crypto and related derivatives would close that loophole, making the tax rules more equitable across asset classes.

• Eliminating Appraisal Requirements for Charitable Donations: For actively traded tokens, the bill seeks to remove the often cumbersome and costly appraisal requirements for charitable donations. This would make it significantly easier for individuals and organizations to donate crypto to charities, unlocking a potentially massive stream of philanthropic giving that’s currently hampered by administrative hurdles. It’s a smart move to encourage crypto philanthropy.

Senator Lummis stated that the bill aims to reduce regulatory barriers, fostering greater innovation and adoption. It’s currently open for public comment, which is a great opportunity for industry stakeholders and everyday users to provide feedback. Will it pass? That’s always the question in Washington, but it’s a significant step towards a more rational and future-proof tax system for digital assets. For the average crypto holder, this bill could literally save you hours of accounting headaches and potentially thousands in premature tax bills. It’s something you should really be paying attention to.

The Commodity Question: Senate Agriculture Committee to Convene

Just as the House plans its ‘Crypto Week,’ another critical hearing is on the horizon. The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is set to hold a hearing titled ‘Stakeholder Perspectives on Federal Oversight of Digital Commodities’ on July 15, 2025. Now, you might be wondering, ‘Why the agriculture committee?’ It’s a perfectly valid question, and the answer lies in the CFTC’s jurisdiction. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a powerful regulator, oversees commodity markets, and because some prominent digital assets, like Bitcoin and potentially Ethereum, are widely considered commodities, the Agriculture Committee naturally has a vested interest.

This hearing will provide a crucial opportunity for lawmakers to receive input from industry participants regarding the federal regulatory framework specifically for digital commodities. This is where the rubber meets the road on the fundamental ‘commodity versus security’ debate that has plagued the U.S. crypto market for years. Is it a chicken or an egg? Or something else entirely? The SEC views many tokens as securities under the Howey Test, a decades-old Supreme Court precedent, while the CFTC sees Bitcoin and certain other digital assets as commodities, subject to different rules and market structures. This jurisdictional ambiguity, frankly, has been a major source of uncertainty and frustration, leading to a patchwork of enforcement actions rather than clear guidelines.

Stakeholders invited to testify will likely represent a broad spectrum of the industry: major cryptocurrency exchanges like Coinbase or Binance.US, DeFi protocol developers, traditional financial institutions looking to enter the digital asset space, and even consumer advocacy groups. Each will bring their own perspectives on what constitutes a digital commodity, what specific risks it poses, and how best to regulate it without stifling innovation. We can expect to hear arguments for a clear definition of ‘digital commodity,’ proposals for how the CFTC’s existing powers might be expanded or clarified, and perhaps even pleas for a combined regulatory approach or a new, bespoke regulator for digital assets. The CFTC, for its part, has consistently pushed for expanded authority over the spot market for digital commodities, arguing it possesses the expertise and the tools to effectively oversee these markets.

This July 15 hearing is more than just talk; it may very well inform ongoing policy considerations surrounding the classification of digital assets. The outcome of this debate – whether an asset falls under the SEC or CFTC’s purview – dictates everything from disclosure requirements and trading rules to how enforcement actions are brought. It fundamentally shapes the market landscape. If the U.S. truly wants to provide regulatory clarity and foster innovation, resolving this foundational question is paramount. It’s a critical piece of the puzzle, and anyone tracking the space should definitely tune in.

House Announces ‘Crypto Week’: A Legislative Blitz?

While the Senate committees were holding their separate but equally important discussions, the U.S. House of Representatives, on July 3, 2025, announced what they’re calling ‘Crypto Week.’ Chairman French Hill (R-Ark.) of the House Committee on Financial Services, a key figure in digital asset legislation, revealed the plan: the House seeks to advance landmark crypto legislation during the week of July 14, 2025. This isn’t just a one-off hearing; it’s a concerted effort to push through specific bills.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reinforced the message, indicating that the House anticipates the consideration of three major legislative proposals. This kind of unified push from House leadership suggests a serious attempt to make progress, rather than just pay lip service to the crypto industry’s pleas for clarity. The bills on the docket are particularly interesting:

• The CLARITY Act: While specific details aren’t always fully public until a bill moves, the name itself suggests a focus on providing clarity regarding the classification of digital assets. It likely aims to establish clearer definitions of what constitutes a security versus a commodity in the digital realm, potentially offering guidelines on how the Howey Test should be applied to novel tokens. This could be a game-changer, as it would reduce the current uncertainty that forces businesses to operate in a legal grey zone, constantly fearing a surprise enforcement action.

• The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act: This one is, let’s just say, politically charged, and it targets Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). A CBDC is essentially a digital form of a country’s fiat currency, issued and backed by its central bank. While proponents argue for efficiency and financial inclusion, critics, particularly those advocating for privacy and individual liberty, voice significant concerns about government surveillance and control over personal finances. This bill likely seeks to either ban a U.S. CBDC outright or impose severe restrictions on its development and use, reflecting anxieties about potential governmental access to granular transaction data and the erosion of financial privacy. It’s a hot-button issue that resonates deeply with a segment of the electorate, and its inclusion highlights the blend of economic and ideological factors at play in crypto policy.

• The Senate’s GENIUS Act: The fact that a Senate bill is on the House’s agenda for ‘Crypto Week’ is quite telling. It suggests some level of cross-chamber coordination, or at least a recognition of a broadly supported piece of legislation. While I can’t confirm the exact acronym, it likely stands for something like ‘Greater Exchange and Network Innovation in the United States Act.’ Bills with similar aims often seek to establish regulatory sandboxes, promote blockchain research and development, or create specific regulatory carve-outs for innovative technologies, all with the goal of fostering a competitive domestic market for digital assets. It’s about creating an environment where homegrown innovation can thrive, rather than being forced overseas by an unwieldy regulatory apparatus.

The stated goals for this legislative push are commendable: supporting economic growth, establishing a clear regulatory framework for digital assets, enhancing consumer protection, and bolstering the U.S.’ competitive position in global digital asset innovation. Representative Bryan Steil (R-Wisc.) echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the dual objectives of safeguarding consumers while ensuring America remains at the forefront of this technological revolution. Whether these bills can navigate the treacherous waters of bipartisan compromise and become law remains to be seen, but ‘Crypto Week’ certainly signals a significant escalation in legislative efforts surrounding digital assets. It means that, unlike in previous years, this isn’t just about talk; there’s a serious intent to pass something. Let’s hope it’s something truly impactful, for the better.

Truth Social’s Foray: The B.T. ETF Files with the SEC

In a move that certainly raised some eyebrows, and generated considerable buzz, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), the parent company of Truth Social, filed an S-1 registration statement with the SEC on July 8, 2025. What’s it for? Their proposed Truth Social Crypto Blue Chip ETF, slated to trade under the ticker B.T. This isn’t their first rodeo, mind you; it represents the company’s third crypto ETF registration, following earlier filings for Bitcoin/Ether funds in June. It clearly signals TMTG’s strategic intent to tap into the burgeoning crypto investment market.

The ETF is organized as a Nevada business trust and is sponsored by Yorkville America Digital. For the uninitiated, an S-1 is a detailed registration form required by the SEC for public companies to register their securities. It’s essentially the legal prospectus, laying out everything from the fund’s investment objectives and risks to its operational structure and fees. The fact that it’s a Nevada business trust points to a specific legal structure often favored for such investment vehicles, potentially offering certain legal and tax advantages.

What’s particularly interesting is the proposed portfolio allocation for the B.T. fund, which provides a glimpse into TMTG’s vision of ‘blue chip’ crypto:

• 70% Bitcoin (BTC): No surprise here. Bitcoin remains the undisputed king of crypto, often viewed as digital gold and the most established asset in the space. Its inclusion as the dominant holding is standard for any broad crypto fund.
• 15% Ether (ETH): Again, a staple. Ether powers the Ethereum network, the largest smart contract platform, and is foundational to DeFi, NFTs, and much of Web3. It’s the second-largest crypto by market cap, so its significant allocation is expected.
• 8% Solana (SOL): This is where it gets a bit more adventurous. Solana is known for its high transaction speeds and scalability, positioning itself as a challenger to Ethereum. Its inclusion suggests a belief in its potential for significant growth and its role in the broader decentralized application ecosystem.
• 5% Cronos (CRO): This is Crypto.com’s native token. Its inclusion likely relates to the fund’s choice of custodian and execution agent, Foris DAX Trust, which is affiliated with Crypto.com. It’s an interesting nod to a specific exchange’s ecosystem token, perhaps signaling a deeper operational integration.
• 2% XRP: This is perhaps the most intriguing inclusion, given Ripple’s ongoing regulatory saga with the SEC. XRP is a digital asset designed for fast, low-cost international payments. Its presence suggests TMTG sees a future for XRP, perhaps anticipating a clearer regulatory outcome for Ripple or acknowledging its utility in cross-border transactions.

Foris DAX Trust, affiliated with Crypto.com, is slated to play multiple roles: custodian, execution agent, and even staking and liquidity provider. This multi-faceted role suggests a deep operational partnership, leveraging Crypto.com’s infrastructure for secure asset storage, trade execution, and potentially generating yield through staking, which is a growing trend for institutional crypto products. The fact that the ETF will issue and redeem shares in blocks of 10,000 through authorized participants is standard for how ETFs operate, allowing large institutional players to create and redeem shares directly with the fund, maintaining price efficiency.

Crucially, the filing states the ETF will not be regulated as a commodity pool subject to the CFTC. This implies that TMTG and its legal advisors have structured the fund, and believe its underlying assets are, or will be treated as, securities for the purpose of this ETF. This aligns with the SEC’s current stance that most tokens, particularly those offered by an issuer, could be securities. Pending approval from the SEC and the NYSE Arca, the ETF is expected to list on NYSE Arca. It’s a testament to the growing institutional interest and infrastructure development in the crypto space, even from unexpected corners. How this specific fund performs, given its political ties, will be a story worth watching.

Hong Kong’s Bold Move: Stablecoin Licensing Regime on August 1st

While the U.S. continues its often-tortured dance with crypto regulation, Hong Kong is forging ahead, demonstrating a clear strategic intent to become a global virtual asset hub. On August 1, 2025, the city will officially implement its new stablecoin licensing regime. Confirmed by Financial Secretary Christopher Hui, this is a key pillar of Hong Kong’s updated digital asset strategy, eloquently titled ‘Policy Statement 2.0.’ It’s a comprehensive approach, emphasizing legal streamlining, tokenized product expansion, practical use cases, and robust talent development.

This isn’t just about stablecoins; it’s about a wholesale transformation, positioning Hong Kong as a competitive and forward-thinking jurisdiction in the global digital economy. They’re clearly looking to rival places like Singapore and Dubai, which have been aggressively attracting crypto businesses and talent with their own progressive regulatory frameworks.

Let’s break down the stablecoin rules, because they’re critical. Under the new regime, issuers of fiat-referenced stablecoins – those pegged to traditional currencies like the Hong Kong Dollar or the US Dollar – must obtain a license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). This isn’t a mere formality; it comes with stringent requirements. Issuers must fully back their tokens with high-quality liquid reserves. What does ‘high-quality liquid reserves’ mean? Think cash, short-term government bonds, and other easily convertible assets. This mandate is designed to ensure investor protection and maintain financial stability, directly addressing the kind of risks exposed by collapses like Terra/Luna and ongoing concerns about the backing of other major stablecoins. It’s a move to ensure that a ‘stable’ coin actually is stable, providing confidence to users and institutions.

Beyond stablecoins, the Hong Kong government is actively championing the promotion of tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), a rapidly growing segment of the digital asset market. This includes everything from tokenized bonds and private credit to precious metals and real estate. The idea here is to unlock liquidity, enable fractional ownership, and streamline transactions for traditionally illiquid or cumbersome assets. They’re also meticulously reviewing existing legal frameworks and tax policies to ensure they support broader blockchain adoption, indicating a holistic approach rather than piecemeal regulation. This is incredibly important, as unclear tax implications or outdated legal definitions can often be bigger barriers to adoption than anything else.

The fact that major firms like Ant Group, a fintech giant, have already expressed keen interest in participating once the regime takes effect speaks volumes. It’s a clear signal that Hong Kong’s proactive, regulated approach is attracting serious institutional players. This strategic clarity from Hong Kong provides a stark contrast to the U.S. regulatory landscape, which is still grappling with basic classification questions. It certainly raises the question: is the U.S. missing out on a significant economic opportunity by not moving with similar speed and decisiveness?

Alternative Data: A Double-Edged Sword in Investment Strategies

Finally, let’s pivot slightly to a broader trend impacting the investment world, one that digital assets are intrinsically tied to: alternative data. It’s become quite the buzzword, hasn’t it? Alternative data refers to information collected from non-traditional sources that can offer unique insights into market trends, company performance, or economic indicators, often before that information becomes public or is captured by conventional financial reporting.

Think about it: instead of just looking at quarterly earnings reports, an investor might be analyzing satellite imagery of a company’s parking lots to estimate foot traffic, or scraping social media sentiment to gauge consumer perceptions of a brand. They might track app usage data, monitor supply chain movements via shipping manifests, or even analyze anonymized credit card transaction data to predict retail sales. This kind of data can provide an incredible edge, helping investors formulate better investment strategies, often leading to alpha generation in today’s fiercely competitive markets.

I recall a story a colleague shared about a hedge fund that successfully predicted a major retailer’s disappointing earnings solely by analyzing granular web traffic data and app downloads, showing a significant drop-off well before any official announcements. That’s the power of alternative data in action.

However, and this is a big however, its use isn’t without significant concerns. It’s a classic double-edged sword:

• Data Privacy: This is paramount. Where does this data originate? Is it truly anonymized and aggregated, or could it be traced back to individuals? The ethical and legal implications of collecting and using such granular personal data are immense, leading to strict regulations like GDPR and CCPA. Investors need to be incredibly careful about the provenance of their data sources.

• Accuracy and Reliability: Not all alternative data is created equal. Is the data clean? Is it prone to manipulation or misinterpretation? A satellite image might show an empty parking lot, but does it account for a holiday, or a shift to online shopping? Verifying the accuracy and ensuring the statistical robustness of these datasets is a Herculean task.

• Ethical Considerations: Beyond privacy, there’s the broader ethical landscape. Does using this data create an unfair advantage for those wealthy enough to acquire and process it? What about the potential for front-running public announcements? The sheer volume and granularity of this data can also create unintended biases if not handled carefully.

• Cost and Scalability: Acquiring and processing massive alternative datasets requires significant financial investment in technology, talent, and data subscriptions. It’s not a cheap endeavor, limiting its accessibility to smaller firms or individual investors.

So, while the allure of unique insights is strong, investors must meticulously weigh the benefits against these potential risks. Robust data governance, careful legal vetting, and a commitment to ethical practices aren’t just good ideas; they’re absolute necessities for anyone incorporating alternative data into their decision-making processes. It’s a powerful tool, no doubt, but like any powerful tool, it demands respect and responsible handling. The future of investment is undoubtedly data-driven, but that data must be sourced and utilized with the utmost integrity.

References

• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, July 10). Crypto Brief – July 10, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/crypto-brief-july-10-2025
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, July 3). Crypto Brief – July 3, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/crypto-brief-july-3-2025
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, June 26). Crypto Brief – June 26, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/crypto-brief-june-26-2025
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, June 5). Crypto Brief – June 5, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/crypto-brief-june-5-2025
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, May 29). Crypto Brief – May 29, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/crypto-brief-may-29-2025
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, May 15). Crypto Brief – May 15, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/crypto-brief-may-15-2025
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, March 13). Crypto Brief – March 13, 2025. Retrieved from https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/crypto-brief-march-13-2025
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, March 27). Crypto Brief (March 27, 2025). Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/crypto-brief-lowenstein-crypto-1665001/
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, March 27). Bryan I. Reyhani Brings Wealth of Experience in Financial Services, Technology, and Crypto as New Partner in Lowenstein’s Investment Management Group. Retrieved from https://cms.lowenstein.com/news-insights/firm-news/bryan-i-reyhani-brings-wealth-of-experience-in-financial-services-technology-and-crypto-as-new-partner-in-lowenstein-s-investment-management-group
• Lowenstein Sandler LLP. (2025, March 27). Alternative Data = Better Investment Strategies, But Not Without Concerns. Retrieved from https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/crypto-brief-march-27-2025