Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

THE STREET: Solana leads every blockchain in tokenized gold growth

Solana’s tokenized trading card market just posted its best month ever, with crypto cards hitting $69.5 million in trading volume. It’s a record for a sector that most crypto observers weren’t even tracking six months ago.

The volume came largely through Collector Crypt, a marketplace that has carved out a dominant position in the niche where Pokemon cards meet blockchain infrastructure. The platform accounts for roughly 64% of all tokenized trading card activity on Solana.

How tokenized trading cards actually work Collector Crypt takes professionally graded physical trading cards, locks them in a vault, and issues NFTs that represent ownership of the real cards. Holders can trade the NFTs instantly on-chain or redeem them for the physical card whenever they want. The model solves two chronic headaches in the traditional collectibles world: sky-high transaction fees and painfully slow liquidity.

Advertisement

The platform has tokenized over 130,000 graded physical cards to date. Transactions run on the $CARDS token, which has historically carried a market cap ranging between $70 million and $91 million.

Collector Crypt has facilitated between $1 billion and $1.6 billion in total trading volume since launch, generating revenue exceeding $50 million by mid-2026.

The bigger picture: Solana’s RWA push is quietly massive In April 2026, Collector Crypt alone reported $165 million in trading volume and $85 million in revenue. By May, the tokenized trading card market on Solana generated $230 million, capturing 64% of overall gacha volume. In June, on-chain spending in the gacha sector surpassed $324 million, with Collector Crypt holding approximately 63% of the tokenized collectibles market.

Other Solana-based platforms are riding the same wave. Phygitals, another RWA-focused project on the network, has generated over $250 million in trading volume.

Solana’s sub-cent fees make micro-transactions economically viable, which is the entire reason this market exists on-chain at all. Trading cards are high-frequency, low-value transactions by nature, and nobody wants to pay $5 in gas fees to trade a $12 card.

What this means for investors Collector Crypt’s 63-64% market share means the entire sector is heavily concentrated in a single platform. If something goes wrong with the vaulting process, the token mechanics, or the company itself, it would send shockwaves through the whole tokenized collectibles market on Solana.

There’s also the question of whether these volumes are sustainable or driven by speculative cycling. In trading card markets, the same cards can change hands multiple times in short windows, inflating volume figures beyond what underlying demand might suggest. Watching revenue relative to volume over the coming months will be a better indicator of market health than raw volume alone.

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

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Unitree Robotics' online IPO new share subscription has an allotment rate of only 0.03%; holding over 16 million yuan in relevant positions is roughly required to secure one lot.

Estimated in line with Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) STAR Market conventions, the online subscription winning rate for Unitree Technology’s August 10 initial public offering (IPO) is likely around 0.03%, roughly one-tenth of the rate for previously hot stock Changxin Technology, which had a 0.47% winning rate. Of the approximately 40.4464 million shares planned for public offering, only about 6.47 million will be allocated to the initial online subscription tranche. Per the rule that one subscription lot is assigned for every RMB 5,000 in SSE market value, investors holding over RMB 16 million in SSE positions would roughly need that amount to secure one winning lot. Unitree founder Wang Xingxing holds a 31.29% stake. External shareholders include Meituan-affiliated entities (9.65%), Sequoia China (7.11%), Matrix Partners China (5.45%), Xiaomi-backed Shunwei Capital (4.425%), CITIC Securities (4.49%), Alibaba, Tencent, and ByteDance, which hold stakes of 0.673%, 0.596%, and 0.596% respectively. Beijing Robot Industry Development Investment Fund holds 3.83%, Shenzhen Venture Capital-related entities hold around 2.55%, and China Internet Investment Fund holds 2.11%. Unitree posted 1.699 billion yuan in revenue and 591 million yuan in non-recurring net profit for 2025.

48 minutes ago

Unitree Robotics' estimated profit per successful IPO subscription is nearly 200,000 yuan, with IPO subscription opening on August 10.

On Trade.xyz, Unitree’s pre-IPO perpetual contract is quoted at $68.2, equivalent to approximately 460 yuan. This translates to a post-listing market cap of around $27.9 billion, or roughly 190.6 billion yuan. Based on the IPO prospectus, the target offering valuation is about 42 billion yuan, which is expected to deliver a 4.5x return for new investors after the stock opens for trading. Unitree plans to issue approximately 40.45 million shares for its Shanghai Stock Exchange STAR Market IPO, accounting for 10% of the total share capital post-issuance. The IPO prospectus sets a target offering valuation of 42 billion yuan; the 40.45 million shares correspond to an offering market cap of 4.2 billion yuan, with an estimated share price of around 104 yuan (the final price will be determined via bookbuilding and may be adjusted). Each lot consists of 500 shares, with an estimated subscription payment of about 52,000 yuan per successful lot. Calculated based on Trade.xyz’s pricing, the opening would yield a 4.5x return, meaning each 500-share lot is worth 234,000 yuan, translating to a profit of approximately 182,000 yuan after deducting subscription payments.

48 minutes ago

MicroStrategy officially announced its ambition: aiming to become the world's most valuable company, with Michael Saylor urging "Think ₿igger"

Strategy has released a video titled "Strategy's Ambition is to be the World's Largest Company In terms of market cap", stating its goal to become the world's largest company by market cap by holding the most capital (BTC), issuing the strongest credit (STRC), and creating the best equity (MSTR). Founder Michael Saylor remarked, "Think ?igger." Strategy plans to issue STRC to support its digital credit business, which will help generate higher-quality MSTR equity. This equity, in turn, will enhance the company’s ability to accumulate more BTC, forming a triple flywheel that continuously increases the number of BTC per share. Its core targets include achieving a 30% BTC annualized rate of return (ARR), selling digital credit equivalent to 10-20% of its BTC reserves annually, and doubling its Bitcoin Per Share (BPS) metric within 7 years through its digital credit operations.

48 minutes ago

Strategy has expressed its ambition to become the world's largest company by market capitalization.

Strategy has released a video titled "Strategy's Ambition is to be the World's Largest Company In Terms of Market Cap", outlining its goal to become the world’s largest firm by market capitalization through three core pillars: holding the most capital (Bitcoin, BTC), issuing the strongest credit instrument (STRC), and creating the best equity (MSTR). Founder Michael Saylor emphasized: "Think ?igger." The company plans to issue STRC to back its digital credit business, which will help generate stronger MSTR equity—enhancing Strategy’s ability to accumulate more BTC and ultimately drive a continuous increase in the number of bitcoins per share.

48 minutes ago

Coinbase will suspend trading of six trading pairs, including LSETH-ETH and MINA-EUR.

Coinbase has announced it will suspend trading for six non-U.S. dollar trading pairs on August 6. The affected pairs are LSETH-ETH, MINA-EUR, GRT-GBP, MASK-GBP, CHZ-USDT, and CRO-USDT. The platform stated that the suspension only impacts these non-USD denominated trading pairs, adding that eligible Coinbase Advanced Trade users in supported regions can still trade these assets via USD order books.

48 minutes ago

Google AI core figure Jeff Dean announces his departure, with Google shares plunging 3% in short-term trading.

Jeff Dean, one of Google’s earliest employees and a core figure who has overseen the company’s AI strategy design for the past 15 years, is leaving to launch an AI startup focused on scientific discovery. Dean joined Google in 1999 as its 30th employee. He will serve as CEO of the new non-profit entity Discovery Loop, which aims to accelerate technological progress by automating complex, multi-step scientific and engineering tasks. Joining Dean in the venture are fellow senior Google staff members Oriol Vinyals, Quoc Le, and Sanjay Ghemawat. The four have together driven major advances in mathematics and protein structure research, and rank among the most highly cited researchers globally. The departure of these talents, including Dean, further fuels Google’s recent trend of AI talent exodus. According to market data from BIT (bit.com), Google’s stock plunged 3% in the short term.

48 minutes ago

Solana’s weekly RSI shows bullish divergence as small wallet count falls 5%

Solana price traded near $73.84 on Aug. 5 as weak daily momentum, declining spot demand, and overhead resistance kept SOL trapped below the key $75 level.

Summary

Solana price remains below four major daily moving averages, preserving its broader bearish structure. The 4-hour chart places immediate resistance at $74.72 and $75.69. Liquidation clusters near $72.60–$73.00 and $74.70–$75.00 could amplify volatility. Analysts disagree on whether consolidation signals accumulation or distribution. Solana price remains trapped below $75 According to data from crypto.news, Solana (SOL) price changed hands at roughly $73.84 at the time of analysis, little changed over the previous 24 hours. The token has repeatedly failed to establish support above $75 since July 30, leaving its short-term direction unresolved.

The daily chart shows SOL trading below its 20-day simple moving average at $74.89 and its 50-day average at $75.09. Those closely grouped levels create an immediate resistance zone between $74.89 and $75.09.

Solana price daily chart — Aug. 5 | Source: crypto.news Further resistance stands at the 100-day SMA near $78.06, while the 200-day SMA remains much higher at $84.71. With all four averages above the market price, the broader trend continues to favor sellers.

The daily Awesome Oscillator remained negative at minus 3.34. Its red histogram bars also indicate that bearish momentum has started building again after weakening in late July.

SOL has nevertheless held above the $70.60 swing low marked on the 4-hour chart. That has prevented the latest pullback from developing into a confirmed breakdown.

Spot selling weakens the consolidation The 4-hour chart shows SOL consolidating around the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level at $73.75. Holding above this level would allow buyers to make another attempt at the 50% retracement near $74.72.

Solana price 4-hour chart — Aug. 5 | Source: crypto.news However, CryptoQuant contributor Ted Pillows warned that the sideways price action has occurred alongside continued spot selling.

“SOL is going sideways. But spot is selling. This looks like distribution,” Pillows wrote on X.

Distribution occurs when sellers gradually reduce their holdings while the price remains inside a narrow range. It can leave the market vulnerable to a breakdown once short-term buying demand fades.

The chart offers a mixed reading. 4-hour Chaikin Money Flow stood at 0.06, indicating that some capital continued to enter the market. However, the Aroon Down reading of 85.71% remained well above the Aroon Up reading of 14.29%, showing that recent lows carried more strength than recent highs.

Together, the indicators suggest that buyers are defending support but have not regained control.

SOL liquidation levels could decide the next move The 3-day liquidation heatmap shows leverage building on both sides of the current price.

Solana liquidation heatmap | Source: CoinGlass The closest concentration of potential short liquidations sits above SOL around $74.70 to $75.00. A break through that area could force bearish positions to close and accelerate a move toward $76.

Above $76, additional liquidity appears between approximately $76.40 and $77.30. This area overlaps with the 4-hour Fibonacci resistance at $76.90, and the July swing high at $78.84.

Conversely, large long-liquidation clusters sit between $72.60 and $73.00. A loss of $73.75 could therefore send SOL toward the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement at $72.36.

Failure to hold that level would expose $70.60. A confirmed break below $70.60 would invalidate the current consolidation and increase the risk of another test of the June recovery zone.

The heatmap does not predict which side will be reached first. It identifies areas where forced position closures could make an existing move more volatile.

Analysts identify $76 as the breakout level Analyst Michaël van de Poppe placed the main bullish trigger slightly above the current resistance range.

“It would be great if we can see a breakthrough of $76 on SOL. If that happens, a buy the dip plan is what I’ll be doing and then the target remains to be $120.”

The $76 threshold sits above the 38.2% Fibonacci level at $75.69. A sustained close beyond that zone would also move SOL back above its 20-day and 50-day moving averages.

Before $120 comes into view, buyers would still face resistance at $76.90, $78.06 and $78.84. The daily 200-day average near $84.71 would present another major test.

Pillows’ distribution warning presents the bearish alternative. If declining spot demand outweighs positive 4-hour money flow, SOL could lose $73.75 and move toward the liquidation clusters below $73.

US institutional news fails to unlock a breakout SOL’s muted price action continued despite BlackRock expanding its blockchain-based cash management strategy. A July 31 filing said its Daily Reinvestment Stablecoin Reserve Vehicle would issue on-chain shares across supported public blockchains, including Solana.

The fund invests in cash, short-dated US Treasury instruments and overnight repurchase agreements. It also intends to structure its on-chain shares as eligible reserve assets under the GENIUS Act, subject to regulatory requirements. The SEC filing provides Solana with another institutional use case, but it did not trigger a sustained SOL breakout.

Governance developments also remain in focus. SGP-0003 links SIMD-0550, which would accelerate SOL’s disinflation schedule, with SIMD-0553, a resource-based fee proposal that could sharply increase token burns. CoinDesk reported that the changes could lift daily burns from about 650 SOL to as many as 9,000 SOL.

For now, SOL remains caught between longer-term supply changes and immediate technical pressure. A close above $76 would strengthen the recovery case, while a loss of $72.36 would place $70.60 back in focus.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Two Linked Proposals Reshape SOL's Supply Outlook@Solana's governance process has reached a pivotal moment. Two interconnected proposals targeting $SOL deflation and supply burns have cleared the first stage of on-chain governance and now enter a formal community discussion phase, the final step before a binding validator vote.

The initiative is bundled under SGP-0003, a Solana Governance Proposal that combines two Solana Improvement Documents: SIMD-0553 and SIMD-0550, which must be read together to understand the full supply thesis. SIMD-0553 is the burn engine; SIMD-0550 is the disinflation lever.

SIMD-0553 introduces a resource-based fee system that adjusts transaction costs based on the network resources consumed. If approved, the change could increase daily SOL burns from roughly 650 SOL, valued at about $47,000, to between 7,500 and 9,000 SOL per day. SIMD-0550, meanwhile, doubles the annual disinflation rate to 30%, pulling Solana's 1.5% terminal inflation floor forward to 2029 from 2032 and removing about 18.9 million SOL of emissions over six years.

The framework has been publicly championed by @Mert, who called on validators and token holders to signal support quickly. Solana's formal on-chain governance system gives validators and their delegators a recorded, stake-weighted vote on the network's direction. Proposals must first gain support from 15% of active stake, then pass by a two-thirds supermajority of voting stake.

Momentum Builds, But the Math Stays SoberAs of Tuesday morning, the proposal had support from 63 million SOL, or just over 14.4% of the network's staked supply, leaving about 3 million SOL needed to reach the threshold before the August 18 deadline. Supporters include prominent validators such as Helius, Jupiter, Staking Facilities, Drift, OtterSec, and Solana Compass.

Proponents argue the changes will better align SOL economics with rising network activity. The proposals themselves, however, note that even the boosted burn figures remain modest compared with daily issuance under current conditions. Solana currently issues around 60,000 SOL per day through inflation. Even the projected terminal burn of 7,500 to 9,000 SOL per day would initially remain far below that amount. The near-term result is more likely to be slower supply growth than outright deflation.

If the proposal reaches the required support threshold, it will advance to the discussion phase before a formal validator vote. Missing the August 18 signaling deadline would require the proposals to be resubmitted, resetting the process entirely.

Sources:
CoinDesk: A new Solana proposal would take daily SOL burns from $47,000 to $650,000
Decrypt: Solana Proposal Would Increase Daily SOL Burns More Than 10-Fold
Crypto Times: Solana Seeks 14x Burn Increase Alongside Accelerated Supply Reduction

The line between Wall Street and Web3 just got a little blurrier. Take-Two Interactive, the publisher behind Grand Theft Auto and NBA 2K, is listing tokenized equity on the Solana blockchain through Backpack Securities, giving investors a new way to get exposure to one of gaming’s biggest names.

The listing, arriving August 6, 2026, brings $TTWO to Solana as a tokenized representation of the company’s NASDAQ-listed shares. Each token is backed 1:1 by underlying TTWO stock and is redeemable for the real thing.

What tokenized equity actually means here Traditional equity markets close at 4 p.m. Eastern. Solana does not. $TTWO tokens can be traded around the clock, transferred wallet-to-wallet, and plugged into decentralized finance applications, things a standard brokerage account simply can’t do.

Advertisement

Take-Two’s stock was trading at approximately $240 heading into the listing. GTA VI, originally slated for 2025 before being pushed back, is now locked in for November 19, 2026.

Backpack Securities and the tokenized equity playbook Backpack Securities previously launched $SPCX, a tokenized representation of SpaceX shares, which crossed over $1B in trading volume. The move to tokenize a publicly traded company like Take-Two is a slightly different play than SpaceX, which is private and where tokenization solves a genuine access problem. TTWO shares are already tradeable for anyone with a Schwab account. Here, the value proposition shifts more toward convenience, composability with DeFi, and global accessibility for investors in markets where US brokerage access is cumbersome or unavailable.

Backpack’s approach also introduces self-custody into the equation. Investors can hold $TTWO tokens in their own wallets, not in a brokerage account they don’t fully control.

What this means for investors watching both markets The 1:1 redeemability should keep $TTWO prices anchored to the underlying share price through arbitrage. If the token trades at a discount to the stock, someone buys the token, redeems it for shares, and pockets the difference. If it trades at a premium, the reverse applies.

For Solana specifically, landing a publicly traded blue-chip like Take-Two as a tokenized equity is a meaningful signal. If $TTWO volume follows the pattern $SPCX established, it adds another data point to the case that tokenized equities on Solana have a real user base, not just a theoretical one.

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

COINBASE: Q2 2026 Solana Validator Performance Report

The crypto industry’s most important regulatory bill is stuck because of the president’s own memecoin. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal just asked the SEC to investigate while the Clarity Act’s ethics provision remains the last unresolved section blocking a vote. The irony is precise: the bill that would bring regulatory clarity to crypto cannot advance because the most powerful person in the country launched a token that embodies exactly the regulatory ambiguity the bill was designed to resolve.

Summary

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins on August 4 requesting an investigation into $TRUMP, citing $3.8 billion in estimated investor losses and $636 million in reported profits for the president from the token. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the crypto industry’s best prospect for comprehensive US market structure legislation, remains stalled because Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on an ethics provision governing government officials’ involvement in crypto projects. The SEC has already declared that memecoins are “generally outside its sphere of influence” and do not qualify as securities under existing law, making enforcement action on $TRUMP unlikely under the current commission. President Trump agreed to narrow restrictions on his crypto involvement, but Democrats rejected the proposal as insufficient, and bipartisan negotiators Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego are attempting to draft compromise language that both parties can accept. The $TRUMP token peaked at approximately $46 in January 2025 and currently trades near $1.47, with the vast majority of the nearly one million buyers sitting on losses while the president’s entity collected revenue from transaction fees and initial allocation sales. The letter arrived on the same day that crypto lobbyists in Washington were counting votes for the Clarity Act, the legislation that would for the first time define which digital assets fall under SEC jurisdiction and which belong to the CFTC. The bill has bipartisan support in principle. It passed committee with votes from both parties. The industry has spent millions pushing it toward a floor vote. And it is stuck, not on a technical question about token classification or a policy disagreement about decentralized exchange regulation, but on the question of whether the president of the United States should be allowed to profit from a memecoin while his appointees regulate the industry.

What the Clarity Act would actually do The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is designed to solve the jurisdictional ambiguity that has defined US crypto regulation since the industry’s inception. Currently, there is no clear statutory framework determining whether a given token is a security (regulated by the SEC), a commodity (regulated by the CFTC), or something else entirely.

The bill creates a functional test for determining a token’s regulatory classification. Tokens that are sufficiently decentralized, meaning no single entity controls them, would be classified as digital commodities and regulated by the CFTC. Tokens that function as investment contracts, where buyers depend on the efforts of a centralized team for returns, would remain securities under SEC jurisdiction.

The legislation also creates registration pathways for crypto exchanges, sets disclosure requirements for token issuers, and provides a framework for stablecoin oversight that complements the separate GENIUS Act focused specifically on stablecoins.

For the crypto industry, the Clarity Act represents the difference between operating in regulatory limbo and having a defined set of rules. Projects that have delayed US launches because of enforcement risk would have a path forward. Exchanges that have restricted token listings because of securities law uncertainty would have clearer criteria. Investors would have standardized disclosures that currently do not exist for most crypto assets.

The bill’s journey through Congress has been broadly supported by both parties. The political dynamic that historically divided crypto along partisan lines, with Republicans favoring lighter regulation and Democrats favoring stricter oversight, had begun to shift as both parties recognized the electoral weight of crypto-interested voters. The White House said in April that a deal was “very close.”

Then the ethics provision became the obstacle.

The ethics fight that froze everything The core dispute is narrow but politically explosive: should the Clarity Act include provisions that restrict senior government officials, including the president, from directly profiting from crypto projects while in office?

Democrats argue that any comprehensive crypto regulation bill must address the conflict of interest created when the president launches a token, profits from it, and simultaneously appoints the regulators who oversee the industry. Without an ethics provision, they contend, the bill effectively legalizes a regulatory framework while leaving the most prominent conflict of interest in the industry unaddressed.

Republicans counter that the ethics provision is scope creep, that the bill’s purpose is market structure regulation, not ethics reform, and that adding restrictions targeted at a specific individual risks turning a bipartisan bill into a partisan weapon. The president agreed to accept limited restrictions, but the proposed language was so narrow that Democrats described it as meaningless in practice.

The negotiation is now in the hands of Senators Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, and Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, who are drafting compromise language. The White House has been involved in the discussions but has not publicly committed to signing a bill with meaningful ethics restrictions. Every day the bill remains stalled, the industry operates without the regulatory clarity it was designed to provide.

The $TRUMP token: $636 million in, $3.8 billion out The numbers around $TRUMP are what give the ethics debate its weight. The token launched on January 17, 2025, three days before the presidential inauguration. It peaked at approximately $46 within days and has since declined to roughly $1.47, a 97 percent drop from its all-time high.

According to blockchain data analyzed by The New York Times and confirmed by the president’s 2025 financial disclosure, Trump-linked entities earned approximately $636 million from the token through a combination of initial allocation sales and ongoing transaction fees collected by the protocol.

On the other side of the ledger, nearly one million buyers collectively lost an estimated $3.8 billion. The asymmetry is stark: for every dollar the president’s side earned, buyers lost approximately six dollars. This ratio is not unusual for memecoins, but the involvement of a sitting president in the profit-taking entity is unprecedented.

The token saw brief price spikes around two Mar-a-Lago gala events where top token holders were invited to dine with the president. These events temporarily reversed the price decline but did not sustain any recovery. The galas themselves highlighted the conflict: the president was simultaneously the most powerful figure in crypto regulation and the host of an event that rewarded the largest holders of his personal memecoin.

What Warren’s letter asks and why it probably will not work The Warren-Blumenthal letter to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins requests a formal investigation into whether $TRUMP involves “potentially fraudulent enrichment schemes with implications for market integrity and stability.” The letter cites the $3.8 billion in estimated buyer losses and the $636 million in presidential profits as evidence of an asymmetry that warrants regulatory scrutiny.

The request faces several obstacles. First, the SEC under Chairman Atkins has taken a materially different approach to crypto enforcement than the Gensler-era commission. The current SEC has paused or dropped numerous crypto enforcement actions and adopted a policy of regulation through rulemaking rather than enforcement.

Second, the SEC issued a staff statement in February 2025 explicitly declaring that memecoins are “generally outside its sphere of influence.” The statement said memecoins have “limited or no use or functionality” and do not qualify as securities under the Howey test because buyers are not investing based on the expectation of profits from the efforts of others. By the SEC’s own published position, $TRUMP is not a security and therefore falls outside the agency’s enforcement jurisdiction.

Third, Atkins was appointed by President Trump. Asking a presidential appointee to investigate the president’s personal financial interests is a political act more than a regulatory one. Warren and Blumenthal know this. The letter’s primary function is political: it creates a public record of the conflict of interest and forces a response (or conspicuous non-response) from the SEC that can be cited in the Clarity Act debate.

The letter is a negotiating tool dressed as a regulatory request. Its real audience is not the SEC. It is the handful of senators whose votes will determine whether the Clarity Act passes with or without meaningful ethics restrictions.

The SEC’s memecoin blind spot The SEC’s February 2025 memecoin statement created a regulatory gap that the $TRUMP situation has exposed. By declaring memecoins outside its jurisdiction, the SEC effectively created a category of financial product that no federal regulator oversees.

The CFTC regulates commodities and derivatives but has not asserted jurisdiction over memecoins. The FTC regulates consumer fraud but has not acted on memecoin losses. State securities regulators have limited resources and jurisdictional reach for tokens that trade globally.

This gap means that a sitting president can launch a token, collect hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, watch nearly a million buyers lose billions, and no federal agency has clear authority to investigate or act. The Clarity Act was supposed to fill gaps like this by creating a comprehensive framework for token classification. Instead, the most prominent example of the gap’s consequences is the reason the bill cannot pass.

The irony compounds. If the Clarity Act passes without an ethics provision, it would create a legal framework that implicitly permits government officials to profit from token launches. If it passes with a strong ethics provision, it would retroactively create restrictions that apply to the president’s existing token. If it does not pass at all, the entire industry continues operating without the regulatory clarity that would attract institutional capital, encourage responsible innovation, and protect retail investors from exactly the kind of losses that $TRUMP buyers experienced.

The crypto industry’s impossible position The crypto industry’s Washington lobby has spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars building bipartisan support for regulatory legislation. The Clarity Act is the culmination of that effort. And it is being held hostage by a conflict of interest that the industry cannot publicly criticize without alienating the president whose administration has been broadly favorable to crypto.

Major industry trade groups have carefully avoided commenting on $TRUMP specifically. Their public statements focus on the importance of passing the Clarity Act and avoid any reference to the ethics provision. Privately, industry leaders acknowledge that the president’s memecoin has complicated their legislative strategy. The token’s existence makes it harder for Democrats to vote for the bill without ethics restrictions, and harder for the industry to argue that ethics restrictions are unnecessary without appearing to endorse a presidential conflict of interest.

Some industry participants have taken a different approach, arguing that the $TRUMP situation is precisely why clear rules are needed. Under a comprehensive regulatory framework, the argument goes, a presidential memecoin would either be subject to disclosure requirements and trading restrictions or it would be clearly categorized as outside the regulated perimeter. Either outcome would be better than the current ambiguity, where no one knows which rules apply and no agency claims jurisdiction.

The problem with this argument is timing. The industry wants the bill passed now, and the ethics provision is the obstacle to passing it now. Any delay risks losing the political window entirely. If the bill carries over into a new Congress, it must restart the committee process, and the bipartisan coalition that brought it this far may not reassemble.

What happens if the bill dies If the Clarity Act fails to pass this session, the consequences extend beyond the crypto industry’s policy wishlist.

The SEC would continue operating under the enforcement-first approach of previous years or the current hands-off approach, depending on which administration is in power. Neither approach provides the predictable, statute-based framework that institutional capital requires. Major financial institutions that have waited for regulatory clarity before offering crypto products would continue waiting or would structure their offerings under existing securities law, which adds compliance costs that make many crypto products uneconomical.

Token projects would continue launching in offshore jurisdictions and restricting US access, as they have for years. The US share of global crypto innovation and trading volume would continue declining relative to jurisdictions like the EU, which implemented its MiCA framework in 2024 and is already attracting projects that want regulatory certainty.

Retail investors would remain in the current environment where memecoins exist in a regulatory vacuum, where disclosure requirements are absent, and where losses like the $3.8 billion from $TRUMP buyers have no regulatory pathway for investigation or remedy. The Clarity Act does not specifically address memecoins, but its classification framework would at minimum force a determination about whether specific tokens fall under SEC or CFTC jurisdiction, ending the current situation where no agency claims responsibility.

The deepest irony is that the $TRUMP token is the strongest argument for why the Clarity Act is necessary, and simultaneously the reason the Clarity Act cannot pass.

What to watch The Tillis-Gallego compromise language. The bipartisan pair negotiating the ethics provision will determine whether the bill lives or dies in this Congress. Watch for a draft that restricts government officials from launching new tokens while grandfathering existing ones, a structure that addresses Democratic concerns without requiring the president to divest from $TRUMP.

The SEC’s response to Warren’s letter. A formal investigation is unlikely, but the SEC must respond in some form. The nature of the response, whether a brief dismissal or a detailed explanation of jurisdictional limitations, will signal how the current commission views its role in the memecoin space.

The September legislative calendar. Congress returns from recess with a narrow window before the midterm election cycle consumes legislative bandwidth. If the Clarity Act does not advance in September and October, its chances of passing this session diminish sharply.

$TRUMP token price action. Any significant price movement in $TRUMP, up or down, will reignite media attention on the ethics question. A rally would raise questions about insider trading. A further decline would increase the estimated buyer losses and strengthen the case for an investigation.

Other government official tokens. If $TRUMP’s existence normalizes the practice, other elected officials may launch their own tokens. Each new launch would add pressure to the ethics provision debate and make the Clarity Act’s passage without restrictions increasingly untenable.

What is the Clarity Act? The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is proposed US legislation that would create a comprehensive framework for classifying crypto assets as either securities (regulated by the SEC) or digital commodities (regulated by the CFTC). It would also create registration pathways for crypto exchanges and set disclosure requirements for token issuers, providing the regulatory clarity the industry has sought for years.

Why is the Clarity Act stalled? The bill is stalled because Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on an ethics provision that would restrict senior government officials, including the president, from directly profiting from crypto projects while in office. President Trump’s $TRUMP memecoin has made this provision the central point of contention, with Democrats refusing to support the bill without meaningful restrictions.

What did Warren and Blumenthal ask the SEC to do? On August 4, 2026, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins requesting a formal investigation into the $TRUMP memecoin. They cited $3.8 billion in estimated investor losses and $636 million in presidential profits, arguing the asymmetry raises questions about potentially fraudulent enrichment.

Will the SEC investigate $TRUMP? A formal SEC investigation is unlikely under the current commission. The SEC under Chairman Paul Atkins (appointed by President Trump) has scaled back crypto enforcement, and the agency issued a February 2025 staff statement declaring memecoins generally outside its jurisdiction. The Warren-Blumenthal letter functions more as a political pressure tool in the Clarity Act negotiations than as a realistic enforcement request.

How much did Trump make from $TRUMP? According to the president’s 2025 financial disclosure and blockchain data analysis, Trump-linked entities earned approximately $636 million from the $TRUMP token through initial allocation sales and ongoing transaction fees. Nearly one million buyers collectively lost an estimated $3.8 billion over the same period.

Is $TRUMP a security? The SEC’s February 2025 staff statement declared that memecoins generally do not qualify as securities because they have limited or no use or functionality and buyers are not investing based on the expectation of profits from the efforts of others (the Howey test standard). By the SEC’s own published position, $TRUMP falls outside securities law, though critics argue the token’s connection to a sitting president creates unique circumstances not contemplated by the staff statement.

What happens if the Clarity Act does not pass? If the bill fails, the US crypto industry continues operating without a comprehensive regulatory framework. The SEC and CFTC would continue disputing jurisdiction over various tokens. Projects would continue launching offshore to avoid US regulatory ambiguity. Institutional investors would continue waiting for clarity before entering the market at scale. And memecoins would remain in a regulatory vacuum where no federal agency claims oversight authority.

What is the ethics provision compromise being negotiated? Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) are drafting compromise language for the Clarity Act’s ethics section. The expected approach would restrict government officials from launching new tokens while potentially grandfathering existing positions. The White House has been involved but has not committed to signing a bill with meaningful restrictions on the president’s existing crypto interests.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risks. Always conduct your own research before making any financial decisions. The information in this article is current as of August 4, 2026.

US Crypto Regulations : Read the full US Regulation Hub for the latest on SEC enforcement, IRS crypto tax rules, and pending legislation.

THE STREET: Solana's Showdown at the WSOP crowns its first champion

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

https://pixabay.com/images/search/bitcoin/

Spot ETFs for Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Solana (SOL) experienced notable net inflows on August 4, according to Cointelegraph. Bitcoin spot ETFs reported inflows of $211.49 million, while Ethereum and Solana saw inflows of $53.75 million and $1 million respectively. This development comes at a time when the Bitcoin market is closely watched, with market participants observing these inflows as indicative of increased investor interest. Other reports indicate that spot Bitcoin ETFs had previously seen $170.1 million in inflows on the prior day, highlighting variability in data across sources.

Advertisement

Key Takeaways Market activity appears to suggest increased investor interest in Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana spot ETFs, with significant net inflows reported. The inflows are consistent with scenarios that could lead to a moderate upward movement in Bitcoin price expectations. Market pricing implies robust confidence that Bitcoin’s price will remain above key thresholds, with a current 99.9% YES pricing for Bitcoin to be above $56,000 on August 5. What to Watch Observers should monitor any continued trend in net inflows into these spot ETFs, as sustained interest could further influence market expectations. Attention will also be on any regulatory developments or macroeconomic indicators that could impact crypto markets, such as statements from the Federal Reserve or significant corporate actions. As such, these factors may provide further insights into whether investor sentiment continues to align with a YES outcome for Bitcoin’s price above current thresholds.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h August 5 2026 99.9% — — View market → August 5 2026 99.9% — — View market → August 5 2026 99.8% — — View market → August 5 2026 1.8% — — View market → August 5 2026 99% — — View market → August 5 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 5 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 5 2026 67.5% — — View market → August 5 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 5 2026 99.9% — — View market →

Solana has hit new all-time highs twice before, and according to analyst DJ Ha Trang, a third leap toward fresh highs is already taking shape, even if the exact timing remains uncertain.

Solana’s first major run came in November 2021, when the network found genuine product market fit as the fastest and cheapest chain available, propelling SOL to an all-time high of $260 during that year’s NFT boom and DeFi expansion. That momentum collapsed alongside FTX, sending Solana back down to around $10 and leaving many investors doubtful.

The ecosystem kept building anyway. Fueled by the 2024 memecoin wave, Solana clawed back to a new all-time high of $290 in January 2025. Ha Trang’s research report, titled “Primed for the Third Leap,” argues the network is now positioning for a third run, this time built on a broader foundation than NFTs, DeFi, or memecoins alone.

How Solana Captured Over Half the Market

Solana now holds 54% of spot trading market share, with $425B in monthly volume, according to Ha Trang, a dominance she attributes to two main factors.

The first is infrastructure. Solana has spent years reinforcing its position as the fastest, cheapest chain available, and recent research shows it delivering better trade execution for SOL to USDC pairs than centralized exchanges, a gap that appears to be widening across other trading pairs too. “Solana is not just competing with other layer ones,” Ha Trang said. “They’re directly competing with centralized exchanges.”

The second factor is aggressive business development. Through platforms like Sunrise and Backpack Securities, new assets are being listed on Solana on a near-weekly basis. Bitcoin, SpaceX stock, and even Robinhood shares are tradable on Solana today, alongside tokens like HYPE, ENA, and Morpho, positioning the network as what Ha Trang calls the home of “internet capital markets.”

The Price Target: Breaking $300

Asked directly for a forecast, Ha Trang didn’t hesitate. “Given that the previous all-time high is $290, I think we can target more than $300 this time,” she said, predicting Solana will set a new record once this third leap plays out.

The timing is far less certain. Solana’s previous all-time high was $290, which it reached back in January 2025, and Ha Trang said the current crypto winter could persist for some time yet. Some analysts see 2028 as the likely turning point for crypto’s next bull cycle, meaning roughly another year of sideways or difficult conditions before momentum shifts.

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

A proposal has been submitted that would make significant changes to Solana, one of the world’s largest altcoins.

According to Coindesk, Solana validators are offering suggestions to increase spending and reduce SOL issuance.

At this point, Solana validators are offering two governance proposals, SIMD-0550 and SIMD-0553, to reduce the supply of SOL and increase token burning.

If accepted, these two proposals could lead to significant changes in Solana’s current economic model. The proposals aim to substantially increase the daily amount of SOL burned in the network from current levels.

These proposals could increase the network’s daily consumption from 650 SOL ($47,000) to 9,000 SOL ($650,000).

It could also move Solana’s target of achieving 1.5% inflation from 2032 to 2029, reducing supply by approximately 18.9 million SOL over six years.

Some experts argue that an increase in fuel consumption alone may not be enough to transform Solana into a deflationary system. They claim that even if daily fuel consumption increases to 9,000 SOL, a deflationary shift will be difficult because it will remain below the 60,000 SOL injected into the market each day.

*This is not investment advice.

Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

Solana validators weigh proposals to burn more fees and cut SOL issuance, but the plan needs more staker support to succeed.

Listen

0

0:00 0:00

Subscribe to Bankless or sign in

Coindesk reported that Solana validators are considering two linked proposals that would burn more transaction fees and reduce how quickly new SOL enters circulation.

What’s the scoop?The proposals: SGP-0003 combines SIMD-0553, which would introduce new resource-based transaction fees, with SIMD-0550, which would accelerate Solana’s existing inflation reduction schedule.More SOL burned: SIMD-0553 would charge transactions based partly on the network resources they request, with those new fees fully burned. CoinDesk estimates this could increase daily burns from roughly 650 SOL, worth $47,000, to between 7,500 and 9,000 SOL, worth as much as $650,000. t must be noted though that Solana issues roughly around 60,0000 SOL daily, so while 9,000 is a strong step, it would by no means make the chain deflationary.Less SOL issued: SIMD-0550 would double Solana’s annual disinflation rate from 15% to 30%, accelerating the path to its 1.5% permanent floor in 2029 instead of 2032.What happens next: The proposal currently has support from 24.94M SOL, or 5.8% of active stake. It needs support from 15% by August 18 before it can advance to a formal validator vote, leaving it roughly 40M SOL short. Helius currently accounts for nearly two-thirds of the support.
0

Written by David Christopher

642 Articles • View all      

David is a writer/analyst at Bankless. Prior to joining Bankless, he worked for a series of early-stage crypto startups and on grants from the Ethereum, Solana, and Urbit Foundations. He graduated from Skidmore College in New York. He currently lives in the Midwest and enjoys NFTs, but no longer participates in them.

No Responses

Search Bankless

Stablecard holds remittances as USDPT, the Anchorage-issued Solana token Western Union launched in May, and spends the balance anywhere Visa is accepted. The stablecoin behind it has $7.4 million in circulation.

Western Union and stablecoin card issuer Rain launched Stablecard on Aug. 4, a digital wallet and Visa card that lets people receive money transfers as USDPT and spend the balance at any Visa merchant or ATM.

Stablecard extends Western Union's onchain push from settlement infrastructure into a consumer-facing product. The company moved $107.4 billion in cross-border principal across 285.9 million consumer money transfer transactions in 2025, and Stablecard gives recipients of that money a dollar-denominated balance they can spend without converting to local currency.

Stablecard is live in 37 markets, which Western Union said include “the key markets where local currency is not stable and demand for stablecoins is already visible.” The company did not name them, and is targeting more than 60 markets by the end of the year. The app is available in the Apple App Store and Google Play, the card can be loaded into Apple Pay and Google Pay, and users can move USDPT to and from outside wallets and exchanges.

“By combining the stability of a dollar-backed digital asset with the scale of Western Union's global network and Visa's acceptance footprint, we're giving consumers a new way to hold value, move money and spend confidently across borders,” said Devin McGranahan, Western Union's president and chief executive, in the release.

Secured Credit WrinkleWestern Union describes Stablecard as a “USDPT-backed Visa secured credit card.” Secured cards conventionally require the holder's deposit to collateralize the credit line, but Western Union did not detail the mechanics, credit limits, interest terms or fees, and neither company said whether the USDPT balance is drawn down directly at the point of sale.

Western Union first flagged the product in December 2025, when Chief Financial Officer Matt Cagwin described a “stable card” at the UBS Global Technology and AI Conference aimed at remittance receivers in high-inflation economies, citing Argentina. He framed it then as an addition to Western Union's existing prepaid card. The Aug. 4 release widens the target beyond inflation hedging to “everyday spenders.”

$7.4 Million OnchainUSDPT, issued by Anchorage Digital Bank on Solana and redeemable 1:1 for dollars, has 7.4 million tokens in circulation held across 162 addresses, according to Solana onchain data. That is 0.05% of the $15.8 billion in stablecoins on Solana, per DefiLlama, and a rounding error against the $300 billion stablecoin market.

The token went live May 4 and picked up its first major exchange distribution a month later, when Bybit integrated it for Latin American users. Stablecard is its first distribution channel aimed at people who are not already crypto users.

Rain Under The HoodRain supplies both the wallet and the card issuing. The company is a principal member of Visa and Mastercard, issues cards accepted at more than 175 million merchant locations in over 200 countries and territories, and counts more than 100 organizations as partners.

“Western Union is putting stablecoin efficiency in the hands of people who have never thought about onchain money and never need to,” said Farooq Malik, Rain's chief executive and co-founder. On X, Rain framed the deal in volume terms: “$100B a year for 100M customers is moving onchain.”

That framing runs ahead of the product. Stablecard is available in 37 of the more than 200 countries and territories Western Union serves, and the company has not said how much of its principal volume it expects to route through USDPT.

Shrinking Core BusinessThe launch lands five days after an earnings report that sent Western Union shares to a 52-week low. Second-quarter GAAP revenue came in at $1.0 billion, down 1% year over year, with North America revenue down 9% on an adjusted basis. Adjusted earnings fell to $0.31 per share from $0.42, and the company cut full-year adjusted earnings guidance to $1.25 to $1.35 per share, from the $1.75 to $1.85 range it reaffirmed in April.

Digital and Consumer Services are the growth lines. Branded Digital transactions rose 25% year over year and now account for 43% of consumer money transfer transactions. Consumer Services revenue grew 4% on a GAAP basis and 12% adjusted, though the segment's operating margin fell to 16% from 22%.

Western Union stock traded at $6.89 on Aug. 4, up 5.2% on the day, giving the company a market capitalization of $2.14 billion. The shares hit a 52-week low of $6.27 on July 31, the day after the earnings report, against a 52-week high of $10.35. SOL was flat at $73.56, according to CoinGecko.

Western Union, a leading global payment and remittance service, has announced a strategic partnership with blockchain technology firm Rain to introduce a new wallet and Visa card solution powered by Solana. This offering will roll out across 37 countries, primarily focusing on markets with substantial remittance flows.

Blockchain settlement meets mainstream remittancesThis collaboration enables users to receive international money transfers, maintain balances in USD equivalents, and spend funds wherever Visa cards are accepted—all within a single integrated wallet. By merging legacy remittance channels with blockchain-based settlement, Western Union aims to streamline cross-border payments and enhance accessibility for consumers.

Western Union will serve as the custodian and distributor of USDPT, an on-chain stablecoin minted on the Solana network. USDPT holdings can be funded directly from Western Union’s traditional remittance products or transferred among users before being spent with a Rain-issued Visa card, bringing together established payment infrastructure and blockchain innovation.

Mini dictionary: Rain is a blockchain infrastructure company specializing in digital asset-based payment solutions, focusing on integrating cryptocurrencies and stablecoins into traditional financial networks. USDPT is a stablecoin native to the Solana blockchain, designed to maintain a value pegged to the US dollar and facilitate fast, low-cost digital payments.

The choice of Solana as the underlying blockchain for this service stems from its ability to process transactions rapidly and at minimal cost—qualities vital for consumer-focused payments in remittance-heavy regions.

Stablecoin integration expands real-world payment optionsThe initiative signals a growing acceptance of public blockchains among established financial firms for everyday spending, broadening use cases for stablecoins beyond decentralized finance and trading. By linking Solana’s on-chain infrastructure to global payment rails such as Visa, Western Union and Rain lay the groundwork for mass adoption.

Users will have the flexibility to receive, store, and spend digital US dollars through a platform that combines Western Union’s trusted brand with Rain’s blockchain expertise and the fast settlement capabilities of Solana.

Developers also benefit from a structured way to interact with Solana, while institutions can tap legacy networks into more transparent, programmable infrastructure. Observers suggest that regulators may closely review compliance efforts, especially regarding customer verification and travel rule procedures involved in USDPT transactions.

Key challenges: Liquidity and regulatory landscapeWhile the adoption of stablecoin-based payments accelerated between 2025 and 2026, most activity remained limited to crypto-native platforms. Western Union’s integration of blockchain and Visa networks represents a significant step in bridging digital assets and mainstream payment systems, but also introduces new operational and legal complexities.

This joint launch highlights the intersection of liquidity management, cross-border legal considerations, and the need to educate markets as blockchain adoption increases across remittance corridors.

Ensuring sufficient liquidity of USDPT, educating users about stablecoin-based transfers, and navigating jurisdictional differences are areas both companies must address as the service expands.

The Western Union-Rain partnership demonstrates the evolving relationship between traditional finance and blockchain technology, offering new possibilities for low-cost international transfers and everyday spending.

FeatureTraditional RemittanceWestern Union + Rain (USDPT on Solana)Settlement SpeedSeveral minutes to daysAlmost instantTransaction FeesTypically higherVery lowPayment TypeCash or fiatDigital stablecoin (USDPT)Regions CoveredWorldwide37 remittance-focused marketsDisclaimer: 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.

In brief Solana validators are considering a proposal to increase daily SOL burns through a new fee model. A companion proposal would accelerate the network's declining inflation schedule. The proposal is close to reaching the support needed to advance to a formal vote. Solana validators are close to advancing a governance proposal that would sharply increase the amount of SOL burned each day while reducing the rate at which new tokens enter circulation.

If implemented, the proposal would therefore limit the network token’s inflation rate, thereby limiting supply and, in theory, could lead to an increase in the price of Solana tokens if demand remains steady or increases.

The proposal, SGP-0003, combines two previously introduced Solana Improvement Documents into a single governance package aimed at tightening SOL's supply. SIMD-0553 would introduce resource-based transaction fees, increasing daily SOL burns from about 650 SOL (roughly $48,000) to between 7,500 and 9,000 SOL (up to about $668,000), depending on network activity. SIMD-0550 would also double Solana's annual disinflation rate to 30%, bringing the network's 1.5% inflation floor forward from 2032 to 2029.

A token burn permanently removes cryptocurrency from circulation by sending it to an unusable wallet address. By pairing larger burns with lower issuance, the proposal would reduce the growth of SOL's circulating supply.

The proposal is in Solana's support phase and must secure backing from validators. As of Tuesday morning, it had support from 63 million SOL, or just over 14.4% of the network's staked supply, leaving about 3 million SOL needed to reach the threshold of 65.16 million SOL before the Aug. 18 deadline.

According to the Solana Validator Governance dashboard, to date, the proposal has 73 supporters, including Helius, Jupiter, Staking Facilities, Drift, OtterSec, and Solana Compass.

big news

the solana deflation & burning proposals will go to an early vote starting tomorrow

if they get at least 15% of stake to signal support, they'll go to a final vote after that

if you're a node or holder that want these on Solana, show support fast

no time to waste https://t.co/MRZVX54QyD

— mert (@mert) August 2, 2026

The higher burn rate alone would not make SOL deflationary. Solana currently issues about 60,000 SOL per day. The companion issuance proposal is designed to reduce new supply while the fee changes increase the amount of SOL permanently removed from circulation.

If the proposal reaches the required support threshold, it will advance to the discussion phase before a formal validator vote.

Solana, which trades as SOL, is currently changing hands for around $74 at a $43 billion market capitalization. The native token of the Solana network is up slightly on the day, but still a considerable way off from its all-time high of $293 that it reached over a year ago.

Traders on Myriad, a prediction market developed by Decrypt’s parent company Dastan, remain bearish on the token as of yet, placing 70% odds that SOL drops to $40 before recovering to $160.

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

Two US senators are asking the SEC to take a hard look at the $TRUMP memecoin, a Solana-based token explicitly linked to former President Donald Trump, after its value cratered roughly 97-98% from its peak. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal sent a formal letter to SEC Chair Paul Atkins requesting an investigation into what they described as a potential rug pull that left nearly 1 million holders nursing an estimated $3.8 billion in collective losses.

While memecoins imploding is practically a daily occurrence in crypto, this one has a former US president allegedly earning around $636 million from the token, drawn from financial disclosures.

What the senators are alleging Warren and Blumenthal characterized the $TRUMP token’s trajectory as resembling a “pump-and-dump” scheme, going so far as to label it a potential “illegal scam.” The core argument is straightforward: insiders enriched themselves while retail investors, many of whom bought in based on the token’s association with Trump, got obliterated.

Advertisement

Nearly 1 million individual holders watched their investments evaporate, with aggregate losses landing somewhere around $3.8 billion.

The senators’ letter also fits into a broader pattern of congressional scrutiny around Trump-adjacent crypto ventures. A bipartisan Senate inquiry had already targeted a Mar-a-Lago conference in April 2026, where $TRUMP token holders gathered.

The regulatory backdrop The SEC under Chair Paul Atkins has generally taken a lighter touch toward crypto compared to the agency’s previous leadership under Gary Gensler. Atkins has signaled a preference for clearer frameworks over enforcement-first approaches.

The classification question matters too. If the SEC determines that $TRUMP functioned as an unregistered security rather than simply a memecoin or collectible, the legal implications extend far beyond this single token. Memecoins are generally not marketed with promises of profit tied to an enterprise, which is the rough test for whether something qualifies as a security under the Howey framework. But a token that bears a former president’s name, that he reportedly profited from enormously, and that attracted buyers arguably because of its association with his political brand starts to look more like an investment contract under the Howey test.

What this means for investors For the broader Solana ecosystem, Solana has become the de facto home of memecoin culture, with platforms like Pump.fun generating enormous transaction volume. An SEC action specifically targeting a Solana-based memecoin would raise the temperature around the entire memecoin sector that has become central to Solana’s activity metrics.

Investors across the crypto market should also watch how Atkins responds to this request. If the SEC opens a formal investigation, it signals that even a crypto-friendly administration has limits. If Atkins declines or slow-walks the request, it will likely fuel further congressional action, possibly including legislative proposals that target memecoins specifically.

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

Most people still think crypto payments means buying coffee with bitcoin. The real shift is quieter and far larger: stablecoins now settle more value annually than many traditional payment networks, and a new category called PayFi is building programmable payment infrastructure on top of that volume. This guide explains what PayFi is, how the plumbing works, and why it matters that a dollar sent on Solana arrives in seconds for a fraction of a cent while the same dollar sent through SWIFT takes days and costs $25 to $50.

Summary

PayFi, short for payment finance, is the application of decentralized finance protocols to real-world payments, combining stablecoin settlement with programmable logic like streaming payments, conditional escrow, and yield-funded spending. Stablecoins processed over $27 trillion in on-chain transfer volume in 2024, exceeding the combined volume of Visa and Mastercard, though the comparison requires qualification because stablecoin volume includes DeFi activity and treasury management alongside consumer payments. The core PayFi thesis rests on eliminating correspondent banking, the chain of intermediary banks that makes cross-border wire transfers slow and expensive, by replacing it with direct stablecoin settlement on public blockchains. Protocols like Huma Finance, Superfluid, and Sablier represent different approaches to PayFi: Huma finances real-world payment flows using on-chain capital, Superfluid enables continuous per-second payment streaming, and Sablier provides token vesting and payroll distribution. Regulatory frameworks are catching up. The EU’s MiCA regulation and proposed US stablecoin legislation would create licensing requirements for stablecoin issuers, which could either legitimize PayFi by providing regulatory clarity or constrain it by imposing compliance costs. When Lily Liu, chair of the Solana Foundation, introduced the term PayFi at Token2049 in September 2024, she framed it around a specific concept: the time value of money. The idea is that if your stablecoins are earning yield in a DeFi protocol, you can spend the yield today without touching the principal. Buy a coffee with the interest your USDC earned overnight. Pay a subscription with the yield from your savings. The principal never moves, only the earnings do.

That framing captured attention, but PayFi has grown beyond the time-value-of-money concept. It now encompasses any payment infrastructure built on stablecoins and smart contracts, from cross-border payroll to trade finance to merchant point-of-sale settlement. The common thread is replacing slow, expensive, intermediary-heavy payment rails with programmable stablecoin flows.

Why wire transfers cost what they cost To understand what PayFi replaces, it helps to understand what it replaces.

A domestic wire transfer in the United States costs between $25 and $30 and settles same-day through the Fedwire system. An international wire transfer costs between $30 and $50, takes one to five business days, and passes through a chain of correspondent banks that each take a fee.

The cost comes from the correspondent banking system. When you send dollars from a US bank to a recipient’s bank in the Philippines, your bank rarely has a direct relationship with the Philippine bank. Instead, the payment passes through one or more intermediary banks that maintain accounts with both institutions. Each intermediary charges a fee, performs compliance checks, and introduces processing time.

SWIFT, the messaging network that coordinates international transfers, does not actually move money. It sends instructions between banks. The actual settlement happens through correspondent accounts, which is why a SWIFT transfer can take days even though the message itself arrives in seconds.

The global remittance market, where migrant workers send money home, illustrates the cost most clearly. The World Bank reports that the global average cost of sending $200 is approximately 6.2 percent, or $12.40 in fees. For some corridors, particularly sub-Saharan African routes, the cost exceeds 8 percent. These fees fall disproportionately on people who can least afford them.

How stablecoin settlement works A stablecoin transfer eliminates most of the intermediary chain. Sending USDC from one wallet to another on Solana costs less than one cent in transaction fees and settles in under two seconds, with price execution unaffected by slippage because stablecoins trade at a fixed peg. The sender does not need a bank account. The recipient does not need a bank account. No correspondent bank takes a cut.

The settlement is final in the blockchain sense: once the transaction is confirmed, the USDC is in the recipient’s wallet and cannot be reversed. This is different from a wire transfer, where settlement finality depends on the clearing system and can technically be reversed in certain dispute scenarios.

The infrastructure that makes this possible has three layers:

The stablecoin itself. USDC (issued by Circle) and USDT (issued by Tether) are the dominant payment stablecoins. Both maintain reserves denominated in US dollars and dollar-equivalent assets. Circle publishes monthly attestations of its reserves through an independent accounting firm. Tether publishes quarterly reserve reports. The trustworthiness of the stablecoin depends entirely on the issuer’s reserves and governance, not on the blockchain it runs on.

The blockchain network. Stablecoins exist on multiple chains. USDC runs on Ethereum, Solana, Base, Avalanche, Arbitrum, and several others. The choice of network affects transaction speed, cost, and the ecosystem of applications available. Solana and Base offer the lowest fees for payment-scale transactions, while Ethereum offers the deepest DeFi liquidity.

The on-ramp and off-ramp. Converting between fiat currency and stablecoins still requires a regulated financial intermediary: an exchange, a licensed money transmitter, or a banking partner. This is the bottleneck. The on-chain transfer is fast and cheap, but getting dollars into and out of the stablecoin system involves KYC checks, bank transfers, and processing delays that reintroduce some of the friction PayFi aims to remove.

What PayFi protocols actually build PayFi is not a single protocol. It is a category of applications that use stablecoins and smart contracts to create payment infrastructure that would be difficult or impossible to build on traditional rails.

Trade finance and receivables. Huma Finance is the most prominent PayFi protocol by total value locked. Huma allows businesses to finance real-world payment flows using on-chain capital. A payment company that processes cross-border transactions can use Huma to access working capital backed by its receivables, receiving stablecoins today against payments it will collect in 30 or 60 days. The on-chain capital providers earn yield from the interest charged on these advances. This is traditional factoring, but the capital comes from a DeFi pool instead of a bank, and the settlement happens in stablecoins instead of through correspondent banking.

Streaming payments. Superfluid enables continuous, per-second payment flows. Instead of paying an employee $5,000 at the end of the month, an employer can stream $0.0019 per second continuously. The employee’s balance increases in real time and can be withdrawn at any moment. This model has applications beyond payroll: subscription payments, rental agreements, and service fees can all be structured as continuous flows instead of discrete monthly charges.

Token vesting and distribution. Sablier provides lockup and vesting schedules for token distributions. While not a payment protocol in the traditional sense, Sablier’s linear and dynamic vesting curves solve a real treasury management problem for crypto projects that need to distribute tokens to employees, investors, and community members over time.

Merchant acceptance. Several payment processors now allow merchants to accept stablecoin payments and receive settlement in their local fiat currency. The merchant never touches crypto. The customer pays in USDC or USDT, the processor converts to fiat, and the merchant receives dollars, euros, or pesos in their bank account. The conversion happens at the processor level, and the merchant’s accounting treats it as a normal card-like transaction.

Cross-border payroll. Companies with distributed international teams face a persistent problem: paying contractors in different countries through traditional banking is slow, expensive, and administratively complex. PayFi payroll solutions allow employers to fund a smart contract with stablecoins and distribute payments to contractors worldwide, who then convert to their local currency. The employer sends one transaction instead of initiating separate wire transfers to each country. Several platforms now offer this service with built-in tax reporting and compliance documentation for the jurisdictions they support.

The time value of money concept The original PayFi thesis, as articulated by Lily Liu, centers on a specific application of yield-bearing stablecoins.

Here is the arithmetic. Suppose a user holds $10,000 in USDC deposited into a lending protocol earning 5 percent annual yield. That position generates approximately $1.37 per day in interest. Instead of waiting for the interest to compound, a PayFi application could allow the user to spend today against the yield that will accrue tomorrow. The principal remains untouched and continues earning.

In practice, this requires a protocol that can advance the expected yield, absorb the risk that the yield rate changes or the lending protocol fails, and settle the payment in real time. The user experiences something like a credit card with no interest charges and no principal drawdown, funded entirely by the return on their deposited assets.

This model works as long as three conditions hold: the yield remains positive, the stablecoin maintains its peg, and the lending protocol remains solvent. If any of these conditions fail, the payment stream breaks. The user is not spending “free money.” They are spending returns on capital that carries smart contract risk, rate risk, and peg risk.

The arithmetic: stablecoin transfer versus wire transfer The cost advantage of stablecoin settlement becomes concrete when you compare a specific payment scenario across both rails.

Consider a small business in the United States paying a supplier in Vietnam $5,000 per month.

Through traditional banking, the wire transfer costs $45 per transaction in bank fees. The intermediary correspondent bank charges an additional $15 to $25. The foreign exchange conversion at the receiving end costs 1 to 2 percent of the transfer amount, adding $50 to $100. Total cost per transfer: approximately $110 to $170. The payment takes two to four business days to arrive, and the supplier cannot access the funds until the receiving bank processes the credit.

Through stablecoin settlement, the sender converts $5,000 to USDC through an exchange or on-ramp provider, paying a conversion fee of 0.1 to 0.5 percent ($5 to $25). The on-chain transfer costs less than $0.01 on Solana and settles in seconds. The recipient converts USDC to Vietnamese dong through a local exchange or off-ramp, paying another 0.5 to 1 percent ($25 to $50). Total cost: approximately $30 to $75. The payment arrives in minutes, and the recipient can convert to local currency the same day.

The savings increase with volume. A company making 50 cross-border payments per month saves between $2,000 and $5,000 monthly by switching from wire transfers to stablecoin settlement. Annualized, that is $24,000 to $60,000 in direct cost savings, plus the working capital benefit of receiving funds days earlier.

The comparison has important limits. Stablecoin settlement requires both parties to have access to crypto exchanges or regulated on-ramp and off-ramp services. The regulatory status of those services varies by country. And the conversion fees at both ends can fluctuate based on local market liquidity and competition among providers.

Where user experience still breaks down The on-chain transfer is the easy part. The friction points that prevent PayFi from mainstream adoption sit on either side of it.

On-ramp complexity. Converting fiat to stablecoins requires identity verification through a regulated exchange or money service business. In developed markets, this typically takes one to three business days and requires a bank account, government-issued ID, and sometimes proof of address. In emerging markets, regulated on-ramps may not exist, or existing services may exclude users without bank accounts — exactly the population PayFi aims to serve.

Self-custody burden. A payment recipient who holds stablecoins in a self-custodied wallet is responsible for securing their private key. Losing the key means losing the funds permanently. This is not a problem that improved blockchain infrastructure can solve. It is a fundamental tension between the censorship-resistance of self-custody and the safety nets that traditional banking provides through account recovery and fraud protection.

Regulatory fragmentation. The legal status of stablecoin payments varies dramatically by country. Some jurisdictions treat stablecoin transfers as currency transactions subject to money transmission licensing. Others treat them as securities transactions. A cross-border payment that is legal on both ends may pass through regulatory grey zones in the countries whose financial systems it touches.

Volatility in local currency terms. A recipient in a country with a depreciating currency faces a conversion decision every time they receive a stablecoin payment. Holding USDC while the local currency weakens is effectively a gain. But converting too slowly during a period of local currency strengthening creates a loss. This timing risk does not exist in traditional wire transfers, where the funds arrive in local currency.

What this does not cover This guide covers the mechanics of PayFi, stablecoin settlement, and the economics of cross-border payments. It does not cover:

Central bank digital currencies, which use different infrastructure and are issued by governments instead of private companies. CBDCs and stablecoins solve similar problems but through fundamentally different governance structures. Crypto debit cards, which convert stablecoins to fiat at point of sale. These are consumer products built on PayFi infrastructure, not the infrastructure itself. The legal and tax treatment of stablecoin payments, which varies by jurisdiction and is subject to ongoing regulatory development in most major markets. Algorithmic stablecoins, which maintain their peg through protocol mechanics instead of fiat reserves. These carry fundamentally different risk profiles and are not currently used in serious PayFi applications after the failure of TerraUSD in 2022. Practical checks before using a PayFi protocol Before using a PayFi application for real money, verify these points:

Check the stablecoin’s reserve attestation. USDC publishes monthly third-party attestations through Grant Thornton. USDT publishes quarterly reserve reports. If a PayFi application uses a stablecoin with no published reserves or unaudited reserves, the peg stability is not verifiable.

Verify the smart contract audit status. PayFi protocols that hold user funds should have audits from reputable firms, not just informal reviews. Check whether the audit was completed for the current contract version, since protocol upgrades can introduce new vulnerabilities that invalidate prior audits.

Understand the off-ramp path. Know exactly how your recipient will convert the stablecoin to local currency before sending. A PayFi payment that arrives instantly but takes five days to convert because local off-ramps are slow or expensive has not improved on a wire transfer.

Check transaction finality on the chosen network. Different blockchains have different finality characteristics. A transaction confirmed on Solana is effectively irreversible after one to two seconds. Ethereum transactions achieve probabilistic finality after a few minutes. Some bridges and payment processors wait for multiple block confirmations before releasing funds. Know the actual settlement time end-to-end, not just the on-chain confirmation time.

Confirm regulatory status in both countries. For cross-border payments, check whether the stablecoin transfer is legal in both the sending and receiving jurisdiction. This is particularly important for corridors involving countries with capital controls or cryptocurrency restrictions.

What to watch US stablecoin legislation. The GENIUS Act and STABLE Act are advancing through Congress. If passed, they would create a licensing framework for stablecoin issuers, require reserve backing and redemption rights, and potentially restrict who can issue dollar-pegged stablecoins. The outcome would significantly affect which stablecoins dominate PayFi applications and what compliance costs those applications face.

Visa and Mastercard stablecoin integration. Both networks have announced or piloted programs to settle transactions in USDC. If traditional card networks complete their stablecoin integration, PayFi infrastructure may merge with existing merchant payment flows rather than competing with them.

Circle’s IPO and public disclosures. Circle, the issuer of USDC, filed for a US IPO. Public company status will require more detailed reserve disclosures and subject Circle to securities regulation, providing more transparency into the largest payment stablecoin’s backing.

Banking licenses for stablecoin issuers. Several stablecoin issuers are pursuing banking charters or bank partnerships that would allow them to hold reserves directly at the Federal Reserve. This would remove the counterparty risk of reserves held at commercial banks, as happened during the SVB crisis when USDC briefly depegged because $3.3 billion of its reserves were trapped at the failed bank.

Off-ramp infrastructure in emerging markets. The practical utility of PayFi in the remittance corridors where it matters most depends on competitive off-ramp services in markets like the Philippines, Nigeria, Mexico, and India. Watch for new entrants and regulatory approvals that expand the availability of local currency conversion.

What is PayFi? PayFi, short for payment finance, is the application of decentralized finance protocols to real-world payment infrastructure. It combines stablecoin settlement with programmable smart contract logic to create payment systems that are faster and cheaper than traditional wire transfers. Examples include streaming payroll, cross-border stablecoin remittances, and yield-funded spending.

How are stablecoins different from regular cryptocurrencies for payments? Stablecoins are pegged to a reference asset, typically the US dollar, which means their value does not fluctuate the way Bitcoin or Ethereum does. This makes them practical for payments, since both sender and recipient know the dollar value of the transaction at the time it executes. Regular cryptocurrencies expose both parties to price risk between the time of sending and the time of converting to fiat.

Why are wire transfers slow and expensive? Wire transfers are slow and expensive because they pass through correspondent banking chains. Your bank rarely has a direct relationship with the recipient’s bank in another country, so the payment routes through one or more intermediary banks that each charge fees and introduce processing delays. SWIFT, the messaging system that coordinates international transfers, sends instructions but does not move money, which is why a SWIFT message arrives in seconds but the funds take days.

What is the time value of money concept in PayFi? The time value of money in PayFi refers to using the yield earned on deposited stablecoins to fund spending, leaving the principal untouched. For example, $10,000 in USDC earning 5% annual yield generates roughly $1.37 per day. A PayFi application could allow spending against tomorrow’s yield today, so the user pays for expenses without drawing down their savings. The principal continues compounding while the yield stream funds consumption.

Is USDC backed by real dollars? USDC is backed by US dollar-denominated assets held in reserve, including cash and short-term US Treasury securities. Circle, the issuer, publishes monthly reserve attestations through an independent accounting firm. The reserve backing means each USDC token is redeemable for one US dollar through Circle’s redemption system, subject to the reserves remaining intact and Circle remaining solvent.

What happened to USDC during the SVB crisis? In March 2023, Silicon Valley Bank collapsed while holding approximately $3.3 billion in USDC reserves. Circle disclosed the exposure on a Friday, and USDC briefly fell to $0.87 before recovering after US regulators announced they would guarantee SVB depositors. The episode illustrated that stablecoin reserves held at commercial banks carry counterparty risk, and that even well-reserved stablecoins can depeg temporarily during banking crises.

What is Huma Finance? Huma Finance is a PayFi protocol that allows businesses to finance real-world payment flows using on-chain capital. Payment companies and fintechs that process cross-border transactions can access working capital backed by their receivables, receiving stablecoins today against payments they will collect in 30 to 60 days. Capital providers in Huma’s lending pools earn yield from the interest charged on these advances.

Can stablecoin payments replace bank accounts for unbanked populations? Stablecoin wallets can provide store-of-value and payment functions without a traditional bank account. However, converting between stablecoins and local cash still typically requires a licensed exchange, mobile money service, or agent network. The final-mile cash access problem limits PayFi’s ability to fully replace banking in markets where digital financial infrastructure is underdeveloped.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Stablecoin and DeFi protocols carry smart contract risk, reserve risk, and regulatory risk. Always conduct your own research before making any financial decision. Information current as of August 4, 2026.

The first public earnings from Elon Musk’s space company reveal the real cost of holding bitcoin on a balance sheet under the new accounting rules. The numbers tell a story that the “laser eyes” crowd would prefer to skip.

Summary

SpaceX reported second quarter revenue of $7.8 billion, beating Wall Street expectations by $900 million, but its bitcoin holdings fell from $1.64 billion at the end of 2025 to $1.10 billion at the end of June 2026, a decline of $540 million that flowed directly through the income statement. The company disclosed it holds 18,712 BTC in its SEC filing, more than double the 8,285 coins that on-chain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence had tracked to SpaceX wallets as recently as May 2026, suggesting the company aggressively accumulated bitcoin in the weeks surrounding its $86 billion IPO. Under the FASB fair-value accounting standard (ASU 2023-08) that took effect for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024, companies must now report both gains and losses on crypto holdings through the income statement each quarter, replacing the old impairment-only model that could only write values down. SpaceX is the first major company to report its initial quarterly earnings as a public entity under the new rules during a significant bitcoin drawdown, making its filing a template for how markets will react to crypto volatility on corporate balance sheets. The timing is particularly exposed: on August 6, roughly 912 million shares held by employees and early backers become eligible for sale, and the bitcoin loss will factor into every analyst model used to price that unlock. SpaceX topped every financial estimate Wall Street had for it. Revenue came in $900 million above consensus. Adjusted EBITDA nearly tripled year over year to $3.5 billion. The net loss narrowed from $1.0 billion to $541 million. By every operational measure, the company’s launch business, Starlink subscriber growth, and AI infrastructure expansion are performing ahead of schedule.

None of that made the stock go up after hours. SPCX fell six percent in extended trading on August 4, the same day the Nasdaq 100 gained 3.3 percent. The reason is not in the revenue line. It is in the balance sheet, where 18,712 bitcoin sat at the end of June worth $540 million less than they were worth six months earlier.

This is the first time a company of SpaceX’s size has published quarterly earnings as a newly public entity while holding a significant bitcoin position during a major drawdown. The filing is not just an earnings report. It is a live demonstration of what the new FASB fair-value accounting rules do to a corporate income statement when bitcoin drops 33 percent in six months.

What the filing actually shows SpaceX’s SEC filing disclosed $1.10 billion in digital assets as of June 30, 2026, down from $1.64 billion at the end of 2025. The $540 million decline represents the mark-to-market impact of bitcoin’s price falling from roughly $87,600 at the end of December 2025 to approximately $58,800 at the end of June 2026, a 33 percent drop.

The 18,712 BTC position is itself a revelation. As recently as May 18, 2026, on-chain analytics from Arkham Intelligence showed SpaceX holding 8,285 BTC in Coinbase Prime custody, a position that had been unchanged since June 2022. The SEC filing showing 18,712 BTC means SpaceX acquired approximately 10,427 additional bitcoin in the weeks surrounding its June IPO.

That acquisition timing is significant. SpaceX was buying bitcoin while the price was falling, accumulating more than $600 million in additional exposure during a period when the asset was in a sustained downtrend. Whether this was a deliberate dollar-cost averaging strategy, part of the IPO capital allocation plan, or simply the transfer of previously untracked cold storage into the disclosed entity is not clear from the filing. What is clear is that the company’s bitcoin exposure is substantially larger than the market believed before these earnings.

The net loss of $541 million is almost exactly equal to the decline in bitcoin holdings. Strip out the crypto mark-to-market, and SpaceX’s core operations would have been approximately breakeven, a significant milestone for a company that has historically reinvested aggressively at the expense of profitability.

How the new accounting rules changed the math Before FASB ASU 2023-08 took effect, companies that held bitcoin classified it as an indefinite-lived intangible asset. Under those rules, if bitcoin’s price fell below the carrying value at any point during a quarter, the company had to write the asset down to the lowest price reached. But if the price recovered, the company could not write the value back up. The accounting was one directional: losses were permanent on the books, gains were invisible until the company sold.

This created a perverse incentive structure. A company that bought bitcoin at $60,000 and watched it fall to $30,000 and then recover to $60,000 within the same quarter would still report a $30,000 per coin impairment loss. The balance sheet would show the asset at $30,000 even though it was trading at $60,000. The only way to recognize the recovery was to sell the bitcoin and realize the gain, which defeated the purpose of holding it as a long-term treasury asset.

Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, reported a $670 million impairment loss in its fourth quarter 2024 earnings under the old rules. That loss appeared on the income statement despite bitcoin’s price being higher at the end of the quarter than at the beginning. The loss reflected intra-quarter price dips that triggered mandatory write-downs, not actual economic losses.

The new standard, which applies to fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024, replaces this with fair-value measurement. Companies report bitcoin at its market price on the last day of the quarter. If the price goes up, that gain flows through the income statement. If it goes down, that loss flows through the income statement. The accounting now reflects economic reality in both directions.

For SpaceX, this means the $540 million loss is real in the accounting sense but potentially temporary in the economic sense. If bitcoin recovers to its year-end 2025 price, SpaceX would report a corresponding $540 million gain in a future quarter. Under the old rules, the $540 million loss would have been permanent on the books regardless of any price recovery.

The arithmetic of corporate bitcoin at $63,000 The current bitcoin price of approximately $63,000 creates a specific set of exposures for the major public company holders. The arithmetic illustrates why SpaceX’s earnings report sent a ripple through every corporate treasury that holds bitcoin.

SpaceX holds 18,712 BTC at a current market value of approximately $1.18 billion. Every one percent move in bitcoin’s price changes SpaceX’s reported earnings by roughly $11.8 million. A ten percent quarterly swing, which is historically common for bitcoin, would produce a $118 million line item on the income statement, positive or negative.

Strategy holds approximately 580,000 BTC, making it the largest corporate holder by a wide margin. At $63,000, that position is worth roughly $36.5 billion. A one percent bitcoin move changes Strategy’s reported earnings by $365 million. Strategy’s entire business model is now a leveraged bitcoin bet, so investors expect this volatility. But for companies where bitcoin is a treasury allocation alongside an operating business, like SpaceX, Tesla, and Block, the earnings volatility creates a communication problem.

Tesla sold roughly 75 percent of its bitcoin position in 2022, retaining a smaller allocation. Block holds bitcoin as both a treasury asset and a product feature through its Cash App. Neither company has the combination of a massive bitcoin position and a first-ever public earnings report that made SpaceX’s filing uniquely consequential.

The problem for CFOs considering a bitcoin treasury allocation is straightforward: under fair-value accounting, the bitcoin position will dominate the earnings narrative in any quarter where bitcoin moves significantly. SpaceX beat revenue estimates by 13 percent and tripled its EBITDA, and the post-earnings conversation is about bitcoin. That is the cost of holding a volatile asset on a public balance sheet under mark-to-market rules.

Why SpaceX bought more bitcoin into the decline The increase from 8,285 to 18,712 BTC is the most under-discussed element of the filing. SpaceX more than doubled its bitcoin position during a period when the price was falling.

Several explanations are plausible. The most straightforward is that SpaceX used a portion of its IPO proceeds to purchase additional bitcoin as part of a predetermined treasury allocation strategy. The $86 billion IPO raised substantial capital, and allocating roughly $600 million to bitcoin would represent less than one percent of the company’s market capitalization.

Another possibility is that the Arkham Intelligence data was incomplete. On-chain analytics can only track wallets that have been identified and linked to a known entity. If SpaceX held bitcoin in wallets that Arkham had not attributed to the company, the “new” purchases may actually be the disclosure of a position that already existed but was not publicly known. The SEC filing requires disclosure of total holdings regardless of which wallets hold them.

A third explanation is that the increase reflects bitcoin received as payment for Starlink subscriptions or launch services. SpaceX began accepting bitcoin payments for certain services in 2022, and accumulated bitcoin from customer payments would appear in the total holdings disclosed in the SEC filing.

Whatever the reason, the decision to maintain or increase bitcoin exposure while the price was declining signals that SpaceX’s bitcoin position is strategic rather than opportunistic. Companies that view bitcoin as a short-term trade typically sell into weakness. Companies that view it as a long-term treasury allocation buy into weakness. SpaceX’s behavior matches the second pattern.

The August 6 share unlock and the bitcoin overhang Two days after this earnings report, on August 6, approximately 912 million SpaceX shares held by employees and early backers become eligible for sale. This is the first major share unlock since the June IPO, and it will significantly increase the stock’s public float.

The bitcoin loss complicates the unlock pricing. Every analyst covering SPCX must now model the bitcoin position as a source of earnings volatility. A shareholder deciding whether to sell at unlock must factor in not just SpaceX’s launch revenue and Starlink growth but also their view on bitcoin’s price trajectory for the remainder of the year.

If bitcoin remains at $63,000 or falls further, the Q3 earnings report will show another markdown or a flat position at best. If bitcoin recovers to $80,000, SpaceX would report a gain of approximately $318 million, which would make Q3 earnings look dramatically better without any change in the underlying business.

This is the volatility import problem. By holding 18,712 BTC, SpaceX has imported the volatility of the bitcoin market into its equity. Shareholders who bought SPCX for exposure to the space economy and Starlink’s subscriber growth now also have exposure to bitcoin’s price, whether they wanted it or not. There is no way to separate the two exposures in the stock price.

The unlock timing creates a specific risk scenario. If bitcoin drops further between now and August 6, unlocking shareholders face the prospect of selling into a stock that carries both the dilution pressure of increased float and the uncertainty of a declining bitcoin position. Conversely, if bitcoin rallies before the unlock date, some shareholders may hold rather than sell, reducing the supply pressure. Bitcoin’s price has become a variable in SpaceX’s equity supply and demand dynamics, a relationship that did not exist before the company went public with a significant crypto position.

For institutional investors analyzing the unlock, the bitcoin position complicates standard models. A fund that typically evaluates aerospace companies based on launch cadence, satellite deployment, and government contract revenue must now incorporate a cryptocurrency price forecast into its SpaceX model. Many institutional investors lack the internal expertise or mandate to evaluate bitcoin as an asset class, which may lead them to apply a discount to SPCX shares simply because the bitcoin exposure introduces a risk factor they cannot model with confidence.

The earnings call problem: when bitcoin overshadows the business SpaceX’s post-earnings price action illustrates a dynamic that every corporate bitcoin holder will face: the bitcoin line becomes the story, regardless of how the rest of the business performs.

Consider the information hierarchy that analysts process after an earnings release. Revenue beat by 13 percent. EBITDA tripled. The net loss narrowed by nearly half compared to the prior year. Under normal circumstances, these numbers would produce a positive after-hours reaction. Instead, SPCX fell six percent.

The bitcoin loss did not cause a financial crisis for SpaceX. The company has billions in cash and growing revenue streams. The $540 million decline is a paper loss that could reverse in any future quarter. But earnings reports are not evaluated in isolation. They are evaluated relative to expectations and narratives, and the narrative for SpaceX’s first public earnings was supposed to be about the launch business and Starlink momentum. Instead, the narrative became about bitcoin.

This is the communication tax that bitcoin imposes on any company that holds it. Investor relations teams must prepare for bitcoin questions on every earnings call. Analysts must build bitcoin price sensitivity tables into their models. Media coverage will lead with the bitcoin loss or gain rather than the operational metrics that management considers more relevant to the company’s value.

For a company like Strategy, which has explicitly positioned itself as a bitcoin investment vehicle, this is not a problem. Strategy’s investors bought the stock specifically for bitcoin exposure. But for SpaceX, Tesla, Block, or any operating company that holds bitcoin as a treasury allocation, the communication tax is real and recurring. Every quarter where bitcoin moves more than ten percent in either direction, the earnings narrative will be hijacked by the crypto position.

The CFOs at companies considering bitcoin allocations are watching SpaceX’s experience closely. The question is no longer whether bitcoin can appreciate over the long term. The question is whether the quarterly earnings disruption is worth the potential long-term return, and whether there are ways to gain bitcoin exposure without importing the volatility directly into the income statement.

What this means for the corporate bitcoin thesis The corporate bitcoin treasury thesis, popularized by Michael Saylor at Strategy, rests on the argument that bitcoin is superior to cash or treasury bonds as a reserve asset because of its fixed supply and potential for long-term appreciation. Under the old accounting rules, this thesis was harder to evaluate because the impairment-only model obscured the true economic performance of the bitcoin position.

Under fair-value accounting, the thesis is fully exposed. Every quarter, the market gets to see exactly how much bitcoin helped or hurt the company’s earnings. SpaceX’s Q2 2026 filing is the first high-profile test case, and the result is a $540 million loss that turned what would have been a breakeven or profitable quarter into a half-billion-dollar loss.

This does not disprove the thesis. Bitcoin could recover and produce gains in future quarters that more than offset this loss. But it does reveal the cost of the thesis in practical terms. A CFO who allocates to bitcoin must be prepared to explain to analysts, board members, and shareholders why the company’s earnings swung by hundreds of millions of dollars because of an asset that has nothing to do with the company’s core business.

For companies already holding bitcoin, the SpaceX filing provides a preview of what their own earnings calls will look like in quarters where bitcoin moves significantly. For companies considering a bitcoin allocation, the filing is a case study in what they are signing up for.

The distinction between stablecoins and bitcoin as corporate treasury assets becomes sharper in this context. A company holding USDC does not face mark-to-market earnings volatility because the asset is pegged to the dollar. A company holding bitcoin does, and SpaceX’s filing quantifies exactly how much.

What to watch SpaceX Q3 earnings and the bitcoin line. If bitcoin remains near $63,000, the Q3 filing will show a roughly flat or modestly positive bitcoin line. If bitcoin recovers to $80,000 or above, the reversal gain will show the upside of fair-value accounting as clearly as this quarter showed the downside.

Strategy’s next quarterly filing. Strategy holds roughly 31 times more bitcoin than SpaceX. Its earnings volatility under the new accounting rules will be correspondingly more extreme. How Strategy’s stock responds to fair-value reporting will signal whether the market values bitcoin treasury companies differently from operating companies that happen to hold bitcoin.

New corporate bitcoin buyers. Watch whether the SpaceX filing accelerates or decelerates corporate bitcoin adoption. If new companies see the earnings volatility and decide the communication cost is too high, the corporate adoption wave may have peaked. If they see SpaceX buying more bitcoin during the drawdown as a signal of conviction, more may follow.

Bitcoin ETF flows versus corporate treasury flows. The emergence of spot bitcoin ETFs in 2024 gave institutions a way to gain bitcoin exposure without the balance sheet volatility. Corporate treasuries that might have held bitcoin directly may increasingly prefer the ETF route, which does not create income statement effects for the holding company.

The share unlock aftermath. How SPCX trades after the August 6 unlock, and whether insider selling is concentrated or distributed, will reveal whether SpaceX’s own employees and investors are comfortable holding a stock with embedded bitcoin volatility or whether they prefer to reduce that exposure.

What is SpaceX’s bitcoin loss? SpaceX reported that its bitcoin holdings declined in value by approximately $540 million during the first half of 2026, from $1.64 billion at the end of 2025 to $1.10 billion at the end of June 2026. This decline flowed through the income statement under the new FASB fair-value accounting rules, contributing to the company’s reported net loss of $541 million for the second quarter.

How much bitcoin does SpaceX hold? SpaceX holds 18,712 BTC according to its SEC filing for the second quarter of 2026. This is significantly more than the 8,285 BTC that on-chain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence had tracked to SpaceX wallets as recently as May 2026, suggesting the company acquired additional bitcoin around the time of its IPO.

What are the FASB fair-value accounting rules for bitcoin? FASB ASU 2023-08, which took effect for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024, requires companies to report crypto asset holdings at fair market value each quarter. Both gains and losses flow through the income statement. This replaced the previous impairment-only model, which required companies to write down bitcoin to its lowest price during the quarter but never allowed them to write the value back up, even if the price recovered.

Did SpaceX lose money on its core business? No. SpaceX’s core business performed strongly, with revenue of $7.8 billion (beating the $6.9 billion consensus estimate) and adjusted EBITDA of $3.5 billion (nearly triple the prior year). The $541 million net loss was almost entirely attributable to the mark-to-market decline in bitcoin holdings. Without the bitcoin position, the company’s operations would have been approximately breakeven.

Why did SPCX stock fall after earnings? SPCX fell six percent in after-hours trading despite beating revenue and EBITDA estimates because the bitcoin loss dominated the earnings narrative. The decline also came ahead of the August 6 share unlock, when approximately 912 million shares held by employees and early investors become eligible for sale, creating additional selling pressure concerns.

How does SpaceX’s bitcoin position compare to other companies? SpaceX’s 18,712 BTC makes it one of the largest known corporate bitcoin holders. Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) holds approximately 580,000 BTC, making it the largest by far. Tesla retains a smaller position after selling roughly 75 percent of its holdings in 2022. Block (formerly Square) holds bitcoin as both a treasury asset and a product feature.

What would happen if bitcoin recovers? Under fair-value accounting, if bitcoin returns to its year-end 2025 price of approximately $87,600, SpaceX would report a gain of roughly $540 million in the quarter when that recovery occurs. This is a key advantage of the new accounting rules over the old impairment model, where such a recovery would not have been reflected in the financial statements unless the company sold its bitcoin.

Should companies hold bitcoin on their balance sheet? The SpaceX filing illustrates the tradeoff clearly. Holding bitcoin provides potential long-term appreciation and diversification from dollar-denominated assets, but under fair-value accounting, it introduces quarterly earnings volatility that can overshadow the company’s operational performance. Companies considering a bitcoin allocation must weigh the strategic benefits against the communication cost of explaining crypto-driven earnings swings to analysts and shareholders.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk, including the potential for total loss of capital. Always conduct your own research before making any investment decision. Information current as of August 4, 2026.

US President Donald Trump has stood out in recent headlines for his support of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In fact, Trump and his wife have altcoins bearing their own names, and his family also has cryptocurrency projects.

While some anti-crypto US Democratic senators have opposed this, most recently Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal sent a formal letter to the SEC regarding Donald Trump’s Solana-based memecoin, Official Trump (TRUMP).

According to CNN, senators have written a letter requesting an investigation into Trump’s altcoin for potential market manipulation and practices that could harm investors.

According to the report, Warren and Blumenthal stated in the letter that it should be investigated whether Trump poses a risk of “rug pull,” citing the irreversible losses suffered by millions of investors.

No Rug-Pull Symptoms! As the Trump controversy continues, blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs stated that there is no definitive evidence that the Trump token was designed specifically for rug-pulling purposes.

However, TRM Labs emphasized that the concentration of a significant portion of the token supply among insiders or linked addresses is a risk factor that needs to be closely monitored.

TRM Labs stated in its assessment that while early investors and the issuer of the TRUMP token made significant gains, numerous individual investors who bought later faced substantial losses.

At this point, the company noted that a structure in which approximately 1 million retail investors suffered losses, even if not technically classified as a rug pull, could become more controversial over time.

*This is not investment advice.

Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

Fintech

4 August 2026 | 07:53 Kamino announced a new product called Kamino Institutional Yield, designed to connect capital held on Solana with credit markets outside crypto.

Key Takeaways Commodity Yield targets approximately 7% to 8% and opened with a $25 million deposit cap. Depositors receive kicUSDC, representing their share of the vault and its accrued yield. Withdrawals depend partly on loans being repaid, so immediate access is not guaranteed at every size. The higher target return comes with offchain legal, operational and counterparty risks. For users already moving USDC between DeFi lending markets in search of better returns, a target yield of 7% to 8% will immediately stand out.

Kamino’s new Commodity Yield vault offers that return by financing short-term commodity trades rather than lending against crypto collateral. Users keep an onchain position through Solana, but the money ultimately depends on commodity traders, banks, escrow agents, insurers and legal agreements operating outside the network.

That is the central trade-off. Depositors gain access to a form of institutional credit that is normally difficult for individuals to reach, while giving up some of the liquidity and transparency associated with automated onchain lending.

Kamino describes the product as institutional-grade credit brought onto Solana through its new Kamino Institutional Yield platform.

Say hello to institutional-grade credit on Solana via @kamino https://t.co/jRD0vNVbtj

— Solana (@solana) August 3, 2026

What Happens After You Deposit USDC Users deposit USDC into the Commodity Yield vault and receive kicUSDC. That token represents their proportional interest in the strategy and reflects the yield generated by its underlying loans.

Kamino says the capital is deployed through a fund structure regulated by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, or CIMA. The fund then finances short-duration commodity transactions.

Solana handles the deposit, vault accounting and ownership token. The borrowers, goods, escrow balances, insurance and repayment agreements remain offchain.

This means owning kicUSDC is different from lending USDC through a conventional DeFi money market. Depositors are exposed to the performance of a managed credit portfolio rather than a visible pool of crypto-backed loans controlled mainly by smart contracts.

How a Commodity Trade Produces the Yield Kamino explains the process through an example involving a copper trader.

The trader agrees to buy copper from a wholesaler for $9 million and sell it to an end buyer for $10 million. The supplier wants payment before shipping, while the buyer pays only after receiving and inspecting the copper.

The trader needs temporary financing to bridge that gap.

Capital from the Kamino vault is provided through a special-purpose vehicle and fund structure. The money is placed in a segregated escrow account that the wholesaler can verify before releasing the shipment.

The copper is insured while in transit. Once it arrives and passes inspection, the escrow account pays the supplier. The end buyer later pays the amount agreed in the sales contract, allowing the trader to repay the financing with interest.

The interest paid by the trader becomes revenue for the vault and contributes to the return received by kicUSDC holders.

The transaction begins with an identified supplier, buyer and commercial margin. Even so, shipment delays, disputed goods, fraud, borrower failure or problems enforcing contracts can still interrupt repayment.

What Withdrawals May Look Like in Practice Kamino says withdrawals can be completed immediately while the vault has enough available USDC in its liquidity buffer.

When redemption requests exceed that buffer, depositors may need to wait for outstanding loans to mature. The underlying money cannot always be returned instantly because part of it may still be financing goods that have not completed their commercial journey.

Someone withdrawing a small amount during normal conditions may receive USDC quickly. A larger request, or many users withdrawing at once, could create a queue until borrowers repay their loans.

Before depositing, users should check whether Kamino discloses:

The size of the vault’s liquid USDC buffer. The average duration of outstanding loans. How queued withdrawals are processed. Whether redemptions can be paused or delayed. Any fees charged when entering or leaving the vault. This product is therefore unsuitable for money that may be needed immediately. A 7% to 8% target becomes less attractive if the depositor cannot tolerate waiting for repayment during stressed conditions.

Collateral Helps, but Recovery Can Still Take Time Kamino says the loans are supported by physical commodities and/or cash held in 1:1 escrow accounts with tier-one banks.

Cash escrow can offer relatively direct protection because funds have already been placed with a bank. Physical collateral is more complicated. Goods may need to be located, inspected, legally seized and sold before lenders recover their money.

The value of a commodity can also change while a dispute is being resolved. Insurance may cover damage or loss during shipping without covering fraud, contractual disputes or every form of borrower failure.

“Fully collateralized” therefore describes the assets intended to support the loan. It does not promise instant or complete recovery in every default scenario.

The Main Risks Are Not Visible on Solana Blockchain records can show USDC entering the vault, kicUSDC being issued and tokens moving between wallets. They cannot verify whether a shipment exists, whether the goods meet the agreed quality or whether an invoice is genuine.

Repayment may depend on:

Commodity traders and corporate borrowers. Suppliers and end buyers. Escrow agents and commercial banks. Shipping companies, inspectors and insurers. Fund managers, administrators and legal entities. The Solana contracts could work exactly as designed while an offchain problem still delays or reduces the amount returned to the vault.

Jurisdiction adds another layer. The fund structure is based in the Cayman Islands, while borrowers, banks, goods and commercial counterparties may operate elsewhere. A dispute could involve several legal systems and take longer to resolve than an automated crypto liquidation.

Kamino says the vault will provide continuous portfolio transparency. For depositors, the useful details will be loan maturities, borrower concentration, collateral location, repayment status, overdue balances and completed recoveries, not simply the total value deposited.

How It Differs From a DeFi Lending Pool Kamino Institutional Yield vs. Standard DeFi Money Markets Comparison Standard DeFi Lending Kamino Commodity Yield Source of Return Interest paid by users borrowing crypto assets. Interest paid on short-term commodity-finance loans. Borrowers Usually pseudonymous wallets using onchain collateral. Identified businesses participating in commodity trades. Collateral Digital assets held in smart contracts. Physical commodities and/or cash escrow, according to Kamino. Transparency Loans and collateral are generally visible onchain. Deposits are visible onchain, while loan performance relies partly on external reporting. Default Handling Smart contracts can automatically liquidate collateral. Recovery may require escrow release, insurance or legal enforcement. Withdrawals Depend on available liquidity in the lending pool. Use a liquidity buffer, with larger requests potentially waiting for loan repayments. Who the Vault May Suit Commodity Yield may appeal to users who want USDC exposure to private credit and are comfortable evaluating risks that cannot be checked entirely through blockchain data.

It is more suitable for depositors who:

Can leave their funds invested through the duration of the underlying loans. Accept that withdrawals may sometimes be delayed. Understand that a stablecoin deposit is not the same as a protected cash account. Are comfortable relying on fund managers, banks and legal agreements. Can assess the vault through portfolio reports rather than onchain data alone. It is a weaker fit for anyone treating USDC as emergency cash, requiring guaranteed immediate withdrawals or expecting smart contracts to manage every important risk automatically.

Why the $25 Million Cap Matters Commodity Yield opened with a maximum of $25 million in deposits. That gives Kamino room to test its lending, reporting and redemption processes without taking unlimited capital from the beginning.

The cap also keeps the launch in perspective. It introduces a new type of credit product on Solana, but it does not yet show that commodity finance can operate at significant scale through the network.

The first completed lending cycles will provide more useful information than the headline yield. Investors will be able to see whether borrowers repay on schedule, whether withdrawals work during periods of heavier demand and how close the realized return comes to the 7% to 8% target after fees.

What the Product Adds to Solana Most tokenized real-world-asset products have focused on government debt, money-market funds and the reserves supporting yield-bearing stablecoins. Kamino is bringing a different form of credit onto Solana’s distribution layer.

The blockchain makes it easier to deposit USDC, receive a transferable vault position and track ownership. The fund handles the commercial lending that cannot be completed entirely through smart contracts.

A successful first vault could lead to other private-credit strategies. Its importance will be determined by repayment performance, withdrawal reliability and sustained demand rather than the launch announcement alone.

Kamino is offering DeFi users a higher target return by moving beyond crypto-native lending. The price of that return is exposure to the slower and less transparent world of borrowers, banks, shipments and legal enforcement.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Yield targets are not guaranteed, and offchain credit structures can involve liquidity, counterparty, operational and legal risks. Methodology: This article uses Kamino’s official launch announcement and explanatory materials for Kamino Institutional Yield and the Commodity Yield vault, together with Solana’s public post about the launch. Product descriptions, target returns and collateral claims are attributed to Kamino. Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.