Kraken IPO Still Alive Despite Market Rumors

TheNewsCryptoОпубліковано о 2026-04-15Востаннє оновлено о 2026-04-15

Анотація

Kraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi confirmed the cryptocurrency exchange has confidentially filed for an IPO, despite earlier rumors of a delay due to market conditions. Speaking at the Semafor World Economy 2026 conference, Sethi stated the decision to go public is not driven by a need for funds but will depend on market conditions and regulatory confidence. This follows a $200 million investment from Deutsche Börse Group in Kraken’s parent company, which valued Kraken at $13.3 billion. Sethi emphasized a long-term vision, downplaying short-term regulatory or market fluctuations as significant factors in the IPO timeline.

Kraken, a cryptocurrency exchange, has dropped hints that its initial public offering (IPO) is still moving forward, despite rumors that it was shelved last month owing to market circumstances. In November, Kraken submitted an application to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for a confidential initial public offering (IPO), but a March report did not corroborate this and hinted that the idea could have been shelved.

When asked about any imminent intentions to take Kraken public by Semafor reporter Rohan Goswami, Kraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi revealed the business had “confidentially filed” for an IPO during Tuesday’s speech at the Semafor World Economy 2026 conference. However, he did not address the halt.

Not Going for IPO for Funds

On Tuesday, Sethi made his remarks after an investment of $200 million by the German financial markets platform Deutsche Börse Group in Kraken’s parent company, Payward, in return for a 1.5% fully diluted share.

A decrease from $20 billion in November, Kraken’s valuation dropped to $13.3 billion after the transaction. According to Kraken, the investment from the Deutsche Börse Group aims to merge TradFi and crypto into a “single, cohesive infrastructure for institutional clients” instead of running them in separate platforms.

At the Semafor conference, Sethi discussed going public in a broader sense and rejected the notion that regulatory changes in Washington may have prompted or delayed Kraken’s IPO.

Sethi said:

“If you live day by day, quarter by quarter, these things are meaningful. But “if you’re thinking about your company three, five, 10 or 20 years out, none of this is meaningful. It just doesn’t matter.”

Kraken isn’t going public for the money, according to Sethi; rather, it will depend on the market and the level of confidence between regulators and the company.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Coinone Hit With Fines and Trading Curbs Over AML Violations in South Korea

TagsexchangeKraken

Пов'язані питання

QWhat did Kraken's co-CEO reveal about the company's status regarding its IPO at the Semafor World Economy 2026 conference?

AKraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi revealed that the business had 'confidentially filed' for an IPO, but did not address the halt.

QWhat was the valuation of Kraken after the investment by Deutsche Börse Group, and how did it change from November?

AKraken's valuation dropped to $13.3 billion after the transaction, a decrease from $20 billion in November.

QAccording to Sethi, what is the primary reason for Kraken going public, and what does it depend on?

AAccording to Sethi, Kraken isn't going public for the money; rather, it will depend on the market and the level of confidence between regulators and the company.

QWhat was the purpose of the investment from Deutsche Börse Group in Kraken's parent company, Payward?

AThe investment aims to merge TradFi and crypto into a 'single, cohesive infrastructure for institutional clients' instead of running them in separate platforms.

QWhat did a March report suggest about Kraken's IPO application that was submitted in November?

AA March report did not corroborate the IPO application and hinted that the idea could have been shelved.

Пов'язані матеріали

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

**From Survival to Accelerated Growth: Zcash Founder Details the 3-Year Rise** Three years ago, Zcash (ZEC) was a struggling pioneer in privacy technology, with a price near $30, low shielded supply (11%), and a community mired in governance disputes. Today, ZEC trades around $600, with over 31% of its supply (~$3B) in user-controlled shielded pools. This transformation resulted from breaking key constraints. First, **governance shackles were removed**. The old model guaranteed funding to two entities (ECC and ZF) regardless of performance, creating a monopoly. In 2024, ECC rejected further direct funding, forcing a change. The NU6 upgrade ended direct funding, allocating 8% to community grants and 12% to a protocol-controlled treasury for retroactive rewards, expiring in 2028 unless renewed by overwhelming consensus. The entities also relinquished their trademark-based veto power, freeing community governance. Second, the **product focus shifted** from pure cryptography to user growth. Previously, engineering excelled at privacy tech but failed to attract users. In early 2024, the team (later ZODL) pivoted to building products users wanted, like the Zodl wallet (default privacy, hardware support, cross-asset swaps). This drove shielded supply to grow over 400% in ZEC terms, with 86.5% of recent transactions being shielded, representing real user adoption. Third, the **narrative evolved** from the limiting "privacy coin" label to "unstoppable private money." This clarified Zcash's value proposition: a Bitcoin-like monetary policy with verifiable private payments via advanced cryptography. This structural narrative—protocol (Zcash), asset (ZEC), gateway (Zodl)—enabled broader exchange listings, institutional interest, and ETF filings. Finally, **organizational constraints were broken**. In early 2026, the ECC team left its non-profit structure after disputes over control, forming Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL). ZODL raised $25M from top VCs (Paradigm, a16z, etc.), gaining the capital and agility of a startup to scale consumer products. Current metrics show strong momentum: social discussion volume for ZEC surged 15,245% in a year, with 81% positive sentiment. The focus is now on enhancing user experience (Zodl wallet), scalability (Tachyon project targeting Visa-level throughput with 25-second blocks), and post-quantum security (quantum-recoverable wallets coming soon). Zcash is positioned to become faster, more usable, scalable, and quantum-resistant.

marsbit9 хв тому

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

marsbit9 хв тому

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbit26 хв тому

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbit26 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片