Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

11h35 ▪ 7 min read ▪ by Luc Jose A.

Summarize this article with:

Rarity could soon no longer be the exclusive domain of bitcoin. According to projections published by Grayscale, the annual growth of Ethereum and Solana supply could fall below gold’s 1.8% by 2031. Indeed, several reforms are currently being debated, including EIP-8361 on Ethereum and SIMD-0550 and SIMD-0553 on Solana. If adopted, ETH’s annual inflation could drop to 0.4%, compared to 1.1% for SOL. This development is likely to reshuffle the cards between rarity, staking yield, and valuation of these two cryptos.

In brief According to a Grayscale study, new technical proposals could reduce Ethereum’s annual inflation to 0.4% and Solana’s to 1.1%, making them rarer than physical gold. The EIP-8361 proposal plans to burn an increasing share of validator rewards as staking increases, bringing ETH issuance back to Bitcoin’s level. By doubling the emission reduction rate via the SIMD-0550 proposal, Solana considerably accelerates its path to a tightly capped supply. Although this tightening reduces direct returns paid to stakers and ETFs, the increased rarity could support token prices and transform these altcoins into leading stores of value. The overhaul of Ethereum’s emission model by EIP-8361 On August 4th, six researchers from the ecosystem, including Justin Drake of the Ethereum Foundation, formally submitted proposal EIP-8361, entitled “Tapered Issuance Burn”. This text aims to fix what the authors call artificial overissuance in the current economic model of the network. Today, validators can still claim a staking yield close to 1.5% per year, even in a scenario where almost all ETH tokens would be locked in the protocol.

According to the diagnosis made by the researchers, this ceiling maintains excessive monetary creation without this corresponding to a real need for operational security. EIP-8361 thus introduces a dynamic mechanism designed to burn an increasingly large share of rewards as the ratio of staked ETH increases, planning a transition over 18 months to burn all rewards once about 60.25 million ETH, or half of the total supply, will be staked.

According to the quantitative models integrated in the proposal and analyzed by Grayscale, Ethereum’s annual issuance would peak around 0.5% at a staking level of 20%, before starting a downward trajectory towards zero as the network approaches the 50% plateau. In its central scenario projected for 2031, the asset manager estimates that ETH’s annual inflation would fall to about 0.4%, thus matching the emission rate anticipated for bitcoin over the same period.

This structural change does not go unnoticed by the institutional financial sector. Grayscale also recalls that its own ETHE spot fund began earlier this year distributing staking yields to its shareholders, constituting the first crypto spot exchange-traded product (ETP) in the United States to implement such a mechanism.

Several fundamental numerical indicators summarize the technical and financial impact of this update for the Ethereum network :

60.25 million ETH : the staking threshold from which 100% of the emission dedicated to rewards will be burned after the 18-month transition ; 0.4% : the theoretical annual inflation rate of ETH supply projected by Grayscale by 2031, equaling that of bitcoin ; 0.5% : the peak that the annual issuance would barely exceed when the network’s staking rate is around 20%. Solana: accelerating supply reduction via SIMD-0550 and SIMD-0553 On its side, Solana follows a separate disinflationary trajectory, centered on improvement documents SIMD-0550 and SIMD-0553. Currently set at about 3.695% per year, this crypto’s inflation rate follows an initial schedule predicting a 15% reduction per year until reaching a long-term floor set at 1.5%. The SIMD-0550 project proposes to accelerate this process by doubling the annual reduction rate, compressing several years of gradual monetary adjustment into a much shorter time frame.

In parallel, the SIMD-0553 proposal modifies transaction fee management to increase the proportion of SOL permanently destroyed, preventing these cryptos from being re-injected to validators. However, Grayscale’s analysis shows that the additional amount of SOL burned via SIMD-0553 remains modest compared to the daily issuance volume under current network conditions, confirming that SIMD-0550 is the real driver of the projected drop to 1.1% by 2031.

This dual technical initiative does not enjoy a fully homogeneous consensus regarding its time feasibility. As Grayscale’s research note explicitly points out, these emission trajectories rely on strict assumptions of immediate implementation without alteration of other operational parameters, a condition considered unlikely to be realized exactly as such in reality.

The political and community dimension plays a key role here. In a recent intervention, Zach Pandl, Grayscale’s research director, qualified the comparative progress of the two networks. He then stated: “Solana’s plan enjoys broader community support and has better chances of being implemented than its Ethereum equivalent”. This divergence in the degree of buy-in from key players proves decisive for investors seeking to incorporate this future rarity in their valuation models.

The economic trade-offs of enhanced rarity The evolution of these emission models places community governance at the heart of the strategic choices of each crypto ecosystem. Although mathematical models anticipate a marked compression of token creation, moving from proposal to effective implementation requires the buy-in of the majority of validation actors.

The difference in support highlighted by Grayscale between Ethereum and Solana illustrates how political and economic considerations influence the adoption of technical updates. On the market side, establishing rarity greater than that of gold marks a stage in the structuring of major altcoins as mature financial assets, capable of competing with traditional safe havens against global inflationary pressures.

Economically, the shift toward algorithmic enhanced rarity imposes a complex trade-off between the unit value of the asset and the gross yield perceived by network participants. By reducing the pace of new token issuance, these reforms de facto decrease nominal income paid to validators and holders of staked crypto ETF shares.

Zach Pandl notes, however, that a smaller circulating supply could support token prices in the market, thus offsetting the mechanical decrease in staking yields. The final equation will depend on the ecosystems’ ability to maintain the security of their consensus while convincing staking actors to accept lower direct rewards in exchange for a theoretically rarer and more robust underlying asset against traditional monetary pressures.

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Luc Jose A.

Diplômé de Sciences Po Toulouse et titulaire d'une certification consultant blockchain délivrée par Alyra, j'ai rejoint l'aventure Cointribune en 2019. Convaincu du potentiel de la blockchain pour transformer de nombreux secteurs de l'économie, j'ai pris l'engagement de sensibiliser et d'informer le grand public sur cet écosystème en constante évolution. Mon objectif est de permettre à chacun de mieux comprendre la blockchain et de saisir les opportunités qu'elle offre. Je m'efforce chaque jour de fournir une analyse objective de l'actualité, de décrypter les tendances du marché, de relayer les dernières innovations technologiques et de mettre en perspective les enjeux économiques et sociétaux de cette révolution en marche.

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.

JPMorgan Chase now lets institutional clients pledge Bitcoin and Ethereum as collateral for U.S. dollar loans, placing crypto on the same ledger as Treasuries and blue-chip equities. For a bank whose CEO spent years calling Bitcoin a fraud, the reversal rewires how capital moves between Wall Street and decentralized networks, and forces every competitor to answer the same question.

Summary

JPMorgan Chase launched a program in March 2026 allowing institutional clients to pledge Bitcoin and Ethereum as collateral for U.S. dollar loans through its Kinexys digital assets platform, with custodians including Fidelity Digital Assets and Coinbase Custody holding the pledged tokens.
The bank applies estimated haircuts of 30% to 50% on crypto collateral, meaning a client pledging $100,000 in Bitcoin may receive only $50,000 to $70,000 in financing, with real-time oracle feeds from providers such as Chainlink adjusting valuations continuously.
This move follows JPMorgan’s filing of bitcoin-backed structured notes tied to BlackRock’s IBIT exchange-traded fund, offering leveraged returns of up to 1.5x and potential gains of 16% if IBIT hits predetermined targets by December 2026.
Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Bank of America are building a tokenized deposit network launching in the first half of 2027, suggesting JPMorgan’s collateral program is the opening act of a broader Wall Street integration.
The cultural shift is stark: CEO Jamie Dimon once called Bitcoin a “hyped-up fraud” and a “pet rock,” yet the bank now treats Bitcoin identically to stocks, bonds, and gold on its collateral schedule.

The pledged assets never leave cold storage at third-party custodians such as Fidelity Digital Assets and Coinbase Custody, but the dollars they unlock are as real as any credit line backed by government paper. JPMorgan Chase opened the program in March 2026 through its Kinexys digital assets platform, and the competitive cascade it triggered is already reshaping the banking industry.

From “pet rock” to pledgeable asset
Jamie Dimon’s public disdain for Bitcoin has been a recurring fixture of earnings calls and conference panels since at least 2017. He called it a fraud, compared it to tulip mania, and warned employees that trading it would be grounds for termination. Yet JPMorgan’s institutional clients kept asking for exposure, and the bank kept quietly building infrastructure to serve that demand. The Kinexys platform, formerly known as Onyx, now processes more than $5 billion in daily transaction volume and has handled over $3 trillion in cumulative settlements since its launch. Adding crypto collateral to that engine was less a philosophical U-turn and more the logical next step for a system already designed to move tokenized value at scale.

The internal evolution at JPMorgan tells a more nuanced story than the public rhetoric suggests. While Dimon was calling Bitcoin a fraud in shareholder letters, the bank’s technology division was hiring blockchain engineers, filing patents on tokenized settlement systems, and building the infrastructure that would become Kinexys. The digital assets team operated with a degree of autonomy that allowed it to build production-grade systems while the CEO continued to express skepticism on CNBC. That dynamic, where the engineering side of a bank runs ahead of the executive messaging, is common in large financial institutions. It happened with derivatives in the 1980s, with electronic trading in the 1990s, and with algorithmic market-making in the 2000s. The public stance catches up to the private investment, usually when a revenue opportunity becomes too large to ignore.

Eric Trump captured the irony at Consensus Miami 2026, pointing out that JPMorgan had gone from “crapping all over bitcoin” to offering mortgage products backed by crypto holdings in roughly 18 months. The timeline matters because it compresses what analysts expected to be a multi-year adoption curve into something closer to a sprint. When the bank that sets the pace for Wall Street lending accepts an asset as collateral, it sends a signal that cascades through compliance departments, risk committees, and boardrooms at every other major financial institution.

How the collateral program works
The mechanics mirror traditional securities lending more closely than most observers expected. A hedge fund or corporate treasury deposits Bitcoin or Ethereum with a third-party custodian, typically Fidelity Digital Assets or Coinbase Custody. JPMorgan never takes direct possession of the tokens. Instead, the bank receives a custodial receipt confirming the deposit, and the Kinexys platform records the pledge on its permissioned blockchain. The client then receives a U.S. dollar loan, with the crypto holdings serving as security.

Real-time price feeds, sourced from oracle providers including Chainlink, continuously update the valuation of the pledged assets. If the value of the collateral drops below a predetermined threshold, the system issues a margin call automatically. The client must either deposit additional collateral or repay part of the loan. If neither happens within the specified window, the custodian can liquidate the crypto position to cover the shortfall. The entire lifecycle, from pledge to margin call to potential liquidation, runs on blockchain rails that operate around the clock, a meaningful upgrade over the batch-processing cycles of traditional collateral management.

One detail that distinguishes this program from crypto-native lending platforms is the separation between custody and credit. On platforms like Aave or Compound, the collateral and the lending pool exist in the same smart contract ecosystem. A bug in the protocol can expose both simultaneously. JPMorgan’s structure intentionally fragments these functions across different entities: the bank underwrites the loan, the custodian holds the tokens, and the oracle provider supplies the pricing. That fragmentation adds operational complexity but creates firebreaks. A failure at any one layer does not automatically cascade into the others.

The initial rollout targets high-net-worth clients and institutional players. Retail access is not part of the current scope, though internal JPMorgan documents referenced by Bloomberg suggest the bank is evaluating a phased expansion that could include qualified retail investors by mid-2027.

The haircut question
Collateral haircuts are where the details reveal how seriously a bank treats an asset class. U.S. Treasuries typically carry haircuts of 1% to 5%, reflecting their low volatility and deep liquidity. Investment-grade corporate bonds sit in the 5% to 15% range. Gold, depending on the form and custodian, attracts haircuts of 10% to 25%.

JPMorgan’s reported haircuts for Bitcoin collateral land between 30% and 50%. That range acknowledges Bitcoin’s realized volatility, which has averaged roughly 50% to 70% annualized over the past five years, while still treating the asset as meaningfully pledgeable. A client depositing $1 million in Bitcoin would receive between $500,000 and $700,000 in loan proceeds. The spread within that range likely depends on the client’s creditworthiness, the loan tenor, and prevailing market conditions.

These numbers are not punitive by historical standards. When Goldman Sachs and other tier-one banks first explored Bitcoin-backed lending through tri-party repo arrangements, internal models suggested haircuts as high as 70%. The compression from 70% to a midpoint of roughly 40% over just a few years reflects both declining realized volatility as the asset matures and growing confidence in custodial infrastructure. If Bitcoin’s annualized volatility continues to fall, as it has with each successive halving cycle, the haircuts will tighten further. A world in which Bitcoin collateral receives a 20% haircut, comparable to high-yield corporate bonds, is plausible within the next three to five years.

What changes when Bitcoin becomes a balance-sheet instrument
The shift from speculative asset to pledgeable collateral rewires incentive structures across the financial system. Consider three immediate consequences.

First, it creates a reason to hold Bitcoin that has nothing to do with price appreciation. A corporate treasurer sitting on $50 million in Bitcoin can now borrow against that position to fund operations, acquisitions, or working capital without triggering a taxable event. The cost of capital for that borrowing, once haircuts and interest rates are factored in, may compare favorably to unsecured corporate debt for many mid-tier firms. Bitcoin becomes a tool for liquidity management, not just a bet on number-go-up.

Second, it introduces a new class of forced sellers. Margin calls on crypto-collateralized loans create liquidation pressure that did not exist when Bitcoin sat entirely outside the banking system. A sharp drawdown that triggers widespread margin calls at JPMorgan and its eventual competitors could amplify selling in a way that the market has not yet experienced at institutional scale. The plumbing that makes collateral possible also makes cascading liquidations possible.

Third, it pressures accounting standards. Under current U.S. GAAP rules updated in late 2024, companies can carry Bitcoin at fair value with changes flowing through earnings. If banks are treating Bitcoin as loan collateral, auditors and regulators will face increasing pressure to harmonize the treatment of crypto assets across the financial system. The gap between how a bank values Bitcoin as collateral and how a corporate borrower accounts for it on its balance sheet creates friction that the system will eventually resolve.

Fourth, it changes how Bitcoin miners and large holders think about treasury management. Companies like MARA Holdings have already used Bitcoin to refinance debt through crypto-native lenders such as Arch Lending. The entry of JPMorgan into this market gives those same borrowers access to cheaper capital, longer tenors, and the reputational cover of borrowing from a systemically important bank. The interest rates on JPMorgan’s crypto-collateralized loans have not been publicly disclosed, but the bank’s cost of funding is significantly lower than any crypto-native lender. That cost advantage will pull borrowing volume away from decentralized platforms and into the traditional banking system, an ironic outcome for an asset class built on the premise of disintermediation.

The competitive cascade
JPMorgan rarely moves first without knowing that competitors are watching. Goldman Sachs has been working on its own crypto-collateral program through tri-party repo structures. Citigroup is building custody rails designed to handle $30 trillion in tokenized assets. Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup are jointly constructing a tokenized deposit network that launches in the first half of 2027 and would allow round-the-clock corporate fund transfers. Each of these initiatives is a precondition for accepting crypto collateral at scale.

The pattern echoes what happened with prime brokerage services for hedge funds in the 1990s. Once one bank offered a comprehensive package, every competitor had to match it or risk losing clients. The same dynamic is playing out with crypto services. JPMorgan has already filed to issue bitcoin-backed structured notes tied to BlackRock’s IBIT ETF, offering leveraged returns and conditional principal protection. Goldman Sachs is expected to announce similar products before the end of the third quarter. The question is no longer whether traditional banks will offer crypto-backed financial products, but how quickly the full menu will be available.

Regional banks face a different calculus. They lack the technology budgets and regulatory relationships to build Kinexys-style platforms from scratch. Most will rely on infrastructure partners, likely the same custodians and oracle providers that JPMorgan uses, to offer white-label versions of crypto collateral services. The result is a tiered market in which the largest banks offer bespoke crypto lending directly, mid-tier banks partner with fintechs, and smaller institutions simply refer clients elsewhere. That tiering already exists for foreign exchange and derivatives. Crypto is following the same organizational logic.

The opposing case: why this could unravel
Every structural shift comes with scenarios that could reverse it. The most direct threat is a regulatory crackdown. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has not issued definitive guidance on bank-held crypto collateral, and a change in administration or a major crypto-related loss at a systemically important bank could prompt restrictions that make the economics unworkable.

Volatility remains the fundamental challenge. Bitcoin’s 30-day realized volatility spiked above 100% during the March 2020 crash and exceeded 80% during the May 2021 selloff. A similar spike under the new collateral regime would trigger margin calls at a scale the system has not been tested against. If custodians cannot process liquidations quickly enough during a flash crash, the resulting losses could make banks pull back from crypto collateral entirely.

Custodial risk is the dark scenario. The collapse of FTX in 2022 showed that even large, apparently reputable crypto custodians can fail catastrophically. JPMorgan mitigates this by using regulated third-party custodians with segregated accounts, but the risk is not zero. A breach, hack, or operational failure at a major custodian could freeze collateral and create cascading defaults.

The invalidation criteria are clear: if any G-SIB (global systemically important bank) suspends its crypto collateral program due to losses or regulatory action within the next 18 months, the competitive cascade described above stalls. If two or more suspend simultaneously, the entire thesis reverses and crypto reverts to its pre-collateral status as a purely speculative asset class in the eyes of traditional finance.

Ethereum’s parallel path and the altcoin question
JPMorgan’s program accepts Ethereum alongside Bitcoin, but the two assets occupy different positions in the institutional hierarchy. JPMorgan’s own analysts have argued that Bitcoin has pulled decisively ahead as the institutional base layer, with spot Bitcoin ETFs recovering roughly two-thirds of their October 2025 outflows while spot Ethereum ETFs clawed back only about one-third.

The divergence matters for collateral because it affects how banks model risk. Bitcoin’s correlation structure, its relationship to equities, gold, and real interest rates, is better understood and more stable than Ethereum’s. A risk committee evaluating Ethereum collateral must also consider smart contract risk, network upgrade risk, and the possibility that DeFi activity on Ethereum declines further, reducing the fundamental demand for the token. These factors justify wider haircuts on Ethereum than on Bitcoin, and internal bank models reportedly reflect that asymmetry.

The broader altcoin universe is nowhere near collateral eligibility. Tokens with lower liquidity, shorter track records, and less regulatory clarity will remain outside the banking system’s collateral framework for the foreseeable future. The gap between Bitcoin and Ethereum on one side and everything else on the other is widening, not narrowing, as institutional infrastructure develops. Solana, despite processing JPMorgan’s first public-blockchain commercial paper issuance, is not on the collateral schedule. Neither are any stablecoins, wrapped tokens, or governance tokens. The threshold for collateral eligibility in the traditional banking system is far higher than the threshold for exchange listing, and that distinction will shape capital allocation for years to come.

For Ethereum specifically, the path to tighter haircuts runs through proving sustained network utility. If staking yields stabilize, layer-2 activity grows, and real-world asset tokenization on Ethereum scales meaningfully, risk committees may eventually treat ETH collateral on terms closer to Bitcoin. But that convergence is not guaranteed, and the current data points in the opposite direction.

What the Bitcoin ETF ecosystem means for collateral
The existence of spot Bitcoin ETFs creates a bridge between crypto-native collateral and traditional securities lending. A bank can accept shares of BlackRock’s IBIT as collateral without ever touching Bitcoin directly. The ETF wrapper provides regulatory clarity, custodial simplicity, and a familiar risk framework. JPMorgan’s structured notes tied to IBIT are an early example of this hybrid approach.

The ETF bridge also creates an interesting arbitrage dynamic. If a client can pledge IBIT shares at a 10% haircut through a standard securities lending agreement, or pledge the underlying Bitcoin at a 40% haircut through the crypto collateral program, the economics strongly favor the ETF route. This means that much of the early demand for crypto collateral may flow through ETFs rather than spot crypto, at least until haircuts on direct Bitcoin pledges tighten to competitive levels.

Over time, the two tracks should converge. As banks gain experience with direct Bitcoin custody and the realized loss rates on crypto-collateralized loans become visible, the haircut premium for spot Bitcoin over ETF shares will narrow. The end state is one in which Bitcoin, whether held directly or through an ETF, is treated as a single asset class on the collateral schedule, with haircuts reflecting the underlying volatility rather than the wrapper.

The regulatory dimension reinforces this convergence. The Clarity Act, which JPMorgan publicly backed despite lowering its estimate of the bill’s passage probability to below 50%, would provide a federal framework for digital asset classification. If passed, the act would remove much of the legal uncertainty that currently justifies wider haircuts on spot crypto versus ETF shares. Even without the Clarity Act, the SEC’s approval of spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs has already created a regulatory precedent that treats the underlying assets as legitimate enough to wrap in registered securities. The collateral question is the next logical extension of that precedent.

What to watch
The next 12 months will determine whether JPMorgan’s collateral program is the beginning of a permanent structural shift or an experiment that gets walked back under pressure. Three signals matter most.

The first is competitor entry. If Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and at least one European universal bank launch comparable programs by mid-2027, the shift is durable. If JPMorgan remains alone, something is wrong with the economics or the regulatory environment.

The second is haircut compression. The current 30% to 50% range for Bitcoin reflects uncertainty. If that range tightens to 20% to 35% within a year, it means realized loss rates are low and the bank’s risk models are being validated by actual experience. If haircuts widen, the opposite is true.

The third is a stress test. The program has not yet been through a genuine market dislocation. The first 20%-plus drawdown in Bitcoin while significant collateral is pledged through the system will reveal whether the liquidation mechanisms work as designed. A clean liquidation cycle, one that processes margin calls and sells collateral without systemic disruption, would be the strongest possible endorsement of the program’s architecture.

Beyond these three signals, watch for the accounting and regulatory responses. If the Financial Accounting Standards Board issues updated guidance specifically addressing crypto collateral in banking contexts, it signals that the infrastructure is being built to last. If the OCC publishes interpretive letters clarifying the permissibility of crypto-backed lending for nationally chartered banks, the door opens for institutions that have been waiting on the sidelines. Conversely, if enforcement actions or congressional hearings target bank-held crypto collateral specifically, the expansion timeline extends significantly. The regulatory posture in Washington over the next year will shape the speed of this transition more than any single bank’s internal decision.

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk, and readers should conduct their own research before making any financial decisions. Published on August 16, 2026.

Bank Leumi, 0ne of Israel’s largest banking institutions, has formed a partnership with Galaxy Digital (Nasdaq: GLXY) to introduce cryptocurrency trading services for its clients. The collaboration positions the institution as the first bank in the country to plan direct digital asset trading offerings through its own platforms.

Under the arrangement, customers of Bank Leumi and its mobile digital banking division, PEPPER, will gain the ability to purchase, hold, and sell select cryptocurrencies—initially including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana.

These transactions will occur within a dedicated, secure portion of the Leumi

Trade capital markets application, allowing users to manage digital assets alongside their existing investment activities without needing separate exchange accounts or personal wallets.

The service is projected to become available in early 2027.

Galaxy Digital will supply the core infrastructure via its GalaxyOne Institutional platform, which is designed for banks, asset managers, and other institutional clients and emphasizes institutional-grade execution.

Separately, Bank Leumi has agreed to utilize Galaxy’s Custody Infrastructure platform—previously known as GK8—to underpin the secure holding of digital assets.

Maya Ravia, Head of Strategy at Bank Leumi, highlighted the move as a key element of the bank’s broader innovation efforts.

She noted that it aims to deliver straightforward, secure, and regulated access to digital asset trading through leading technological systems.

Ravia emphasized the bank’s view that digital assets are increasingly embedding themselves into the global financial landscape, and that institutions like Leumi have a responsibility to offer customers participation in this evolution within a trusted banking environment.

Lior Lamesh, CEO of Galaxy Israel, framed the partnership as part of a larger shift in finance toward open and programmable systems.

He pointed out that early-adopting banks will help shape the coming era, and that Leumi selected Galaxy to enable this capability for Israeli customers.

Lamesh also referenced the rapid growth of the local digital assets market and Galaxy’s role in delivering a unified platform combining trading and custody with strong security standards, intended for banks worldwide.

Bank Leumi, established more than 120 years ago and operating without a controlling shareholder, serves millions of clients spanning households, small businesses, mid-sized firms, and large corporations.

It blends a physical branch network with advanced digital and artificial intelligence tools, having improved operational efficiency through ongoing technological upgrades.

Galaxy Digital, listed on Nasdaq under the ticker GLXY, focuses on digital assets and data center infrastructure.

Its offerings include trading, advisory services, asset management, staking, self-custody, and tokenization, while also developing facilities to support artificial intelligence and high-performance computing workloads.

This development follows an earlier, unrealized 2022 effort by the bank involving a different partner.

The current initiative relies on Galaxy’s established institutional tools and Israeli-rooted custody technology.

Commercial details such as fees and specific eligibility criteria have not been disclosed.

Regulatory clearance, including from the Bank of Israel, is anticipated as a necessary step before launch. The partnership reflects growing institutional interest in bringing cryptocurrency access inside established banking interfaces, potentially expanding regulated participation in digital assets within Israel’s financial system.

Ethereum developers are narrowing the scope of Hegotá, the network upgrade planned for 2027, as client teams weigh competing proposals covering censorship resistance, account abstraction, privacy, gas pricing and validator economics.

Summary

FOCIL is currently Hegotá’s only scheduled EIP, while dozens of other proposals remain under review.
Execution client teams must submit Hegotá proposal preference lists by September 10, core developers agreed.
Frame Transactions remain considered, with developers comparing EIP-8141 against EIP-8130 for Ethereum native account abstraction.
Ethereum’s official roadmap places Glamsterdam in Q4 2026, followed by Hegotá sometime during 2027 currently.
EIP-8368 would recalibrate state-growth pricing if Ethereum raises its gas limit beyond existing reference levels.

Ethereum researcher Toni Wahrstätter said on Aug. 16 that 66 proposals were being considered across the broader Hegotá discussion.

That figure should not be read as 66 approved upgrade features. The official Hegotá Meta EIP currently lists FOCIL as the sole feature scheduled for inclusion, Frame Transactions as considered for inclusion, and dozens of other EIPs at earlier stages. Ethereum.org places Hegotá in 2027, after Glamsterdam in Q4 2026.

FOCIL is already Hegotá’s main scheduled feature
EIP-7805, known as Fork Choice enforced Inclusion Lists, is currently Hegotá’s only scheduled EIP. FOCIL lets a committee of validators publish transaction inclusion lists that block builders are expected to honor, with attesters refusing blocks that improperly omit eligible transactions. The design targets censorship resistance as block construction becomes more specialized.

As crypto.news previously reported, FOCIL is intended to strengthen Ethereum transaction inclusion when large builders control much of block production. It has also become part of Ethereum’s wider privacy roadmap because stronger inclusion guarantees can make it harder to censor privacy related transactions.

Frame Transactions face an August decision point
Native account abstraction remains less settled. EIP-8141 would introduce Frame Transactions, allowing transaction validation, execution and gas payment to be defined through programmable frames. Its stated goals include alternative signature schemes, key rotation, gas sponsorship and a path away from mandatory ECDSA authentication.

Wahrstätter argued that Frame Transactions “should join” FOCIL, alongside Keyed Nonces and Recent Roots, as part of a native privacy stack. That remains his position rather than a core developer decision. At the Aug. 13 All Core Developers Execution call, teams agreed to compare EIP-8141 with EIP-8130 at an Aug. 25 breakout, with a decision targeted for the Aug. 27 ACDE meeting.

Ethereum's next year's upgrade, Hegotá, is being scoped right now.

66 proposals are on the table and over the next few core dev calls, this list will be narrowed down to the EIPs that get implementations, devnets, testnets, and a realistic chance of shipping in 2027. What…

— Toni Wahrstätter ⟠ (@nero_eth) August 16, 2026

As crypto.news reported, Ethereum’s account abstraction roadmap is increasingly tied to privacy. EIP-8250 and EIP-8272 are already listed among Hegotá proposals, but neither is scheduled for inclusion yet.

Gas repricing proposals target further Layer 1 scaling
Several candidates focus on making larger blocks safer. EIP-8131 would impose a uniform transaction content floor of 64 gas per user controlled byte. EIP-8279 would extend similar accounting to Block Access List data, closing a route through which blocks could become larger than intended as Ethereum raises its gas limit.

EIP-8368 goes further by proposing to recalibrate state creation pricing as the block gas limit rises beyond the reference level used by Glamsterdam. The draft still contains unspecified parameters, but developers said during ACDE #243 that the work is aimed at preparing for a possible path toward 600 million gas. Glamsterdam itself is currently targeting a 200 million gas limit.

In related coverage, Glamsterdam is already testing major Layer 1 scaling changes, including block level access lists and extensive gas repricing.

What happens next for Hegotá
Core developers said the Hegotá proposed for inclusion list should be finalized by late August. Proposals without an active champion can be removed from consideration, while execution client teams must submit ranked preference lists by Sept. 10.

Other ideas remain under debate, including eight second slots under EIP-8198, anti correlation validator penalties under EIP-7716, post quantum cryptography and proposed changes to ETH issuance. These are not confirmed Hegotá features. EIP-8198 remains a draft, while EIP-7716 is currently marked stagnant despite appearing on the Hegotá proposal list.

The next few developer calls will therefore determine which proposals move into implementations and devnets. Until those decisions are made, FOCIL remains the only Hegotá feature formally scheduled for inclusion.

Cover image via www.youtube.com

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

Hashcash creator and Blockstream CEO Adam Back has publicly backed Ethereum's cryptographic course correction, saying the industry should have abandoned experimental algorithms in favor of time-tested security standards long ago.

His statement came as a reply to Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, who announced that the platform was completely shutting down its project to integrate the specialized Poseidon hash function. 

After eight years of work and substantial investment, Ethereum is returning to conventional SHA or BLAKE2s standards at Layer 1.

HOT Stories

Why Ethereum cryptography pivot proves Adam Back rightCommenting on Drake's post, Back said he had never trusted custom ZK-optimized algorithms because they had not been sufficiently studied by the global community. "Never liked prover-friendly hashes anyway," Back stated directly, adding that this approach always produces "an under-reviewed quirky hash." 

The Blockstream CEO emphasized that he has always followed the principle of maximum reliability in his own work. "Personally, even pre-general provers, I preferred to pay the higher proving cost of standard hash algorithms," he concluded, choosing higher computational costs over the risk of using immature code.

For my money even before the more general provers, I preferred to pay the cost of proving the standard hash algorithms.

— Adam Back (@adam3us) August 14, 2026 Until recently, conventional cryptography was considered too computationally demanding for zero-knowledge systems, forcing developers to create custom solutions such as Poseidon.

However, Back's conservative position has now received technical validation following recent breakthroughs in binary-field mathematics.

You Might Also Like

The development of the Binius proof system in 2023 and Flook in 2024 made it possible to process up to one million conventional hashes per second with minimal overhead on an ordinary laptop. This deprived Poseidon of its technical rationale, forcing Ethereum to write off years of development costs and acknowledge that the conservative camp was right.

According to the Ethereum Foundation's approved timeline, the integration of updated post-quantum protection will begin with the launch of the LeanVM virtual machine in 2027 and will be fully completed at the network's base layer by 2028.

18h19 ▪ 6 min read ▪ by Ariela R.

Summarize this article with:

The crypto blockchain Solana is preparing a major overhaul of its fee structure via the SIMD-0553 proposal. The model would shift from a flat fee to pricing based on requested resources, with a portion burned. The daily SOL burn could thus be multiplied by 12 to 14 times. Specifically, it would rise from 650 to 9,000 SOL. Accompanied by SIMD-0550, which accelerates disinflation, this crypto reform could bring Solana closer to a deflationary economy. The governance vote is ongoing until August 18, 2026.

In brief SIMD-0553 proposes charging each transaction based on five categories of requested resources. Deployment would follow three phases: 0.1, 0.25, then 0.5 lamport per cost unit. Some swaps without priority fees could see increases up to 3,150%. Light transactions might pay less than the current 5,000 lamports. The mechanism would burn up to 9,000 SOL per day, compared to about 648 SOL currently. Solana: why does the crypto blockchain want to charge the “big consumers” of resources? On July 20, 2026, the Solana Improvement Document 0553 was merged into the foundation’s official repository. Proposed by Cavey, a researcher at Temporal and engineer at Helius, this text challenges a long-standing dogma: the flat fee. Currently, each transaction on Solana costs 5,000 lamports, whether it consumes 10,000 or 200 million CPU cycles. Tomorrow, this will be different.

In an interview with Cointelegraph Magazine, Cavey stated:

If I submit a transaction that does nothing versus a transaction that burns 200 million CPU cycles, I pay the same amount.

On the surface, the mechanism seems simple. The 5,000 lamports flat fee disappears. It will be replaced by two components:

an inclusion fee of 2,500 lamports paid to the validator who produces the block; a resource fee calculated on the compute units requested by the transaction. This second part will not be paid to validators. It will be burned, that is, permanently removed from circulation.

The numbers prove particularly interesting Currently, Solana burns about 650 SOL per day. This represents roughly $47,000 at the current price of $75. If SIMD-0553 reaches its terminal rate, this daily crypto burn could rise to 7,500 SOL (or even 9,000 SOL), equating to a jump of 12 to 14 times. In dollars, this means $650,000 worth of SOL incinerated every day.

According to Cavey:

The main goal is to align core developers, application developers, and users to make Solana faster.

There remains, however, a side effect that excites holders of the SOL crypto: deflation.

Today, Solana issues about 60,000 SOL per day. Inflation hovers around 3.8%. Even with 9,000 SOL burned daily, the token would remain inflationary. Fortunately, SIMD-0553 does not travel alone. It is accompanied by SIMD-0550, a companion proposal that would double the annual disinflation rate from 15% to 30%.

Result: the inflation floor of 1.5% would be reached in 2029 instead of 2032. Over six years, 18.9 million fewer SOL would be issued. This amounts to about 1.36 billion dollars at the current price.

A high-tension crypto vote before August 18 The signaling vote began in early August 2026. 15% of the stake must be reached to trigger a formal vote. As of August 8, between 25 and 63 million SOL had signaled support. This represents between 5.8% and 14.4% of the total stake of 432.65 million SOL. Helius, one of the largest validator operators, has provided massive support.

The deadline is set for August 18, 2026. By then, about 40 million SOL of positive signals are still missing. This represents nearly 2.9 billion dollars of stake.

If the threshold is reached, the implementation will occur in phases via feature gates in the future Solana 4.3 version. However, the terminal rate of 0.5 lamport per compute unit will not apply all at once. The transition will instead be gradual.

What impacts for crypto investors and developers on Solana? For crypto investors, this proposal sends a strong signal. Solana is no longer content to be fast. It wants to be efficient. And above all, it wants that efficiency to mechanically reflect in the supply of SOL tokens. This is a fundamental difference with Ethereum. The post-EIP-1559 burn is linked to network usage. However, transaction fees remain high. On Solana, the idea is to burn more while keeping negligible costs for the average crypto user.

The issue of centralization also looms. If arbitrage bots and high-frequency traders see their costs explode, will they migrate to other chains? In this context, Solana has already lost some of its MEV activity to competing crypto networks. Increasing taxes on heavy users could thus push them towards alternatives like Sui or Aptos.

In any case, the opportunity is real. By making simple crypto transactions cheaper and complex transactions more costly, Solana creates an economic incentive for optimization. The fact is that developers will need to refine their code. Results:

End users will benefit from lighter applications. The overall Solana crypto network will gain in resilience. One thing is certain: the SIMD-0553 reform on Solana is not just a technical adjustment. It is an economic overhaul that could redefine who wins and who loses on the crypto blockchain. Between massive burn, forced optimization, and tension on validators’ revenues, the outcome of the August 18 vote will determine if Solana chooses efficiency at all costs or the stability of existing incentives.

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Ariela R.

My name is Ariela, and I am 31 years old. I have been working in the field of web writing for 7 years now. I only discovered trading and cryptocurrency a few years ago, but it is a universe that greatly interests me. The topics covered on the platform allow me to learn more. A singer in my spare time, I also cultivate a great passion for music and reading (and animals!)

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.

JPMorgan, with AUM of $5.1 trillion, has revealed its quarter two (Q2) report with the U.S SEC. Its latest SEC filing shows a sharp rise in Bitcoin exposure and a 338% jump in Ethereum ETF holdings.

The bank also returned to XRP through two ETF positions and added a new position in the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF.

JPMorgan Doubles Down on Bitcoin ETF ExposureAccording to JPMorgan’s Q2 2026 13F filing, the bank held a combined 10.4 million shares of BlackRock’s IBIT, worth about $355.7 million as of June 30. These shares appear across three separate IBIT fund entries in the filing and add up to the reported total. 

That marks a sharp increase from the first quarter, when JPMorgan reported about 8.3 million IBIT shares worth nearly $162 million.

JPMorgan’s options position also shifted during the quarter. IBIT call options increased to 3.94 million, while put options dropped from 4.75 million to about 3.5 million.

The increase comes even as Bitcoin ETF flows have remained unstable. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $131.1 million in net outflows on Aug. 13, following a much larger $61.16 million outflow on Aug. 12.

Ethereum ETF Exposure Jumps 338%JPMorgan’s Q2 filing also showed a much larger position in BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA). The bank held nearly 1.17 million ETHA shares worth about $14.3 million, marking a 338% increase from the previous quarter.

The ETHA position shows that JPMorgan has increased its exposure to both Bitcoin and Ethereum through U.S.-listed ETF products.

However, the size of the Bitcoin position remains much larger. JPMorgan’s IBIT holdings are more than 20 times the value of its reported ETHA position.

JPMorgan Added XRP Back Through ETFsThe biggest surprise in the filing may be JPMorgan’s return to XRP.

The bank’s Q1 filing showed that its Bitwise XRP ETF position had fallen from 3,870 shares to zero. The latest filing reverses that move, showing fresh exposure through both the Bitwise XRP ETF and Grayscale XRP Trust ETF.

The Bitwise position was worth about $1,356, while the Grayscale XRP ETF holding was valued at roughly $3,763.

JPMorgan also reported 19,894 shares of Armada Acquisition Corp II, worth approximately $207,295. The company is linked to a Ripple-backed deal and trades under the XRPN ticker.

In addition, JPMorgan initiated a new position in the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF (BSOL), holding roughly 47,500 shares.

The next 13F filing, expected in November, will show whether the bank continued adding Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP exposure during Q3 or reduced its positions.

Story Ends Here

Trust with CoinPedia:CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.

Investment Disclaimer:All opinions and insights shared represent the author's own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.

Sponsored and Advertisements:Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.

Read the Next News

The world’s largest sovereign wealth fund just quietly bought its way into one of the most aggressive Ethereum accumulation plays on public markets. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global disclosed a 6,151,062-share position in BitMine Immersion Technologies, valued at $81.87 million, according to a Norges Bank holdings filing for the quarter ended June 30.

The stake gives Norway’s $1.7 trillion fund indirect exposure to Ethereum through BMNR, a company that has pivoted from Bitcoin mining to hoarding ETH like it’s going out of style. As of early August, BitMine held approximately 5.8 million ETH, representing roughly 4.8% of Ethereum’s total circulating supply.

From Bitcoin miner to Ethereum whale BitMine’s transformation has been swift and deliberate. The company launched its ETH treasury strategy on June 30, 2025, raising $250 million in a private placement to fund the pivot. That same day, Thomas Lee was appointed chairman, marking a clean break from the firm’s legacy mining operations.

The playbook borrows heavily from MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin treasury model, but applies it to Ethereum with one crucial twist: staking. Of BitMine’s 5.8 million ETH holdings, more than 5 million are currently staked, generating yield that the company projects will produce hundreds of millions in annual revenue.

Advertisement

BitMine has been winding down its self-mining operations while maintaining some ancillary Bitcoin holdings. The company now focuses on ETH per share as its primary performance metric, a framework that makes it easier for traditional investors to evaluate the stock as a leveraged bet on Ethereum’s price.

The target is ambitious. BitMine wants to hold 5% of Ethereum’s circulating supply, and at 4.8%, it’s nearly there.

Why Norges Bank’s position matters Norges Bank hasn’t publicly commented on its strategic rationale for the BMNR stake, which is typical for the fund. Norway’s wealth fund holds thousands of positions across global equity markets, and individual holdings don’t necessarily reflect targeted conviction bets. The fund’s mandate is broad diversification across public equities, fixed income, and real estate.

Norway’s fund has previous form with crypto-adjacent investments. It has held positions in companies like Coinbase, MicroStrategy, and various Bitcoin mining firms through its broad equity portfolio. But a stake in a company whose explicit corporate strategy is to accumulate and stake as much ETH as possible represents a different category of exposure.

The distinction matters because staking introduces yield dynamics that don’t exist in Bitcoin treasury plays. When MicroStrategy holds Bitcoin, it sits there. When BitMine stakes Ethereum, it earns protocol rewards. That transforms the investment thesis from pure price appreciation to something closer to a yield-bearing digital asset strategy, wrapped in a public equity shell.

Institutional validation and market implications For Ethereum’s market dynamics, having a single entity control nearly 5% of circulating supply creates interesting pressure. That volume of ETH locked in staking reduces available supply on exchanges, which can amplify price movements in either direction.

When the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund shows up in the shareholder registry of an ETH accumulation vehicle, it lowers the perceived career risk for portfolio managers at pension funds, endowments, and family offices considering similar exposure. The logic is straightforward: if Norway’s fund can hold it, the compliance conversation gets easier for everyone else.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

The Ethereum Foundation is walking back one of its more ambitious cryptographic bets. After spending over a year evaluating the Poseidon hash function as a potential upgrade for base-layer hashing, the foundation is now favoring SHA and BLAKE3, two well-established alternatives with decades of security research behind them.

The reason is almost counterintuitive: the very zero-knowledge proof systems that made Poseidon attractive in the first place have gotten so much better that the exotic hash no longer offers a meaningful edge.

From darling to doubt
Poseidon first entered the conversation as a serious candidate in February 2025, when Vitalik Buterin floated the idea of migrating Ethereum’s base-layer hashing to Poseidon, pointing to its dramatically lower constraint counts inside ZK circuits. In plain terms, Poseidon was designed from the ground up to play nicely with zero-knowledge proofs, making it cheaper and faster to verify computations on-chain.

Advertisement

The hash function itself dates back to 2021, co-designed by cryptographer Dmitry Khovratovich. Its core selling point was reducing the computational overhead compared to Pedersen hashes, the incumbent in many ZK systems.

The Ethereum Foundation took the idea seriously enough to launch a dedicated Poseidon Cryptanalysis program, offering bounties and prizes totaling up to $1 million. The program, which includes an advisory board and multiple phases, is set to run through December 2026.

Security concerns pile up
By August 2026, the Ethereum Research community had grown increasingly vocal about potential weaknesses in Poseidon. Discussions centered on concerns around preimage attacks, which involve finding an input that produces a specific hash output, and questions about whether certain round configurations were robust enough for a system securing hundreds of billions of dollars in value.

Traditional hashes catch up
When Buterin first championed Poseidon in February 2025, the performance gap between algebraic hashes and traditional ones inside ZK circuits was substantial. But ZK proving systems have improved rapidly. Optimizations in proof generation, hardware acceleration, and circuit design have collectively narrowed the performance difference, making traditional hashes competitive in modern ZK setups while carrying none of the security question marks that come with a five-year-old algebraic hash.

What this means for Ethereum’s roadmap
Sticking with SHA or BLAKE3 carries a practical benefit beyond security: compatibility. These hashes are already widely supported across existing tooling, hardware, and software stacks.

Ethereum’s long-term roadmap includes preparations for post-quantum security. Both SHA-256 and BLAKE3 are considered more straightforward to evaluate in post-quantum security models, partly because their mathematical foundations are better understood.

The $1 million cryptanalysis program will continue running through December 2026, so the door isn’t fully closed on Poseidon. But as of August 2026, momentum has clearly shifted toward SHA and BLAKE3 within the Ethereum Research community.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

In brief Ether.fi is adding tokenized assets and loans backed by multiple holdings. Fiat accounts will support more than 30 currencies and payment methods. Tokenized stocks and metals will not be available to U.S. users. Ether.fi, a decentralized finance platform known for Ethereum staking, is adding tokenized asset trading, portfolio-backed loans, and fiat accounts to its self-custodial app.

Announced on Thursday, Ether.fi said users can now trade tokenized stocks, metals, and crypto assets through its app. An integrated market using decentralized lending protocol Aave on Optimism, an Ethereum scaling network, also lets users lend assets, borrow against their portfolios without selling their holdings, and send or spend the proceeds. New fiat accounts support deposits and withdrawals worldwide.

Myriad: Ethereum next price move? Click the image to make your prediction.“Initially we're supporting existing assets and select tokenized stocks and gold,” Ether.fi founder and CEO Mike Silagadze told Decrypt. Those existing assets include Ethereum, Bitcoin, Hyperliqud, and ETHFI, Ether.fi's native governance token, said Silagadze. “Quickly we'll start adding additional assets as collateral.”

According to Ether.fi, fiat accounts will be available to users who have completed the identity checks required for its payment card. Deposit and withdrawal speeds will vary.

Ether.fi is also introducing automated buybacks of ETHFI and offering 3% cash back on card purchases. The company says it has more than 500,000 members and a $2 billion annual transaction run rate.

Silagadze said portfolio-backed loans and tokenized real-world assets, or RWAs, could attract people who do not already use decentralized finance.

“I think being able to borrow against the whole portfolio, and being able to loop RWAs is going to be popular,” he said. “Also getting cashback on trades and borrows is going to create some buzz, I think.”

The new features are available to new and existing Ether.fi users, although tokenized stock and metals trading is unavailable in the United States and certain other markets.

Silagadze said the expanded platform is intended to serve as an alternative to traditional banks.

“With ether.fi, we’re bridging the gap between decentralized finance and everyday financial needs,” Silagadze said. “Our goal is to replace the traditional bank for most users and give them tools and benefits that were previously available only to institutions and high-net-worth individuals. That is the power of DeFi and self-custody.”

Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

Ethereum's staking boom is raising a question that cuts to the heart of the network's monetary policy: can there be too much of a good thing? The share of $ETH locked in proof-of-stake has climbed to around 34%, up from roughly 29% at the start of 2026, meaning about one-third of all circulating ether is now being used to secure the network.

A Proposal to Put a Ceiling on Staking Rewards Six researchers, including Ethereum Foundation contributor Justin Drake, published a formal draft proposal on August 4 that would progressively burn an increasing share of Ethereum validator rewards as the total staking ratio rises. The proposal, titled Tapered Issuance Burn and assigned the identifier EIP-8361, would burn an increasing share of validator rewards as the staking ratio rises, with net issuance effectively reaching zero at a 50% staking threshold.

For the roughly 889,000 active validators securing the network today, the proposal would cut their current annual yield from around 2.6% to approximately 1.2% at activation, under a phased 18-month transition designed to prevent a sudden wave of exits.

The authors frame the mechanism as a fix to a structural flaw. Under the current issuance curve, rewards decline only with the square root of total stake, leaving a residual yield floor even if nearly all ETH becomes staked. This, they contend, incentivizes perpetual growth in staking participation through liquid staking tokens, exchanges, ETFs, and custodial services, potentially concentrating control and eroding the network's capture resistance.

Opposition and Implications for ETH Treasury Firms Supporters say the change strengthens security and limits inflation, while critics warn it could hurt validator incentives and DeFi. Aave founder Stani Kulechov warned the change could make the platform's popular leveraged ETH staking loop unviable, splitting the Ethereum and DeFi communities over the plan. ether.fi founder Mike Silagadze sided with Kulechov, warning that institutions that built ETH allocations around a predictable yield floor would be blindsided by a rate trending toward nothing.

Ethereum-native treasury firms such as Bitmine and SharpLink could also face lower staking revenue if the proposal is implemented. Public companies treating ETH as a reserve asset now move meaningful volume into the validator set, with BitMine Immersion Technologies leading by a wide margin in holdings.

The proposal carries Draft status only and has not been submitted for inclusion in any forthcoming Ethereum upgrade. The network's EIP process typically takes months, sometimes years, of community review before anything nears mainnet. For now, current validator yields and reward structures remain unchanged.

Sources:
The Block: Ethereum researchers propose burning validator rewards to cap staking at 50%
The Defiant: New Ethereum Proposal Would Burn Validator Rewards
Tech Times: Ethereum Proposal Would Zero Staking Rewards Once Half of ETH Supply Is Staked

Circle National Trust custodies the backing, while published Bitcoin addresses and Chainlink Proof of Reserve provide onchain visibility; Arc support remains forthcoming.

Circle renewed its push for cirBTC as neutral institutional collateral in an Aug. 12 post, but the product is not a new launch. It has been live on Ethereum since June 8 and had only about 40 tokens outstanding at the time of review, compared with more than 116,000 WBTC and 97,000 cbBTC.

cirBTC exists onchain and can be minted and redeemed by eligible institutional participants, but distribution remains limited. An Etherscan page for the contract showed a maximum total supply of 40.01955869 cirBTC and 11 holder addresses. CoinGecko labels the asset “preview only” and says it is unavailable on the centralized and decentralized exchanges it tracks.

Circle says Circle Mint provides the institutional workflow for minting and redeeming cirBTC. Ethereum is currently the only live chain Circle identifies for the token; Arc is the next named deployment, with broader multichain support planned.

How the Backing WorkscirBTC is issued by Circle International Bermuda Limited, which Circle identifies as a Class F digital asset business regulated by the Bermuda Monetary Authority. The underlying bitcoin is held through Circle’s Bermuda affiliate and custodied by Circle National Trust for the exclusive benefit of cirBTC holders, according to Circle. The company describes Circle National Trust as a federally chartered national trust bank and qualified custodian supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Circle’s June launch post also said the underlying BTC is segregated from the company’s corporate assets.

A Circle reserve dashboard timestamped Aug. 11 at 8 a.m. showed 40.02159077 cirBTC in supply against 42.5070808 BTC in reserves. The dashboard lists the BTC reserve addresses and their individual balances, allowing counterparties to inspect the holdings on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Circle says cirBTC uses Chainlink Proof of Reserve rather than a monthly attestation model. Chainlink describes the system as publishing verified reserve data onchain so users and protocols can monitor whether tokenized assets remain collateralized.

Circle’s neutrality claim is commercial rather than a claim of decentralized issuance. The company defines neutrality as not operating a competing centralized exchange, decentralized exchange or lending protocol. Minting and redemption run through Circle Mint, while Etherscan identifies the cirBTC token as a proxy contract.

A Long Way From WBTC and cbBTCCoinGecko put WBTC at 116,132 tokens in circulation and a $7.362 billion market capitalization at the time of review. Coinbase Wrapped BTC had 97,231 tokens in circulation and a $6.162 billion market capitalization.

The incumbents also have broader chain footprints. WBTC’s official site identifies Ethereum, Solana, Tron, BNB Chain, Base, Kava and Osmosis as native networks. CoinGecko lists cbBTC deployments on Ethereum, Base, Monad, Solana and Arbitrum.

cirBTC, by comparison, does not yet have a tracked CoinGecko price or market capitalization. For now, Ethereum is the only live chain Circle identifies, while Arc support is “coming soon,” subject to applicable regulatory approvals.

Ethereum traded at $1,887 early Monday, holding above a critical support area despite a cautious overall market tone. The 24-hour trading volume reached $8.05 billion, and the network’s market capitalization now stands at $227.73 billion.

Key support zone holds steadyTechnical analysts noted that ETH has maintained stability within a major buying zone, with $1,720 to $1,780 acting as a floor for recent price swings. Over the last day, the price movement remained relatively muted, though attention focused on potential breakouts and accumulation patterns.

Crypto analyst Nehal stated that ETH’s structure remains bullish as long as it holds this key support zone. A decisive move above $1,875 resistance could open the door for a rally toward $2,200, especially if trading volume accelerates in tandem.

ETH is holding the $1,720–$1,780 buying zone. If support holds and price breaks above $1,875, the path could lead to $2,200 or more.

If the price falls below the support band, traders warn that bearish momentum could build and recovery prospects would weaken for the short term.

Given that a single Federal Reserve decision or a rapid-fire altcoin listing can quickly shift crypto sentiment, market participants are emphasizing streamlined monitoring. Some traders have shifted to privacy-centric tools like CryptoAppsy, which allow real-time charting, smart alerts, curated news, and macro data from a single dashboard without requiring an account. This consolidation aims to ensure traders act swiftly on critical market changes and avoid delays that can prove costly.

Whale accumulates $170 million in ETHOn-chain data provider Lookonchain reported that a wallet tagged as “0x2d59” acquired another 50,000 ETH, valued at $93.6 million, and promptly staked those coins. This purchase comes just a week after the same wallet acquired 40,000 ETH worth $76.66 million, bringing its recent ETH accumulation total to $170 million.

Lookonchain highlighted that whale 0x2d59, who bought 40,000 ETH for $76.66 million recently, added 50,000 more ETH, staking the entire amount.

By sending the tokens to staking, the whale is signaling little interest in selling in the short term. Some traders view this as a show of strong confidence in Ethereum’s long-term technical outlook, even as Bitcoin trends downward and puts pressure on major altcoins.

Staking activity at record highsEthereum staking has set a new milestone, with 41.9 million ETH now locked, up from 36 million at the beginning of 2026. However, recent staking inflows have slowed, with the last week seeing about 28,700 new ETH compared to earlier surges that topped 200,000. Approximately one-third of all ETH is currently staked on the network.

Developers are now considering EIP-8363, the Tapered Issuance Burn proposal, which would gradually reduce staking rewards as the staked ratio increases. If adopted, annual ETH issuance would decline to 0.8% near present staking rates and approach zero should staking reach 50% of circulating supply.

Meanwhile, BitMine, the publicly listed company with the largest ETH balance, holds 5.81 million coins, staking 87% of its holdings. At current reward levels, BitMine’s annual income from staking approaches $257 million, but the company could see future revenues fall if EIP-8363 is implemented. BitMine has not announced any plans to sell its staked ETH.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

Ethereum is generating more transactions than ever while earning less from each one. Average gas prices have cratered to around 0.5 gwei in early 2026, with some periods dipping as low as 0.15 gwei. For context, a gwei is a billionth of one ETH, meaning the cost of transacting on the world’s largest smart-contract platform has effectively become a rounding error.

The paradox of cheap success Ethereum’s scaling roadmap is working exactly as designed. The Dencun upgrade, which rolled out in 2024, dramatically reduced the cost of posting data from Layer 2 networks back to mainnet. The upcoming Fusaka upgrade, expected later this year, promises to push that efficiency even further.

Over a recent 30-day stretch, Ethereum pulled in roughly $10.3 million in transaction fees. That figure puts it behind both Tron and Solana. Ethereum’s blocks are filling to only about 62% capacity on average, which means the network isn’t even close to the congestion levels that historically drove fees higher.

Advertisement

The practical consequence: less ETH gets burned. When burn rates fall below new issuance, supply expands rather than contracts.

Stablecoins are heading for the exits USDT recorded more than $7 billion in net outflows on Ethereum during Q1 2026. In April 2026, stablecoin transfer volume on the network plunged 42.6% in a single week, even as raw transaction counts surged 41% over the same period.

Ethereum still hosts around $162 billion in stablecoins as of March 2026, roughly 52% of the global supply. But dominance measured in stock doesn’t tell the whole story when the flow is negative.

Historical patterns point to consolidation CryptoQuant analysts have flagged that the combination of low network activity and stablecoin outflows has historically preceded periods of price stabilization rather than sharp moves in either direction.

The deeper structural question is whether Ethereum’s Layer 2 strategy is creating a value-leak problem. Layer 2 networks like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base process millions of transactions daily at negligible cost, but the economic value that once flowed to ETH holders through burns and validator tips increasingly stays within the L2 ecosystem instead.

Some industry voices have emphasized the urgent need for improved mainnet throughput to recapture higher-value settlement activity. The logic: if Ethereum’s base layer can handle more complex, high-value transactions natively, it doesn’t need to rely on Layer 2 networks for scale, and it can retain more of the fee revenue.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Table of contents

Investors pulled $145 million from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs on Aug. 10, the largest single-day redemption in over a week, according to data tracked by SoSoValue and highlighted in the original report. Spot Ether ETFs also bled $14.59 million, extending a pattern of tepid demand for Ethereum-based fund products. But the headline numbers masked a telling fissure: Grayscale’s mini trusts, which offer the same underlying exposure at a sharply lower fee, registered notable inflows, with the Bitcoin Mini Trust pulling in $37.06 million and the Ethereum Mini Trust attracting $8.59 million.

The divergence points to a market increasingly discriminating about cost. The Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) and its larger Ethereum counterpart have long struggled with outflows as early investors exit and competitors undercut them on management fees. The mini versions, introduced this year, are designed to recapture those dollars by matching fee structures of leading rivals like BlackRock’s IBIT and Fidelity’s FBTC. Monday’s data suggests that strategy is working, at least in relative terms, even as the broader ETF complex faces headwinds.

The Mini Trust Divergence Grayscale’s mini trusts, which trade under tickers BTC and ETH, are physically backed and carry expense ratios of just 0.15%—a fraction of GBTC’s 1.5% fee. When spot Bitcoin ETFs launched in January 2024, GBTC hemorrhaged billions as traders arbitraged the discount to NAV and rotated into cheaper products. That exodus has slowed, but last week’s net outflows show that the product still leaks capital. By contrast, the Bitcoin Mini Trust has steadily grown, and Monday’s $37 million intake was its best day since early July. The gap between the two vehicles reflects the fee sensitivity of both retail and institutional allocators.

Cost is not the only variable. Liquidity, spread, and custody considerations matter, but the fee line is the first filter many investors apply. As the mini trusts gain scale, they could cannibalize GBTC further, forcing a deeper restructuring of Grayscale’s product suite. The question is whether the mini trust inflows represent new money or simply a migration from the older, pricier wrapper.

Ether ETF Demand Remains Soft Ether ETFs fared worse, with the entire category posting $14.59 million in net redemptions. Unlike Bitcoin funds, which have attracted net positive flows over the past month, Ether ETFs have yet to demonstrate durable demand. Since their July launch, spot Ether funds have struggled to convert curiosity into committed capital. Part of the problem is the lack of staking yield: holding ETH through an ETF means forgoing the staking rewards that native holders earn, a drag that becomes more pronounced as on-chain staking rates rise.

The Ethereum Mini Trust’s $8.59 million inflow, though small, suggests that cost-conscious investors are the ones testing the waters, not large-scale institutional whales. Without a staking component, the value proposition for Ether ETFs remains incomplete. Until issuers find a way to incorporate staking returns within a regulated vehicle—something the SEC has so far blocked—these funds will likely trail their Bitcoin counterparts in asset gathering.

Fee Wars Reshape the ETF Landscape The crypto ETF market has evolved into a race to the bottom on cost. With 11 spot Bitcoin ETFs now trading in the U.S., issuers have slashed fees to near zero to differentiate. BlackRock’s IBIT and Fidelity’s FBTC, both waiving fees for initial periods, have dominated flows. Grayscale’s mini products are its defensive response, and the numbers indicate they are clawing back share. Still, Monday’s outflows from the broader group highlight that cost alone cannot shield funds from sentiment-driven redemptions. When Bitcoin’s price wavers or risk appetite contracts, even the cheapest wrapper will see money leave.

Institutional capital is, however, finding other on-chain products. A recent weekly tokenization roundup noted that real-world asset (RWA) markets crossed $20 billion on-chain, with institutions opting for tokenized Treasuries and private credit over volatile crypto funds. This suggests that the same allocators who pulled from Bitcoin ETFs on Monday may be parking capital in yield-generating instruments that feel less speculative. The ETF flows, in that light, look less like a rejection of crypto and more like a rotation within digital asset strategies.

What remains unclear is whether the Grayscale mini trusts can maintain their momentum once the initial fee advantage narrows. As more issuers introduce similar low-cost products, the mini trusts’ edge will erode. Additionally, regulatory uncertainty—something that continues to hang over the sector following a last-minute push by banks to derail a landmark crypto bill—keeps institutional investors cautious. The Senate vote on that bill, covered in a separate report on bank lobbying, could reset the risk calculus for digital asset funds. Until then, flows may remain erratic.

For now, the takeaway is one of fragmentation. The days when one Bitcoin ETF product could dominate are over. Investors are parsing fees, liquidity, and redemption mechanics like never before, and capital flows are reflecting those calculations. The mini trusts may not reverse the overall trend, but they are carving out a growing niche—proof that in an increasingly crowded field, even single-digit basis points can redirect millions.

AUTHOR

With over five years of experience in crypto, blockchain, and tech content, Ishtiyaq makes complex topics easy to understand. He simplifies blockchain and digital currency concepts for a wide audience, ensuring that beginners and experts alike can grasp key ideas. His clear and engaging writing helps readers stay informed about the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the crypto space. Whether explaining blockchain technology, digital assets, or DeFi, Ishtiyaq breaks down complicated ideas into simple, digestible content. His goal is to help people navigate the fast-changing world of cryptocurrency with confidence, clarity, and a deeper understanding.

Ethereum staking has reached a record 41.7 million ETH, locking more than one-third of the cryptocurrency’s circulating supply despite a sharp decline in its market price.

Summary

41.7 million ETH is now staked, according to a CryptoQuant chart shared by Bitfinex. Staked ETH has increased by about 5.5 million ETH since January. ETH has fallen from approximately $3,400 to $1,900 during the same period. Ethereum developers are debating EIP-8363, which would reduce issuance as staking grows. Ethereum staking climbs despite price decline A CryptoQuant chart shared by cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex on Aug. 10 showed that the amount of Ethereum (ETH) committed to staking had reached an all-time high of 41.7 million ETH.

Staked $ETH has climbed to a record 41.7 million, a third of all ETH in existence, while price fell from $3,400 in January to $1,900.

As the amount staked grows, the rewards do not run out, which is why the pile keeps growing. pic.twitter.com/m5AU9GQ4eB

— Bitfinex (@bitfinex) August 10, 2026 The figure represents roughly one-third of Ethereum’s circulating supply. CoinMarketCap data places the asset’s supply near 120.7 million ETH, meaning approximately 34.5% is now staked.

“Staked ETH has climbed to a record 41.7 million, a third of all ETH in existence, while price fell from $3,400 in January to $1,900,” Bitfinex wrote.

The chart shows that staking deposits remained near 36 million ETH through late 2025 before beginning a sustained increase in February. Growth continued through the second quarter and accelerated again between June and August.

The increase comes despite ETH losing about 44% of its value from its January level. Ethereum traded near $1,900 when Bitfinex published the chart, showing that validators and long-term holders continued locking tokens even as spot-market conditions weakened.

crypto.news reported in January that 36.2 million ETH, or nearly 30% of the supply, had been staked. The latest figure represents an increase of approximately 5.5 million ETH in less than seven months.

Reinvested rewards keep staked ETH growing Ethereum validators receive newly issued ETH for proposing blocks, attesting to transactions, and supporting network consensus. They may also collect priority fees and maximal extractable value.

Part of that income can be returned to staking, creating a compounding effect even when ETH’s dollar price falls. However, returns decline as more validators join because Ethereum distributes issuance across a larger staked balance.

Corporate treasury companies have become a major part of this trend. BitMine had approximately 4.9 million ETH staked as of July 12, equal to about 85% of its Ethereum holdings.

The company generated $45.7 million from staking and validation during the quarter ended May 31. Chairman Tom Lee projected that annual rewards could reach $284 million if BitMine stakes its entire ETH treasury, although returns depend on yields and validator conditions.

SharpLink has also committed most of its Ethereum treasury to staking. Its strategy continued generating ETH rewards even as lower market prices contributed to a $394.3 million second-quarter loss.

Record staking renews Ethereum issuance debate The continued increase has renewed questions about how much ETH should be committed to network security and whether Ethereum’s reward curve encourages excessive staking.

EIP-8363, known as Tapered Issuance Burn, would burn a growing share of consensus-layer rewards as the staking ratio rises. The mechanism would remove issuance-based rewards when approximately half of Ethereum’s supply is staked.

As crypto.news previously reported, the proposal’s authors argue that the current system continues rewarding additional deposits even after they provide limited security benefits. EIP-8363 remains under review and has not been approved for an Ethereum upgrade.

SharpLink CEO Joseph Chalom has opposed the plan, arguing that native yield supports Ethereum’s institutional appeal and acts as a benchmark for returns across decentralized finance.

US institutions expand access to ETH yield Staking has also become more accessible through regulated investment products in the United States. Grayscale distributed about $9.4 million in ETH staking proceeds to eligible ETHE shareholders in January, marking the first such payout by a U.S.-listed Ethereum product.

Morgan Stanley has also added staking provisions to its proposed Ethereum ETF. Its filing showed that 3.64 million ETH was waiting to enter validation as of May 18, implying an activation delay of approximately 63 days.

Continued institutional participation could remove more ETH from liquid markets. However, staking does not guarantee price appreciation, and the divergence between record deposits and ETH’s decline shows that supply constraints can be outweighed by broader selling pressure.

Robinhood’s Ethereum Layer-2 network has crossed 200 million cumulative transactions roughly one month after its July 1 mainnet launch, a pace that puts it among the fastest-growing rollups ever deployed. To put that in perspective, the chain hit 38.7 million transactions in its first 10 days alone.

Daily transaction counts have peaked between 10 million and 13.3 million, volumes that at times have eclipsed Base, Coinbase’s own Layer-2 network.

What’s actually happening on the chain Robinhood Chain is built on Arbitrum’s infrastructure, uses ETH as its gas token, and runs block times of roughly 0.1 seconds. Sub-second finality is what makes it practical to trade tokenized real-world assets like US stocks on-chain without the lag that plagues slower networks.

The platform has landed integrations with several DeFi protocols. Uniswap provides automated market-making infrastructure. Chainlink supplies oracle data feeds. Alchemy handles developer tooling.

Advertisement

Total Value Locked has climbed to somewhere between $300 million and $800 million since launch. The chain’s stablecoin supply continues to set records, which typically signals real usage rather than speculative inflows, since stablecoins tend to serve as working capital for trading and lending rather than directional bets.

Average trade sizes have declined since the initial launch spike, as early adopters testing with larger positions have been joined by a broadening user base pulling the average down.

The tokenized stocks play Robinhood Chain is positioning itself as a bridge between traditional finance and on-chain infrastructure, with tokenized US stocks as the centerpiece. The brokerage already serves users in over 120 countries through its traditional platform, and bringing those assets on-chain could unlock 24/7 trading, fractional ownership, and composability with DeFi lending markets.

The absence of a native token is a deliberate choice. By using ETH for gas and avoiding a governance or utility token launch, Robinhood sidesteps regulatory exposure and ensures the chain’s growth metrics aren’t inflated by token-farming incentives.

Where this fits in the Layer-2 wars What separates Robinhood Chain from most Layer-2 competitors is the built-in connection to a regulated brokerage with millions of existing customers who have already been KYC’d and onboarded, a distribution advantage that crypto-native chains must build from scratch.

For the broader Ethereum ecosystem, Robinhood Chain’s rapid growth contributes to ETH demand through gas consumption and settlement fees, as every transaction on the chain ultimately settles back to Ethereum’s base layer.

Robinhood has faced regulatory scrutiny before, most memorably during the 2021 GameStop saga when it restricted trading on certain stocks. Whether that history gives users pause about relying on a Robinhood-operated chain for their on-chain activity is a relevant consideration given the concentration risk of a single brokerage controlling a dominant L2 gateway for tokenized stock trading.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Table of contents

Ethereumu2019s price has barely budged from $1,870, but underneath that surface calm, wallet-level activity has exploded. Onchain data from the Santiment update on August 10 showed 989,500 daily active addresses moving on Ethereum u2014 the highest single-day tally since March. The sudden spike contrasts sharply with the lack of immediate price momentum, suggesting that capital is being redeployed across the network rather than fleeing it.

The climb in user activity isnu2019t happening in a vacuum. Spot ETH ETF demand has been slowly rebuilding after weeks of tepid flows, and Robinhood Chainu2019s Ethereum-settled operations have added a new high-velocity use case. Instead of retail traders blindly aping, this spike looks more like existing wallets waking up to re-route funds, test execution rails, and position for what comes next.

More Than Just a Numbkey Count A raw address count can be noisy, but Santiment pushed a sharper thesis: ETF flows, Robinhoodu2019s clearing efficiency, and the gravitational pull of stablecoin and RWA settlement are pulling real traffic back to the layer-1. Tokenized Treasuries and other real-world assets now form a multi-billion dollar segment that Ethereum still dominates, as chronicled in the latest tokenization roundup. That dollar liquidity doesnu2019t just sit idle u2014 it drives gas consumption, validator yield, and ultimately, ETH demand if the usage sticks.

Lower gas fees and better L2 throughput help. When mainnet costs drop, small- and mid-sized wallets u2014 the cohort that typically vanishes during fee spikes u2014 can migrate back. Combined with improved bridging infrastructure, it creates conditions where protocol interaction, stablecoin transfers, and NFT/DeFi activity become economically feasible again for a wider set of users.

What the Market May Be Watching Thereu2019s still an open question: is this a durable shift in onchain behavior or a temporary reshuffling of funds? The Santiment note flagged that many of the active addresses appear to be older wallets rotating positions, not new entrants. That matters. If the spike is concentrated among existing cohort wallets testing the waters, then a sustained rise in active addresses might require fresh capital from outside the system. Without that, elevated activity could deflate just as quickly as it appeared.

Ethereumu2019s ability to retain and grow its developer base also plays a supporting role. It still leads blockchains in weekly developer activity, a signal that new tooling and applications are being built even as competitive pressure from other L1s increases, as recent developer activity rankings have shown. That underlying construction work can provide a floor for usage, even when speculation cools.

Meanwhile, the U.S. regulatory backdrop continues to evolve. While the spike in addresses wasnu2019t directly triggered by policy, market-structure progress in Washington u2014 including the contentious crypto bill still being debated u2014 has kept institutions focused on regulated on-chain finance. Any further clarity could tilt more capital toward Ethereumu2019s settlement layer as a compliant venue for digital dollar flows, adding weight to the current address uptick.

AUTHOR

Freelance writer and crypto enthusiast with a focus on Web3, delivering clear and engaging articles. Known for his well-researched articles and insightful analysis, Shayan covers a broad range of topics including market trends, blockchain technology, decentralized finance (DeFi), and emerging crypto projects. His writing aims to educate both beginners and experts, providing clear, engaging content that helps readers stay informed about the fast-evolving crypto space. Shayan's expertise and dedication make him a trusted voice in the blockchain community.

In brief Bitmine bought 7,391 ETH over the past week, down from 10,399 the week before, taking holdings to 5,805,238 ETH. Total crypto, cash and "moonshot" holdings reached $11.6 billion, up from $11.3 billion. Cash and marketable securities fell to $104 million, from $482 million a month ago. Ethereum treasury company Bitmine Immersion Technologies said Monday it bought 7,391 ETH over the past week, worth about $14 million, taking its holdings to 5,805,238 ETH as of Friday evening. The company bought 10,399 ETH the week before.

Total crypto, cash and what the firm calls "moonshot" investments came to $11.6 billion, up from $11.3 billion. Most of that gain came from price, with ETH up 2.6% over the week to $1,928, adding around $280 million to the value of a stack that grew by $14 million in purchases.

🧵
1/
BitMine provided its latest holdings update for August 10, 2026

$11.6 billion in total crypto + "moonshots":
- 5,805,238 ETH at $1,928 per ETH per ETH (per @coinbase)
- 209 Bitcoin (BTC)
- $180 million stake in Beast Industries @MrBeast
- $69 million stake in Eightco…

— Bitmine (NYSE-BMNR) $ETH (@BitMNR) August 10, 2026

The firm's cash position continues to thin, with cash and marketable securities standing at $104 million, down from the $173 million it reported a week earlier and $482 million the company reported for July 12—a decline of 78% in a month. Alongside the ETH, Bitmine holds 209 Bitcoin, a $180 million stake in Beast Industries and $69 million of Eightco Holdings.

Bitmine repurchased 3 million shares over the week, down from 4.5 million, bringing the total to 19.1 million since July 1 under a $4 billion authorization. Chairman Tom Lee said the company "continues to view Bitmine's common shares as undervalued," and called the program the largest executed by any crypto treasury company.

Staking now covers 5,067,309 ETH, or 87% of holdings, up from 85% a week earlier. Lee put projected annualized staking revenue at $257 million, based on a seven-day yield of 2.63%.

The last 4%Bitmine's stack is 4.8% of Ethereum's 120.7 million supply, and the company again described itself as 96% of the way to its "Alchemy of 5%" target, the same figure it gave a week ago and the fifth straight week at 4.8%. Reaching 5% would take about 229,800 more ETH, or roughly 31 weeks at last week's rate.

The firm has bought ETH every week since starting the strategy on June 30, 2025. It picked up $214 million worth in June during a selloff Lee called "superficial," added $49 million in July on early demand for Robinhood Chain, then eased off later that month before passing 5.79 million ETH.

Lee said he was “disappointed” the Clarity Act would not reach a Senate vote before the August recess, but pointed to softer inflation and jobs data, putting the odds of a September Federal Reserve hike at 40%, down from 75% a fortnight ago. Those odds have since risen to 46%, according to CME FedWatch.

Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has presented a major update to the network's technological direction, radically changing its development priorities. The "Strawmap" he published eliminates the old six-phase roadmap — including the Merge, the Surge and others — and divides the blockchain's evolution into three architectural layers: consensus (CL), data (DL) and execution (EL).

The main marker of the new strategy is Ethereum's official shift toward protection against future quantum computers, comprehensive user privacy and the integration of AI tools for code verification, while abandoning several older technological ideas.

"Ethereum will be quantum-safe. Ethereum will put users' privacy first. Ethereum will be secure. Ethereum will be censorship-resistant. Ethereum will be highly performant and scalable while satisfying the above. And Ethereum will be Lean." — Vitalik Buterin

HOT Stories

What prompted the overhaul of the old Ethereum roadmapExpectations that powerful quantum computers could emerge soon have forced researchers to rewrite the security roadmap with the introduction of a post-quantum public-key registry and PQ transactions. 

Buterin emphasized that the roadmap now includes "aggressive scaling in the context of post-quantum," involving lightweight LeanSPHINCS signatures and "zkzk" cryptographic frameworks.

To achieve this, developers have made difficult trade-offs: Verkle trees, which had been under development for years, have officially been declared obsolete. According to Buterin, some elements were "replaced with superior constructions." 

Newly updated Ethereum "Strawmap" outlining the network's technical timeline across three layers, Source: Vitalik Buterin via X.comIn this case, Verkle trees gave way to Poseidon binary trees (PBTs), originally designed to work efficiently with the complex mathematics of STARK proofs.

You Might Also Like

Buterin acknowledged that previous roadmaps critically lacked built-in privacy tools and that the network now requires "first-class attention to strong privacy." Keyed nonces, elements of FOCIL, lean privacy pools and a "wormhole" architecture are being integrated into the protocol to make it possible to conduct fully shielded transfers directly at the network's base layer.

Why Ethereum's economics are changing and what exactly AI will controlInstead of attempting to "maximally scale ALL Ethereum activity," developers are creating specialized mechanisms that have more restrictive properties. They are intended to support "the heaviest loads incurred by users and applications today and tomorrow," including token transfers, fast swaps and privacy protocols. 

The technical foundation of this approach will consist of recursive STARK proofs and native rollups, which could not even have been considered in 2023 because "SNARKs were nowhere near mature enough."

You Might Also Like

At the same time, Ethereum's economics are being reformed. Short- and long-term futures for gas and blobs have been added to the roadmap, with Buterin separately noting that this idea simply did not exist back in 2023. 

This will allow major applications to purchase network capacity in advance at a fixed price, protecting users from sudden fee spikes.

The security of such a densely integrated architecture will be possible only through end-to-end formal verification (FV) of protocol specifications. Buterin plans to entrust this task entirely to modern AI tools, as the volume of code has already become too large for humans to verify on their own.

Robinhood built an entire blockchain and still didn’t launch a token. In an industry where seemingly every company with a website eventually mints its own coin, that restraint is worth examining.

The company’s new Robinhood Chain, which went live on July 1, operates as an Ethereum Layer-2 network built on Arbitrum infrastructure. It uses ETH exclusively as its native gas token for transaction fees. According to analysts, that architectural decision effectively closes the door on a proprietary Robinhood token, at least for now.

Why no token makes strategic sense Robinhood Chain is a permissionless Ethereum L2. It processes transactions using ETH for gas, the same way Ethereum’s mainnet does. This approach mirrors what several other Ethereum L2 networks have done. Base, Coinbase’s own Layer-2, similarly runs on ETH rather than issuing a native coin.

Advertisement

What Robinhood Chain actually does The chain launched with a focus on tokenized real-world assets, including stock tokens representing US equities and ETFs. These tokenized securities are initially available to eligible users in more than 120 countries, with an early emphasis on EU and EEA markets.

The platform enables 24/7 trading of tokenized assets, removing the artificial constraint of market hours that has governed equity trading for over a century.

Uniswap is among the day-one ecosystem partners, providing liquidity infrastructure on the chain.

The competitive landscape is getting crowded Robinhood isn’t the only company racing to tokenize traditional assets on a blockchain. Coinbase has Base. Traditional finance giants like BlackRock have been tokenizing money market funds.

The no-token strategy means users don’t need to acquire an unfamiliar asset just to pay for transactions. They just need ETH, which is available on every major exchange and already sits in many crypto wallets.

For ETH itself, Robinhood Chain adds another source of demand. Every transaction on the network requires ETH for gas, which means increased usage of the chain translates directly into increased demand for Ethereum’s native asset.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

The second-largest Ethereum [ETH] DAT, Sharplink, is investing $100 million of its existing Ethereum stock in a fund run by Galaxy Digital.

Called the “onchain yield fund” Galaxy will contribute an additional $25 million of its own funds, increasing the fund’s total committed capital to $125 million.

What does this mean for Sharplink? That said, the fund aims to produce more returns from the ETH and other digital-asset opportunities by employing blockchain-based tactics. Traditionally, a business that owns Ethereum could stake it and receive rewards for doing so.

But the “on-chain yield” strategy goes one step further by integrating digital assets into different blockchain protocols and financial applications to generate returns.

This could include lending, liquidity provision, staking or restaking, or other decentralized finance (DeFi) activities, depending on the approach. Simply put, instead of holding the assets passively, the fund is actively putting capital to work, and that is what matters.

With this move, Sharplink may be able to boost the economic value produced by its ETH holdings without depending entirely on ETH’s price growth if the strategies work.

In this, Galaxy will oversee the fund, evaluate DeFi opportunities, perform due diligence, and control risks like market volatility, liquidity problems, and smart contract failures, making its role crucial. 

Execs weigh in Remarking on the same, Mike Novogratz, Founder and CEO of Galaxy, said, 

We’re entering a new phase of institutional adoption, with capital moving from passive ownership to active participation in blockchain-based markets.

Echoing similar sentiments, Joseph Chalom, CEO of Sharplink, added,

We believe this Fund marks a next step for Sharplink expanding its ETH treasury management strategy.

Sharplink’s ETH bet This occurred while Sharplink’s Ethereum holdings were valued at $1.66 billion, or 868,699 ETH. Meanwhile, it has now earned 24,338 ETH in total staking rewards.

This was while its stock price was at $6.43 following a 2.23% increase in the previous trading day. In contrast, the price of Ethereum was at $1,916.03 following a slight increase of 0.24% over the previous day.

Final Summary Rather than just accumulating and holding Ethereum, Sharplink is essentially using a portion of its ETH treasury as productive capital. Galaxy Digital is contributing an additional $25 million to Sharplink’s $100 million ETH treasury. 

Meanwhile, the spot Ethereum ETFs extended their consecutive weekly streak to five in a row.

After a shaky July in terms of ETF performance, the Bitcoin funds started August with a bang, attracting more than $800 million in the first full week of the month.

This coincided with the underlying asset’s price revival, as BTC jumped from a monthly low at $62,200 on Monday to over $65,000 on Friday.

Best Week Since Mid-April July began with big hopes as investors pulled out more than $2.4 billion out of the spot Bitcoin ETFs in May and another $4.5 billion in June. Although there were many good days throughout the seventh month of the year, it ultimately ended with a more modest net inflow of $172.43 million. Thus, it lost the July inflow war to Ethereum.

The funds attracted nearly that amount on August 3 alone, pulling in $170 million. Another $211.49 million followed on Tuesday, $244.42 million on Wednesday, $128.69 million on Thursday, and $98.85 million on Friday. Thus, the perfect all-green week was complete, and the end number stands at $853.54 million, which is actually more than all four previous weeks combined.

Moreover, it’s the best single-week performance since mid-April, when the funds were on a roll, gaining nearly $1 billion at one point. It’s also the third-best of the year, as the record still belongs to the week that ended on January 16, when the ETFs attracted $1.42 billion.

Bitcoin ETF Flows. Source: SoSoValue The past week has been quite positive for BTC’s price performance as well. Perhaps fueled by the ETF inflows, the asset rose from $62,200 on Monday to $65,400 on Friday after the weaker-than-expected US jobs data.

ETH ETFs Extend Streak Unlike the spot Bitcoin ETFs, the Ethereum counterparts didn’t have a full red week in July, ending the month with $365 million in net inflows. Their first in August has been quite impressive as well, attracting almost $245 million.

You may also like: Italy’s Biggest Bank Cuts IBIT Exposure by 94% While Buying More Staked Ethereum BTC vs ETH vs XRP: Which ETFs Attracted the Most Money on Monday? Crypto ETF Recap: Ethereum Still Outpaces Bitcoin, but Cracks Are Emerging The start of the week wasn’t as promising as investors pulled out $11.42 million. However, they changed their tune during the other four trading days, inserting $53.75 million on Tuesday, $60.86 million on Wednesday, $92.15 million on Thursday, and $49.60 million on Friday. Thus, the cumulative net inflows have increased from $11.21 billion last week to $11.46 billion.

Spot Ethereum ETF Flows. Source: SoSoValue ETH’s price has also climbed by around 3% weekly, currently trading well above $1,920 after it dipped toward $1,800 on Monday.

Tags:

BlackRock’s institutional clients poured $38.15 million into Ethereum on July 20, routing their exposure through the regulated ETF wrapper rather than buying the token directly.

The bulk of the capital, roughly $34.3 million, landed in BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA). Fidelity’s spot Ethereum product, FETH, picked up an additional $2.8 million. Together, US spot Ethereum ETFs posted approximately $38 million in net inflows for the session, according to data tracked by Farside Investors and SoSoValue.

ETHA keeps winning the daily flow race ETHA has led Ethereum ETF inflows across multiple recent sessions, consistently pulling in more capital than its competitors on days when the complex sees positive flows.

Advertisement

That pattern mirrors what happened with Bitcoin ETFs after their launch. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) quickly became the default vehicle for institutional Bitcoin exposure, and ETHA appears to be following a similar playbook on the Ethereum side.

The $34.3 million that flowed into ETHA on this single day represented about 90% of total Ethereum ETF inflows. Fidelity’s FETH grabbed most of what remained.

Why ETFs, not tokens The preference for ETF wrappers over direct token purchases tells a clear story about who’s buying and why. Institutional allocators, wealth managers, and registered investment advisors operate in a world of compliance checklists, custodial requirements, and fiduciary obligations. Buying ETH on Coinbase doesn’t check those boxes. Buying ETHA in a brokerage account does.

ETF investors don’t deal with private keys, gas fees, or the operational risk of holding crypto directly. They get price exposure with the custody, reporting, and tax infrastructure they already use for everything else in their portfolios.

Context and what to watch The $38 million inflow day lands against a backdrop where Ethereum ETF flows have been inconsistent. Earlier stretches of 2026 saw mixed sessions, with outflows sometimes offsetting gains and leaving the complex in neutral territory for weeks at a time.

When nearly all of the day’s inflows land in a single issuer’s product, it suggests coordinated or large-block institutional buying rather than scattered retail interest. BlackRock’s distribution channels reach sovereign wealth funds, endowments, and large RIAs.

For traders and investors watching the Ethereum market, ETF flow data has become one of the more reliable demand signals. The $38 million figure from July 20 sits comfortably in positive territory.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

19h05 ▪ 5 min read ▪ by Lydie M.

Summarize this article with:

BlackRock’s ETFs linked to Bitcoin and Ethereum experienced a sharp reversal in the second quarter of 2026. Their activity on shares changed from a net increase of $13.9 billion a year earlier to a decrease of $3.5 billion. An annual gap of $17.4 billion that mainly reveals the scale of redemptions.

In brief IBIT and ETHA show a combined net decline of $3.5 billion. The gap with the 2025 increase reaches $17.4 billion. The 106,148 BTC declared do not necessarily correspond to direct sales. The IBIT Bitcoin ETF incurs $2.9 billion in net outflows BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust concentrates most of the reversal. This evolution continues a sequence during which BlackRock had already sold over a billion dollars of Bitcoin via IBIT, due to redemption requests presented by investors. Between April and June 2026, IBIT recorded $4.3 billion in contributions linked to the issuance of new shares.

At the same time, distributions associated with the redeemed shares reached $7.2 billion. The balance thus stands at -$2.9 billion. The Ethereum fund ETHA also shows a decrease. Its share creations amounted to $943.3 million, against about $1.5 billion distributed in redemptions. Its net contraction thus reaches $583.4 million. Together, the two BlackRock crypto ETFs lose $3.5 billion on this accounting line.

The $17.4 billion shock comes from the annual comparison. In Q2 2025, IBIT and ETHA had recorded a combined increase of $13.9 billion thanks to share creations. One year later, their balance becomes negative $3.5 billion. The gap between these two periods thus reaches $17.4 billion.

The 106,148 bitcoins do not all represent exchange sales Regulatory documents show 106,148 BTC in a category dedicated to assets used during share redemptions. This impressive volume can give the image of a massive Bitcoin sale. However, the technical reality requires more caution.

Since 2025, authorized participants can perform certain creations and redemptions in kind. They can therefore receive bitcoins directly when IBIT shares are canceled. Not all 106,148 BTC concerned have necessarily been sold for dollars on a platform. Part of it may have been transferred directly to intermediaries.

Fund notes notably mention $3.85 billion in in-kind distributions for Bitcoin. They do not provide the exact breakdown between BTC transferred directly and those actually sold. They also do not identify the investors behind the redemptions.

This distinction prevents an exaggerated interpretation. The figure of $17.4 billion does not measure a loss suffered by Bitcoin holders. It also does not prove that BlackRock has liquidated this amount on the market. It reflects the shift from strong share creation to a period dominated by redemptions.

The movement nevertheless confirms a change in institutional behavior. Several major players have already reduced their positions in crypto funds, as illustrated by the massive retreat of institutional exposures to Bitcoin and Ethereum. The market no longer benefits from the almost automatic accumulation observed after the launch of spot ETFs.

Bitcoin must now confirm the return of buyers The first sessions of August offer a beginning of stabilization. Between August 3 and 5, IBIT attracted $478.5 million. ETHA received $83.8 million. These $562.3 million however represent only 15.9% of the net contraction of $3.5 billion recorded in the second quarter.

At this rate, nearly 19 sessions would be necessary to compensate an equivalent amount. Still, entries would have to remain constant. A handful of positive days is therefore not enough to confirm the end of redemptions.

The true indicator will be the duration. Regular flows over several weeks would show that institutional demand is returning. An alternation of inflows and outflows would rather signal a cautious market, in which investors use Bitcoin ETFs to quickly adjust their exposure.

SEC documents ultimately reveal less a Bitcoin collapse than a change of cycle for BlackRock products. The massive creations of 2025 have given way to arbitrage and redemptions. The recent recovery, when American ETFs attracted capital despite Bitcoin’s decline, will have to continue to erase this accounting shock of $17.4 billion.

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Lydie M.

Enseignante et ingénieure IT, Lydie découvre le Bitcoin en 2022 et plonge dans l’univers des cryptomonnaies. Elle vulgarise des sujets complexes, décrypte les enjeux du Web3 et défend une vision d’un futur numérique ouvert, inclusif et décentralisé.

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.