Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

October 2026 brings another broad round of token unlocks across the Solana ecosystem, with $2Z, $TRUMP, $PUMP, $DBR, and $CARDS among the largest scheduled releases by value.

This month's calendar combines ongoing linear vesting with several cliff unlocks. The largest event belongs to $2Z, while $TRUMP and $PUMP continue their recurring distributions.

Here is a breakdown of the most notable Solana ecosystem token unlocks scheduled for October:

$2Z DoubleZero leads October's schedule with a 1.78 billion $2Z unlock worth approximately $113.36 million. The release begins on October 2 alongside linear vesting and represents 34.78% of circulating supply and 17.8% of total supply.

According to DoubleZero's tokenomics disclosure, $2Z’s initial 1-year vesting cliff expires on October 2, triggering a 1.66B $2Z unlock tomorrow. After that, the token gradually unlocks over a 3-year linear vesting schedule through October 2029. 

The October release arrives as DoubleZero expands its market data infrastructure. Since August, the protocol has made Kalshi, Hyperliquid, and Phoenix data available to trading firms, in addition to the Solana data it previously provided.

$TRUMP $TRUMP will unlock 28.02 million tokens through linear vesting, valued at approximately $60.82 million. The release represents 9.94% of circulating supply and 2.8% of total supply.

The October distribution remains one of the month's largest recurring supply events by dollar value.

$PUMP Pump.fun will release 7 billion $PUMP through linear vesting, valued at approximately $40.25 million. The unlock represents 1.50% of circulating supply and 0.84% of total supply.

The distribution continues the vesting schedule that followed July's major cliff. Pump.fun allocated 33% of its 1 trillion token supply to team members and existing investors under a 12-month cliff followed by 36 months of linear vesting. With the cliff now complete, October marks the 4th month of those recurring monthly distributions.

$DBR deBridge will unlock 618.33 million $DBR on October 17, valued at approximately $12.50 million. The release represents 10.42% of circulating supply and 6.18% of total supply.

The unlock comes after deBridge hit $24 billion in all-time volume during September.

Sanctum's $SANC Supply Cut Sanctum plans to burn 259 million $SANC on October 9, reducing total supply by roughly 25% from 1 billion to 741 million tokens.

The protocol officially changed the ticker from $CLOUD to $SANC in September, while keeping the token address and tokenomics unchanged. Separately, the October schedule lists 10.80 million $SANC for linear vesting, worth approximately $778,000.

What to Watch October's schedule stands out for the scale of the $2Z release, with 1.78 billion tokens representing 34.78% of circulating supply. $TRUMP and $PUMP follow with $60.82 million and $40.25 million in scheduled releases.

Meanwhile, $DBR enters the month after deBridge reached $24 billion in all-time volume, while DoubleZero expands its market data infrastructure and Sanctum prepares a major $SANC supply reduction.

As always, token unlocks do not automatically determine price performance but provide only one part of the broader market picture. However, tracking the size of each release, its impact on circulating supply, and developments around each project can help investors better understand changing supply dynamics across the Solana ecosystem.

Read More on SolanaFloor What is JTX: Solana’s Most Complete Trading Platform
Solana’s $SI Memecoin Hits $60.9M ATH as Trump Renames AI “Super Intelligence”

Solana Is Getting Faster While Prices Go Up

100% of the Foundation’s allocation and a significant portion of founder and future team allocations are gone for good; the burn is irreversible and verifiable by anyone on-chain

Streamflow Foundation announced that it has burned 699.99 million STREAM, permanently removing 70% of total token supply from circulation in a single on-chain transaction. The burn covers 100% of the Foundation’s allocation, both locked and unlocked, as well as a significant portion of the founder and future team allocation. Total supply now stands at 300 million STREAM, down from 1 billion.

The tokens were destroyed through Solana’s programmatic burn instruction, which reduces total supply directly at the mint level. Nothing was moved to a wallet. There is nothing to recover, unfreeze, or reissue, and no future decision by Streamflow Foundation, Streamflow, or any affiliate can restore the tokens to supply.

The burn is irreversible. It is recorded on-chain and can be independently verified by any observer on Solscan.

Foundation treasury holdings typically represent the largest single variable in a token’s forward supply schedule. They can be distributed, sold, or emitted at the holder’s discretion, and the market has to price in every one of those possibilities. Streamflow Foundation has chosen to eliminate that variable outright rather than defer it through locks or policies that still depend on future decisions.

“A treasury that can be spent is a treasury the market has to price in. Burning it outright is the only version of this commitment that doesn’t depend on anyone’s continued good intentions. The tokens are gone, the transaction is public, and no future decision can bring them back.” – Mališa Stanojević, CEO of Streamflow.

With the overhang removed, every remaining STREAM is accounted for. Of the original total supply, the following remains:

11.47% in existing vesting contracts for private investors and early contributors 4.03% reserved for current and future team members to continue contributing 3.42% currently in the Active Staking Rewards program 11.08% freely circulating supply The full holder breakdown is public on Solscan and on the Streamflow Token Dashboard, where vesting contracts, staking positions, and circulating supply can be tracked in real time. Updated supply figures will be reflected on standard Solana token trackers and data aggregators as they index the transaction.

Streamflow’s product operations are unaffected by the burn. The platform continues to operate token locks, vesting, staking, airdrops, payouts, and treasury tooling for projects building on Solana, with more than $725 million in Total Value Locked across 40,000+ projects and 1.3 million users.

What This Means for STREAMThe burn clears the ground for the next step in STREAM’s structure: a one-way swap from STREAM into xSTREAM, a transfer-restricted security issued by a Cayman special purpose vehicle. With the Foundation’s allocation gone, every STREAM that can enter the swap is held by parties other than Streamflow Foundation, and the supply the swap draws from is fixed.

The swap will run on a public window of six months with no extension. STREAM delivered into the swap is burned on receipt and exchanged for xSTREAM at a 1:1 ratio, so the same programmatic burn mechanics used by the Foundation apply to every holder who participates.

xSTREAM will be available only to verified eligible investors through a dedicated portal, and is not available to retail investors in the United States, the United Kingdom, or the European Union. Full details on eligibility, verification, and what happens to STREAM during and after the window are covered in a separate announcement, with financial terms provided only to holders who complete verification.

About StreamflowStreamflow is a Solana-native token operations infrastructure platform that automates token distribution, locks, vesting, staking, airdrops, and payouts using on-chain smart contracts. More than 40,000 projects and 1.3 million users have used Streamflow, with over $725 million in Total Value Locked. Streamflow’s contracts are audited by Neodyme, FYEO, and OPCODES, and the company is backed by Jump Crypto, Solana Ventures, IVC, John Lilic, and others.

Disclaimer:
This announcement is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction where such an offer would be unlawful, and nothing in this announcement constitutes investment advice. The token burn described is a supply-management measure. It is not a price commitment, a guarantee of liquidity, or a representation regarding the future value, returns, or performance of STREAM. Readers should assess their own objectives and risk tolerance and seek full information before making any decisions.

Disclaimer

This third-party press release is published substantially as received and does not reflect BeInCrypto's editorial views. BeInCrypto has not independently verified its claims or assessed the suitability, legality or appropriateness of any referenced asset, product or service; publication is not an endorsement. The content is general information, not investment research, financial, investment, legal or tax advice, a personal recommendation, offer or solicitation. Verify all information and seek professional advice where appropriate before acting. Crypto-assets may result in total loss.

USD.AI has brought its two tokens, USDai and sUSDai, to Solana. Both now support cross-chain transfers using the OFT standard.

Approximately 8.43 million sUSDai, valued at around $9.39 million, moved over to Solana within hours of going live. The token also logged $372,000 in decentralized exchange trading volume over the first 24 hours.

What actually launched The rollout went live on September 24, 2026, at roughly 17:52 UTC. It covers both of the protocol’s core products.

USDai is the base token. Depositors mint it using existing stablecoins, much like trading dollars for casino chips before sitting down at a table.

sUSDai is the staked version. Holders lock up USDai and receive a token that earns yield, which comes from interest paid on loans the protocol issues.

The transfers run on the OFT, or Omnichain Fungible Token, standard. A token issued under it can cross from one blockchain to another without becoming a knockoff version of itself on arrival.

Before this launch, USDai and sUSDai lived only on EVM-compatible chains. The protocol already used LayerZero for cross-chain movement within that family. Solana does not run the EVM, so reaching it means stepping outside that ecosystem entirely.

For anyone who wants to verify they hold the real thing, USD.AI listed the Solana addresses. USDai sits at USDai5XCUzNebYzUk6EuRiFCvnyoyEdj7VSyijYcz2A. sUSDai sits at sUSDai6Y3GxysDEtA9BVcEFTaog6UZpYUVxJiMhAKYE.

Where the money went At launch, USD.AI lined up integrations with six Solana DeFi protocols: Jupiter Lend, Kamino, Orca, Loopscale, Exponent, and Mezzanine. That gives holders options for lending, providing liquidity, and trading in fixed-rate markets.

A meaningful share of the bridged sUSDai has already been put to work across Kamino, Jupiter Lend, and Orca. Kamino and Jupiter Lend handle lending, while Orca is a decentralized exchange where users supply trading liquidity.

For the first eight weeks, eligible users can earn ALLO points, plus additional incentives offered by USD.AI.

The GPU loans underneath The protocol runs a credit system that lends to infrastructure operators in the AI sector. Those loans are secured by GPU hardware, the specialized chips that power AI model training and inference.

The underlying loan book totals more than $280 million, spread across 16 separate facilities. The largest single facility listed is $128.9 million, backed by 2,304 NVIDIA GB200 GPUs.

That concentration is worth noting. One facility accounts for a large portion of the total book, so its performance matters more than any other single loan.

What this means For USD.AI, the first-day figures point to real demand for access on Solana. Roughly $9.39 million in bridged sUSDai and $372,000 in trading volume are modest next to the $280 million-plus loan book, but they arrived within hours rather than weeks.

For sUSDai holders, the move adds flexibility without changing the underlying exposure. Whether the token sits on an EVM chain or Solana, its yield still depends on AI infrastructure operators repaying loans secured by GPUs.

Cross-chain setups also carry their own considerations. Moving tokens between networks relies on the messaging infrastructure behind the OFT standard working as intended. Users taking advantage of the new routes should confirm the official token addresses before transacting, since lookalike tokens are a familiar hazard on any newly supported chain.

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

In brief Decrypt is evolving into The Information Exchange, a financial and intelligence market powered by the MYR token. The Information Exchange brings together news, data, market prices, probabilities and direct participation in a connected media ecosystem. MYR is the shared economic coordination layer of The Information Exchange. Information has always moved markets.

People consume information to understand the world, form a view of what will happen next and decide how to act. But the systems through which people become informed have historically remained separate from the systems through which they participate. We believe that division is ending.

Today, we are announcing The Information Exchange: an information and financial network bringing together news, data, market prices, probabilities and direct participation around the subjects people care about. Brought to you by Decrypt, powered by Myriad and the MYR token.

Decrypt Media homepage. Image: DecryptA person following Bitcoin should be able to understand what happened, see what the asset is doing and understand what markets believe may happen next and act directly. The Information Exchange will combine products we build with products we integrate. Decrypt will provide trusted information and global distribution. Myriad will provide the technology connecting information to financial participation. Solana will provide the high performance on chain environment through which a new generation of users can participate. And MYR will serve as the coordination layer connecting users, creators, traders, publishers, liquidity providers, applications, data providers and autonomous agents.

News + Data + Markets + Prediction + Participation

This is the next evolution of Myriad and the idea toward which we have been building all along.

Why nowHistorically, readers learned about assets through publications like Decrypt, then moved to exchanges and trading apps. Every step introduced more friction. The context of the original story was lost, the publisher’s relationship with the reader ended and the financial value created by that attention accrued to another platform.

Financial products are increasingly composable and can be integrated into the applications where users discover them. A Decrypt reader should not need to leave an article and reconstruct the context of a trade. The opportunity to act can exist alongside the information that created the conviction.

"Solana gives Decrypt the speed, low costs and expanding financial ecosystem needed to embed participation directly into the information experience."

Solana dashboard. Image: DecryptInformation is becoming machine-readable, markets are becoming programmable, and the distance between an event and an economic response is collapsing. This convergence, media, markets and machine intelligence is what makes The Information Exchange possible now.

Why usFor eight years, we have been building around information and the communities that give it value.

Decrypt was created to help people understand fast changing financial and technological system. It has grown into one of the largest crypto-native media platforms.

Rug Radio began from a different place. It showed that Creators and community members could participate in the media they helped make, contribute to its distribution and share in the culture and value surrounding it. Its audience is deeply crypto native.

Folding Rug Radio into Decrypt brought that native perspective together with the reach and authority of an established newsroom, reaching approximately 1.6 million monthly unique users and 3.7 million monthly page views, with more than 73,000 active newsletter subscribers and has generated of hundreds of millions of impressions through social platforms and syndication.

AI Situation Room. Image: DecryptMyriad developed a third audience: active market participants who have already demonstrated that they will move directly from information to action when presented with a compelling product.

These audiences are three points on the same participation curve from understanding, to discovery, to conviction, to execution.

Prediction markets were the proofMyriad Prediction Markets began as an experiment in whether an information audience could become a market network. Prediction markets were the natural first instrument because they are one of the purest ways to financialize information.

Decrypt Predict. Image: DecryptThe important question for us was not whether people wanted another place to trade predictions. It was whether people consuming information could become active market participants within the same experience.

More than $600 million in prediction market volume later, the answer is clear.

Along the way, we deployed Myriad across several ecosystems, experimented with automated market makers and order books, built a wallet and developed our own market infrastructure. Not every strategy worked as intended. At times, we optimized for becoming a conventional prediction market venue instead of concentrating on the larger relationship between information and participation.

But the underlying experiment succeeded. We built a new financial product from the ground up, distributed it through an existing information network and proved that passive content consumers could become active market participants.

Prediction markets were not the destination. They were the proof.

The Information ExchangePrediction markets are one financial expression of information. They will not be the last.

The Information Exchange expands the model across the broader financialized internet. Its fundamental unit is not an article, a token or a trade. It is the subject.

The Trenches/Meme Coin Situation Room. Image: DecryptMyriad can assemble reporting, data, market prices, probabilities and opportunities to participate.

Those opportunities will include

Prediction markets Spot markets Perpetual futures Structured event products New financial instruments. We do not need to manufacture every financial product we distribute. Myriad will continue to provide native market infrastructure while also integrating products from third party protocols and exchanges. The objective is to become the information and participation layer through which people discover, understand and interact with markets.

Supporting our continued media growth will be our in house agentic media operating system: designed to identify emerging subjects, organize data, curate intelligence, assist content production and connect relevant financial products to the infograph.

AMOS – Agentic Media Operating System. Image: DecryptThe MYR TokenMYR is the shared economic coordination layer of The Information Exchange.

MYR can be staked by participants responsible for secured network functions, including information verification and market resolution.

Applications, professional trading systems, data consumers and autonomous agents can stake MYR to access scarce network resources. These may include higher API throughput, low-latency market data, probability feeds, resolution infrastructure, programmatic market creation, execution services and premium intelligence.

MYR will also align the people supplying information, distribution, capital, liquidity and computation. Holders and stakers will receive benefits such as reduced transaction costs, enhanced data access and premium products or services.

Economic activity across The Information Exchange will generate revenue. Portions of network economics will be directed toward open-market acquisition of MYR, supply reduction (Buyback + Burn), staking incentives, network rewards, treasury funding and ecosystem development.

This creates demand connected to the use and growth of the network rather than to speculation alone. The purpose is not to attach a token to a collection of unrelated products. It is to give an expanding information network a common economic language.

One token, infinite possibilitiesThe history of Decrypt, Rug Radio and Myriad is the history of one idea becoming clearer.

The Information Exchange brings our accrued capabilities together. Prediction markets remain central to it because probabilities are among the clearest and most useful expressions of collective belief. But they are one product within a much larger opportunity.

We are building a network in which people can understand what happened, see what markets believe happens next and participate directly; a network in which creators and publishers can share in the financial activity their information produces.

In a world where everything is being financialized, including attention itself, people should be able to benefit from what they know and participate in the markets their activity helps create.

This was the founding purpose of Myriad. Everything we have built and learned has brought us back to it.

One network for information and participation. One unifying technical layer. One token connecting every product and every participant.

Expect a staggered product rollout over the coming weeks, leading into Solana Breakpoint.

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

Five Funds, One Payout Date21Shares, one of the world's largest issuers of cryptocurrency exchange-traded products, has announced its latest round of quarterly staking distributions across five US-listed ETFs: the Ethereum Staking ETF (TETH), Solana Staking ETF (TSOL), Hyperliquid Staking ETF (THYP), Sui Staking ETF (TSUI) and Polkadot Staking ETF (TDOT). Payments are scheduled for September 30, with an ex-dividend and record date of September 29.

The distributions convert onchain validator rewards into cash payouts for ordinary fund investors. Each ETF holds its respective proof-of-stake asset and commits a portion of those holdings to validators on the relevant network. The rewards that flow back to the fund are then passed through to shareholders in cash, net of expenses, on a quarterly basis.

The per-share amounts for this round are: $0.031602 for TETH, $0.076590 for TSOL, $0.191360 for THYP, $0.052939 for TSUI and $0.045029 for TDOT. The Hyperliquid Staking ETF (THYP) carries the largest distribution of the five. THYP is described by 21Shares as the first US spot Hyperliquid ETF, listed on Nasdaq, offering investors exposure to HYPE along with quarterly staking distributions without the need for a crypto wallet or exchange account.

Packaging Native Yield Inside a Traditional WrapperThe mechanics behind these payouts are straightforward. For a fund such as TSOL, a portion of the ETF's SOL is committed to validators on the Solana network. Those validators earn protocol rewards, which flow back to the fund net of fees and are then distributed to shareholders in cash. Reward rates are variable and are not guaranteed, and the amounts will differ each quarter depending on network conditions and validator performance.

The broader significance is structural. Crypto ETFs were originally designed to give investors simple price exposure to digital assets. This generation of staking ETFs goes a step further, packaging the native yield of proof-of-stake networks into a regulated, exchange-traded wrapper. For investors who previously had to run their own validators or use a third-party staking service to access these rewards, the ETF format removes that friction entirely.

It is worth noting that these funds are not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and therefore do not carry the same protections as standard registered ETFs or mutual funds. Staking also introduces risks including validator slashing, liquidity constraints during asset lock-up periods and uncertainty around future reward rates.

Sources:
GlobeNewswire: 21Shares Announces Distributions on TETH, TSOL, THYP, TSUI and TDOT
21Shares: THYP Hyperliquid Staking ETF product page
21Shares: TSOL Solana Staking ETF product page

Solana’s monthly active programs hit 7,699 in September, a figure that quietly tells a bigger story about the network’s expanding footprint. Data from Solscan shows that funded wallets on Solana surged to 16.10 million in September, representing a 38.5% increase from the prior month. Daily active addresses for stablecoins reached 888,000, a 269% jump year-over-year.

What counts as an active program The 7,699 figure represents programs that recorded at least one successful interaction during September. Think of Solana programs as the network’s version of smart contracts: pieces of on-chain code that do things when users poke them. Out of approximately 42,470 to 42,633 total programs deployed on the network, only 3,118 carried an “active” label based on sustained user interaction.

The breakdown by category reveals where the real action is happening. Arbitrage and sandwich bots led the pack with 877 programs. DeFi applications came in at 315, followed by cross-chain bridges at 288, gaming and casino projects at 222, and swap protocols at 168.

Among the most active individual programs over the trailing 30 days were Pump.fun AMM and Jupiter Aggregator v6. Jupiter has long been Solana’s dominant DEX aggregator, routing trades across multiple liquidity sources.

The wallet and stablecoin story The jump to 16.10 million funded wallets in a single month suggests a meaningful wave of new capital entering the Solana ecosystem. A funded wallet, by definition, holds some amount of SOL or SPL tokens.

Daily active addresses hitting 888,000 with a 269% year-over-year increase signals that Solana is becoming a preferred rail for dollar-denominated transactions.

What the sandwich bot dominance reveals The fact that arbitrage and sandwich bots represent the single largest category of active programs is worth sitting with for a moment. These programs front-run user transactions for profit. With 877 such programs active, Solana’s MEV economy is thriving. Solana’s low fees and fast block times make it especially attractive for these strategies, since the cost of failed attempts is negligible.

The dominance of MEV bots in the active program rankings also suggests that a nontrivial portion of Solana’s transaction count is driven by automated extraction rather than organic user activity.

Competitive positioning The diversity of active program categories, spanning DeFi, gaming, cross-chain infrastructure, and trading tools, indicates the network isn’t overly dependent on a single use case. With roughly 42,500 total programs deployed, the network has a substantial base of code to build on, even if most of it sits dormant. The ratio of active to deployed programs, roughly 18% using the 7,699 figure, compares favorably to most smart contract platforms where the vast majority of deployments never see sustained use.

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

Buoyed by rising prices and booming market activity, Solana DeFi is well and truly on the road to recovery. 

After climbing 38% and amassing just under $2B in two months, Solana DeFi TVL has returned to its highest level since the devastating Drift Protocol hack, which saw $285M, and confidence in DeFi security, flood out of the network.

Which DeFi protocols are leading the charge and bringing capital back to Solana?

Solana DeFi TVL Returns to Pre-Drift Hack Levels Almost 6 months after one of the largest protocol hacks in Solana history, DeFi users are once again showing high trust in the onchain economy. Climbing over 38% in the past two months, Solana DeFi TVL has risen to $6.5B, marking its highest point since the Drift Protocol hack, an event that triggered deposit flight across the network.

After wallowing in a pit of price-induced despair for many months, Solana DeFi is enjoying its own renaissance. Alongside rising TVL, Solana monthly DEX volume is back to levels not seen since February, driven largely by a recent surge of memecoin activity among the network’s more speculative traders.

Naturally, much of Solana’s TVL growth is driven by rising $SOL prices. In the last two months, $SOL has climbed over 63%, rising from $73 to currently exchange hands at $118. During the same time period, the network’s $SOL-denominated TVL has slumped 15.9%, falling from 65.1M $SOL to 54.7M $SOL.

While the 15.9% decline looks concerning on paper, the fall is likely due to the speculative fervor sweeping the chain. After months of generating slow yield through Solana’s various DeFi apps, network participants are freeing up liquidity to trade rising volatility in onchain markets.

Sanctum Leads Rankings Despite Declining Liquid Staking Rates Having flipped former leaders Kamino and Jupiter earlier this year, Sanctum has established itself as Solana’s largest source of TVL. According to DefiLlama, Sanctum has amassed over $2.24B in TVL, climbing over 19.9% in the last 30 days.

Sanctum’s growth trajectory has been relentless. Solana’s largest Liquid Staking infrastructure provider, Sanctum’s $SOL-denominated TVL has consistently trended upwards in perpetuity, rising to over 18.78M $SOL.

Sanctum’s impressive growth comes in the face of a declining liquid staking rate across the wider network. According to Blockworks data, the share of staked $SOL that is currently liquid has dropped from over 15.7% in January to 12% today.

On the DEX front, Raydium boasts a strong lead in TVL terms. Blockworks reports that Raydium’s current TVL sits at just over $683M, considerably higher than rivals Meteora and Orca, with $332M and $303M, respectively.

Arguably, the difference comes from Raydium’s deep and expansive memecoin liquidity. Prior to the launch of PumpSwap, Raydium’s AMM served as the final destination for all graduating pump launches, making it the default trading venue for some of the network’s most iconic memes. More recently, tokens launched through Stonk have also found a home on Raydium, adding to its memecoin orbit.

Beyond memes, Raydium’s CLMM has more recently emerged as the primary venue for tokenized stocks, commodities, and other Foreign L1 assets.

This emerging trend is further reflected in Raydium’s recent revenue growth. According to 0xInfra, ~46% of Raydium’s trading revenue now comes from tokenized assets. 

Read More on SolanaFloor Pump is back in the driver’s seat

Pump.fun Reclaims Lead in Solana Launchpad Race

What Happened Last Week on Solana?

Alpenglow is running through Solana’s testing networks, while mainnet still relies on its existing consensus. The proposed switch would change how validators agree that a block is final. A 150 millisecond target is a performance claim under conditions, not a promise that every user payment clears in that time.

Summary

SIMD-0326 remains listed as pending mainnet activation in Anza’s validator schedule. The tracker lists Agave 4.3.0 for Alpenglow and a lower 4.2.2 mainnet version floor. The initial proposal brings Votor consensus but retains Turbine data propagation. Alpenglow’s proposal describes a 20% adversarial plus 20% unresponsive stake model. A September 28 feature activation window did not itself schedule Alpenglow’s mainnet switch. Solana’s most consequential consensus change is moving through a sequence of validator tests. Anza’s feature gate tracker lists SIMD-0326, Alpenglow, among pending mainnet activations. It records testnet and devnet activation positions and identifies Agave 4.3.0 as the software version tied to the feature. The mainnet version floor shown in the same snapshot was 4.2.2, with 4.3.0 listed as the next expected floor. A planned version floor and a live consensus feature are different milestones.

The earlier testnet report described the shift into wider validator testing. A later devnet account noted both testing networks, while mainnet continued with its current consensus. That is the status against which any promised speed gain must be judged.

JUST IN: Solana’s biggest consensus upgrade, Alpenglow, enters testnet this week

The upgrade marks a major step toward modernizing Solana’s consensus system, with testing set to begin ahead of its potential mainnet deployment. pic.twitter.com/L4oAQU2nWp

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 23, 2026 September 28 was a calendar trap One schedule entry said mainnet feature activations would resume on September 28. It did not say Alpenglow itself would switch on that day. The tracker separately names Alpenglow as pending. Treating a date for resuming a queue of feature gates as a scheduled protocol cutover turned a process marker into a false deadline. A September 29 correction traced that confusion and said Anza had rejected the claimed launch date.

The distinction is material. Validators can adopt a software release containing dormant code without activating the feature. A version floor can rise after a stake threshold and epochs pass. A separate feature gate can enable the new behavior. Users who see a version number change on a dashboard have not thereby seen a faster finality protocol go live.

The correct news hook is that the testing and activation process is still open after the widely circulated date. A final mainnet window requires an explicit schedule, operator preparation and evidence from public testing. None of those steps is replaced by a social post describing an upgrade as imminent.

Votor changes votes, while Rotor waits The SIMD-0326 proposal defines the initial move primarily around Votor, the new consensus mechanism. It explicitly leaves Rotor, the proposed data dissemination replacement, for a separate change and keeps the existing Turbine propagation initially. Marketing descriptions of a complete Alpenglow stack can blur that scope.

Consensus answers when enough validators have agreed on a block that it should be treated as final under the protocol. Data propagation answers how the block reaches those validators. Execution answers whether a transaction successfully ran. An app also waits for its RPC provider to report the outcome. A faster vote cannot eliminate every other delay in that path.

The 150 millisecond figure is best read as a finality objective under favorable network conditions, measured at the consensus layer. It is not an end-to-end checkout time for a user whose wallet must sign, submit, reach a leader, be included in a block, execute and return through an RPC service. A useful public benchmark should name its start and end points. A stopwatch started at block proposal is not comparable to one started when a customer presses Send.

The proposal replaces a voting arrangement with a different security and liveness tradeoff. It describes a 20 plus 20 model that can tolerate an adversarial share and a separate nonresponding share under stated assumptions. The authors explicitly note that one-round voting does not deliver the same 33% Byzantine threshold achievable by two-round designs. That admission belongs beside the speed claim, not in a footnote.

A two-column test prevents a misleading benchmark One column should measure protocol finality from a validator’s view: elapsed time from a proposed block to a finalization certificate, including the distribution of slow outcomes. The second should measure a user’s confirmed transaction: submission through execution, inclusion, finality and the RPC response. The difference between those columns is the work the consensus headline does not measure.

Suppose a test reports 150 milliseconds for finalization after proposal, but transaction inclusion waits one 350 millisecond slot and RPC delivery takes another 100 milliseconds. The customer sees at least 600 milliseconds under those illustrative assumptions, before adding signing or retries. The calculation is 350 plus 150 plus 100. These are hypothetical timings, not measurements of Alpenglow in production. They show why a subsecond consensus figure need not be the same as a subsecond payment experience.

Median latency can hide the cases operators care about most. A validator stuck behind a poor network route, a temporary partition, a missing vote, or heavy replay work might see a long tail. Exchanges and payment providers generally build finality policies for rare bad conditions, not just a benchmark median. A credible rollout would publish percentile results, recovery behavior and the consequences of failed leaders.

The slot-time proposal is another variable. It seeks staged reductions from a 400 millisecond target toward 200 milliseconds. Slot interval and finality are related but distinct; claiming that every shorter slot proves Votor works confuses two upgrades. The earlier validator test account followed the protocol testing before this wider rollout.

Validators have to test the failure cases A network’s happy path is the easiest environment in which to produce a fast number. A mainnet candidate must survive validators joining late, messages delayed across regions, software restarts, leader failures and conflicting views of the chain. The Alpenglow migration proposal addresses the handoff from the old voting state to the new one. A correct steady-state protocol can still be exposed by a poor transition.

Tests should show whether the cluster reaches one consistent final decision after a partition heals, how quickly it resumes if a meaningful share of stake goes offline, and whether nodes with different compatible versions report the same outcome. The testnet is valuable because validators with different infrastructure encounter conditions a controlled lab may miss. It cannot exactly reproduce the economic incentives and traffic of a live network.

The client mix matters. Anza’s tracker marked Firedancer and Frankendancer as unsupported for the Alpenglow row in the observed snapshot. That is a compatibility status in a specific schedule, not a permanent claim about either client. A production migration must account for stake running each implementation or specify what those operators need to change.

Validator incentives are part of the test as well. Running a new voting protocol can alter bandwidth, hardware demands and participation costs. If smaller operators drop out because they cannot meet requirements, the faster network could end up with fewer independent participants. Actual operator counts and stake distribution after activation would test that tradeoff.

A fast certificate and a slow certificate serve different conditions The protocol does not depend on one route always finishing in 150 milliseconds. SIMD-0326 defines fast finalization when validators representing 80% of stake notarize a block in one round. Its slower route relies on two rounds involving 60% of stake and both notarization and finalization certificates. A leader may fail to deliver a valid block in time, in which case validators can vote to skip that slot. The design includes certificates for skipped slots and a fallback path. A headline benchmark that measures only the 80% fast route would omit exactly the situations that make finality valuable.

The distinction can be put into a practical test. For every proposed slot in a day, count the share finalized with the fast certificate, the share using the slower path, and the share skipped. Give the median and 95th and 99th percentiles separately for each class. A fast median is useful, but an operator needs to know how frequently the network leaves the fast path and how long it then takes to recover. A payment service handling thousands of receipts a day may experience a long-tail event even if that event is rare for an individual transfer.

A certificate is a compact, verifiable record of stake-weighted agreement. It is not a vote by a fixed number of machines. Ten small validators cannot substitute for one validator representing a large amount of stake merely by outnumbering it. Reporting validator counts without stake distribution would therefore misstate the safety test. The correct figures are stake participating in each round, stake that is offline, and stake that disagrees. Those figures need timestamps because stake assignments and operator availability change.

The proposal says a directly finalized block also decides its ancestors: prior blocks in its chain become finalized and omitted slots are treated as skipped. That means a dashboard can show finality arriving in groups after a slow period. A measurement that averages those ancestors’ apparent completion times into one attractive number would be hard to compare with a user who waited through the pause. The test should retain each block’s original proposal time and certificate observation time.

The protocol authors do not claim the same adversarial threshold as every competing design. Their 20 plus 20 framing accepts a different balance between Byzantine faults and unresponsive stake in exchange for a shorter normal path. Whether that trade is acceptable is a governance judgment informed by threat modeling and performance evidence, not a matter settled by a single fastest-case demonstration. The unusually candid security section in SIMD-0326 makes it possible to report the trade without attributing motives to either side.

Switching consensus requires a shared starting block The migration document addresses a problem that a speed chart cannot show. Old and new consensus cannot safely run as independent histories after the cutover. Validators must agree on the final old block that becomes the parent of the first Alpenglow block. The document calls that shared point the Alpenglow genesis block. If operators disagree on it, their subsequent finality certificates would refer to incompatible histories.

The proposed handoff begins after a feature activation slot, but the boundary used for migration sits 5,000 slots later. The extra interval is meant to avoid the start of an epoch. The process then waits for a block meeting a strong optimistic confirmation condition, with votes representing at least 82% of stake in the proposal’s specified pattern. Validators sign a genesis vote for a common ancestor block. An 82% genesis certificate gives them the evidence to switch. The arithmetic of those thresholds is part of the migration design, separate from Votor’s 80% fast finalization route after the switch.

A validator receiving the genesis certificate verifies its signatures against the relevant epoch’s BLS keys and broadcasts it. The plan then initializes Votor from the selected block and stops TowerBFT for later slots. It rolls back blocks after the selected genesis point and resets the associated state before processing new blocks. The document argues this rollback is safe because user transactions are not packed into those interim blocks. That claim deserves a test on the actual cluster; it is not something an app operator can verify from the finality headline alone.

A node may be offline during the handoff. The document describes how a returning validator can learn the genesis certificate from a snapshot or catch up after observing a valid Alpenglow finalization certificate. This is where release engineering meets consensus theory. If a late node interprets the transition incorrectly, it can present stale or inconsistent data even when the majority cluster continues. Exchanges and RPC providers should exercise restart and snapshot restore scenarios, not just watch the initial cutover succeed.

There is an explicit liveness cost. The migration proposal says the handoff can interrupt progress, optimistically for one slot beyond the boundary. A one-slot expectation is not a maximum service-level guarantee. The public postmortem after activation should state how many slots were skipped, whether user transaction packing paused, and how long external services took to resume normal confirmation reporting. A fast steady state cannot make the transition interval disappear from users’ experience.

This is why the mainnet date cannot be inferred from a general software calendar. A safe cutover needs compatible BLS key registration, an adopted feature gate, a shared starting block, certificate distribution, rollback behavior and recovery for lagging nodes. Those are observable tasks for operators. The migration specification gives them a checklist, while the actual network exercise will show whether the checklist is sufficient.

JUST IN: Tokenized equities on Solana hit a record $684 million

The total has jumped 47% in just three weeks, marking a new all-time high for tokenized stocks on the network. pic.twitter.com/nR1NvaIMll

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 11, 2026 Validator costs could change who participates The upgrade has an economic design as well as a latency target. Under current voting, operators send vote transactions and pay the associated fees. SIMD-0326 proposes a validator admission ticket, or VAT, charged instead of that pattern of fees. The document gives an initial estimate of about 0.8 SOL per day, or 1.6 SOL per epoch, and says the entire payment would be burned. The figure is an initial parameter in a proposal, not a live billing statement for every validator.

A fixed admission cost can simplify one expense while weighing more heavily on a small operator with little delegated stake. A large validator and a small one do not earn the same rewards. The question is whether their net economics improve after accounting for saved vote fees, hardware costs, bandwidth and the VAT. The proposal says operators should see lower resource use after migration. That is an expected effect, not a measured outcome across the live validator set.

A useful before-and-after comparison would follow the same operators through the upgrade. For each stake band, compare daily vote fees before the switch with VAT and operating costs after it. Count the share of independent operators who stop producing votes or leave the active set. A decline in machine count would not by itself prove a loss of decentralization if departing validators had negligible stake, but it would be a warning to investigate. Stake concentration and geographic diversity would add necessary context.

The proposal says an insufficiently funded validator would be removed from the active set. That makes ticket balance management an uptime issue. Operators need alerts before funds run out, and delegators need to understand what happens if their chosen validator falls inactive. The difference between a consensus protocol that works in a lab and a network that works day after day includes mundane account funding. The earlier report on Solana validator governance describes the formal decision path; continued participation after implementation is a separate test.

The production question is not simply whether 150 milliseconds is achievable. It is whether a broad enough set of validators can deliver that performance without an unreported rise in cost or operational fragility. Faster finality with a narrower operator base would be a different outcome from the full promise of the proposal. Both latency and participation need a baseline taken before the switch.

A transaction can be final while a service is still behind An exchange deposit illustrates the gap between chain finality and a user’s usable balance. First the customer submits a signed transaction. The transfer reaches a leader and is included in a block. Validators vote and a finalization certificate forms. An RPC service observes the certificate and reports it. The exchange’s deposit monitor identifies the address and asset, performs its policy checks, and credits the account. The consensus change principally shortens one interval in that sequence.

An exchange may wait longer by choice. It might require additional checks for large deposits, compare results across multiple RPC providers, or delay credit during an incident. That does not mean the chain failed its finality objective. It means a chain benchmark cannot be advertised as the customer’s guaranteed credit time. A fair product claim should distinguish block finality, RPC visibility and the institution’s own credit decision.

The reverse mistake is possible as well. An app might display a pending success as soon as its RPC node sees a block, before the finalization certificate arrives. A user could experience a quick green check even though the protocol’s strongest assurance comes later. During migration, an app that continues to label its preupgrade commitment status in the same way should be tested against the new semantics. A visually unchanged wallet interface can conceal a changed risk model.

For decentralized applications, a final block does not guarantee a favorable trade. A transaction can execute and fail under an application rule, pay fees, or settle at a price the user did not expect within the submitted parameters. Consensus finality means the ledger has decided that outcome. It does not certify that a smart contract is safe or that an oracle input was correct. The upgrade should be credited for the narrower property it is designed to improve.

To make the claim falsifiable, infrastructure providers could publish paired timestamps for a sample of transactions: arrival at their service, first inclusion, certificate observation, RPC response and customer-visible credit. They should disclose missing observations and retries. Comparing those intervals before and after activation, with similar loads and fee conditions, would show how much of the total journey Alpenglow actually shortened. That would be stronger evidence than repeating the white paper’s target.

The strongest case is a real improvement to settlement Supporters can make a substantial argument. Solana’s current confirmation path has long left a gap between rapid block production and stronger finality. If Votor reduces that gap reliably, an exchange can credit deposits sooner, a trader can reduce uncertainty after an execution, and a payment provider can settle with less waiting. The protocol proposal is a serious engineering design, and validators have already spent time testing it outside mainnet.

The prior governance coverage records the validator decision behind the proposal. The validator governance path also means the change is not merely a company promise. Operators must adopt software and participate in activation. The staged feature gate gives the network an opportunity to expose problems before production. Those strengths do not prove the final service level, but they make the testing phase consequential.

JUST IN: UsePaid shifts users to manual $SOL claims after X Money payout issues

The Solana-based protocol restricted payouts after $1.54 million in creator fees surged in 24 hours, about 26 times more than the previous day, due to a surge in creator fee activity across Solana… pic.twitter.com/TVbvOdIGVn

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 29, 2026 The opposing case is a tradeoff the authors themselves disclose: different failure assumptions accompany the faster voting design. Operators must also manage migration and client compatibility. A 150 millisecond median obtained on a calm test cluster would not answer how the protocol behaves when meaningful stake is offline or network links are unstable. That is why the evidence belongs in a failure-case report, not only a speed demonstration.

Mainnet readiness has several separate gates The first is software adoption: enough stake runs a compatible release. The second is protocol verification on testnet and devnet: votes and certificates remain correct during normal and adverse conditions. The third is operational preparation: exchanges, RPC providers, block explorers and wallets know how to observe the new finality signal. The fourth is the scheduled feature activation itself.

Anza’s tracker indicates a mainnet version floor can rise after 95% of stake adopts a new minor version and two full epochs pass. That rule governs the minimum supported version; it should not be paraphrased as an automatic Alpenglow activation at 95%. The independent feature row remains the place to check the actual pending change.

No reported test establishes that SOL price must respond in a particular way. Token prices incorporate macro conditions, funding, supply, application demand and expectations about upgrades before deployment. The earlier activation outlook covers why a consensus milestone is relevant without making it a price catalyst by definition.

What the public evidence still lacks A dated, final activation plan and a comparable public series of finality measurements under varied loads would let readers judge how close the network is to the headline promise. The test results should specify the software versions, participating stake, client types, message conditions, transaction inclusion and percentile latencies. A single best-case finalization time would be incomplete.

The most decisive report will come after the switch: repeated mainnet observations of finality and app-visible settlement, plus disclosure of any recovery events. Until then, validator testing shows the proposed system is being exercised. It does not establish that every user will experience 150 millisecond settlement.

What to watch Feature gate: Anza’s explicit Alpenglow mainnet status and activation slot, distinct from a general version-floor date. Stake adoption: The share of validator stake running a release that supports the feature. Client compatibility: Updates for validator implementations listed as unsupported in the current tracker row. Failure tests: Published recovery and long-tail latency under partitions, restarts and missing votes. User timing: Mainnet measurements from submission through finality and RPC notification, not just certificate time. FAQ Is Alpenglow live on Solana mainnet? The Anza tracker consulted for this feature listed SIMD-0326 under pending mainnet activation. Testnet and devnet activity is not mainnet activation.

Did Alpenglow launch on September 28? No verified Alpenglow mainnet launch follows from the general September 28 feature activation window. Its own feature gate remained a separate pending item.

What is Votor? Votor is the new consensus voting component in the initial Alpenglow proposal. It is intended to change how validators finalize blocks.

Is Rotor included in the initial switch? SIMD-0326 says the initial scope leaves Rotor’s replacement of data propagation for a separate proposal. The network retains Turbine at first.

Does 150 milliseconds mean every payment completes that fast? No. A consensus finality target excludes some time spent signing, submitting, awaiting inclusion, executing and hearing back from an RPC provider.

What does the 20 plus 20 model mean? The proposal describes resilience under assumptions involving adversarial stake and separately unresponsive stake. It explicitly discusses a different Byzantine tradeoff from two-round protocols.

What is the version floor? It is the minimum software version supported on a cluster. Raising it can prepare nodes for a feature without automatically activating that feature.

What would prove the performance claim? Repeatable mainnet data showing fast finality and acceptable tail behavior under real traffic, with start and end points defined. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 29, 2026.

1 hours ago

According to GMGN data, Solana-based PAID has plummeted nearly 50% (down 47%) over the past 24 hours. Its current market capitalization stands at $13.6 million, with a 24-hour trading volume of $21.8 million. Paid suspended X Money payments yesterday, and announced today that its dedicated claim portal is now live. Eligible users can receive new fee distributions, with related assets issued in the quote asset corresponding to the fees—most commonly SOL. Additional claiming methods will be rolled out later, including via direct messages or tagging the official account in posts. X Money payments remain suspended for now, with no resumption timeline provided; users’ historical balances will be retained separately, and the team is developing an independent claiming solution for these funds, while aiming to restore X Money payments in the future. BlockBeats reminds users that the relevant token is highly volatile, so caution is required for investments.

Scan the QR code

Download APP

Solana’s Real Economic Value, the metric that tracks what the network actually earns from transaction fees across its ecosystem, just hit its highest weekly level since January. That’s a notable turnaround for a network whose revenue had been sliding for months after the memecoin frenzy cooled off.

The numbers behind the rebound Solana’s daily revenue crossed $1 million on August 19, marking the highest single-day revenue output in six months.

Daily average application fees during September reached levels not seen since January, suggesting this isn’t just a one-day spike but a sustained trend.

Solana processed 5.2 billion non-vote transactions in August alone, a figure that surpassed all other Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks combined during the same period. Non-vote transactions are the ones that actually represent user activity, not the validator housekeeping that inflates Solana’s total transaction numbers.

The stablecoin supply on Solana hit an all-time high of roughly $17.63 billion in August. The real-world asset ecosystem on Solana pushed past $4 billion in value, including tokenized treasuries, private credit, and other financial instruments.

From memecoins to meaningful revenue Monthly REV peaked at $551.6 million back in January 2025, driven almost entirely by memecoin activity. By Q2 2026, quarterly REV had collapsed to $51 million.

July marked the inflection point. Solana reclaimed the top spot for daily REV among all blockchains after spending four months at lower rankings. The network also held 16.5% of all tracked protocol fees that month.

Technical upgrades and governance shifts Slot times have dropped to an average of 250-300 milliseconds. A governance vote in August targeted doubling the network’s disinflation rate, meaning validators would increasingly rely on transaction fees rather than newly minted tokens for their income.

Figures within the Solana Foundation have publicly signaled that revenue metrics are becoming the primary lens through which the ecosystem evaluates its own success.

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

D3 has launched Frontier, a program that lets users deposit eligible assets in Solana and Hyperliquid vaults to earn points toward priority access to new internet domain names.

Summary

D3 says users can commit Frontier Points to names offered by participating domain registries. Loopscale supports the Solana vault, while Hyperion DeFi and Upshift support the Hyperliquid vault. ICANN says 1,616 applications have qualified to proceed in its 2026 round for new domain extensions. Each registry will set its own timing and eligibility rules before names become generally available. D3, the core contributor to Doma Protocol, announced Frontier at Korea Blockchain Week on Sep. 28. Under the program, members deposit eligible assets with supported vault providers, earn Frontier Points, and commit those points to establish priority for names offered by participating registries.

Priority does not amount to ownership of a domain. D3 says access applies before general registration, the stage when a registry opens names to the public. Each registry controls its own schedule and eligibility requirements, while the proposed extensions must pass the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ approval process.

How D3’s Frontier program uses crypto vaults Frontier opens with two vaults. Loopscale supports the one on Solana, and Hyperion DeFi and Upshift support the one on Hyperliquid, according to D3. The company says it plans to add vaults on other chains in the coming months.

Members earn points through deposits with the supported providers, then use those points to seek priority for names under participating extensions. The arrangement puts a crypto-based points system ahead of a conventional domain registration process: registries, rather than the vaults, determine when eligible names can be registered.

D3 describes Frontier as a way for asset holders to participate without a prior relationship with a registry or domain broker. Its release also says more than 20 applicants and registries have committed to the program ahead of ICANN’s Reveal Day, when the organization will publish details of the applications that have cleared its administrative checks.

The Solana and Hyperliquid connections are part of a domain business D3 has been building for several years. Doma Protocol is designed to represent conventional internet domains on a blockchain so they can be used in on-chain applications. In January 2025, D3 raised $25 million in a Series A round led by Paradigm to develop Doma; Coinbase Ventures also participated.

Hyperion DeFi’s role gives the launch a direct link to U.S. public markets. The company trades on Nasdaq under HYPD and supports Frontier’s Hyperliquid vault alongside Upshift. Hyperion CEO Hyunsu Jung said the arrangement would give the Hyperliquid community access to the program as new extensions are considered in ICANN’s round.

Scott Lee, the Solana Foundation’s head of Korea, pointed to potential uses for domain names on Solana in a statement accompanying the launch. D3 has named possible extensions including .agent, .wallet, .sol and .robot, while Jung referred to .hype. ICANN, however, has said its own Reveal Day publication will be the complete verified record of who applied and for which extensions.

ICANN’s 2026 round has 1,616 applications proceeding ICANN confirmed on Sep. 22 that 1,616 applications had met the payment requirement to proceed. Applicants submitted 1,663 requests before the window closed on Aug. 12. The organization will publish the public portions of the paid applications on Reveal Day, including proposed extensions that multiple applicants may be seeking.

An application is for the right to operate a top-level domain, such as the part after the final dot in a web address. Frontier members would instead seek individual names beneath extensions operated by registries that participate in D3’s program. ICANN’s review, any objections, and the resolution of competing applications come before a new extension can enter the standard domain system.

The previous ICANN application round took place in 2012 and led to more than 1,200 new extensions, according to the organization. D3 CEO and co-founder Fred Hsu described the new round as an opportunity to bring crypto users into an established domain market:

“Frontier is how crypto gets in at the start of this domain supercycle.”

Other crypto-linked naming projects have taken different approaches to the same ICANN round. In August, crypto.news reported Unstoppable Domains’ withdrawal from applications for nine of its own Web3 extensions, including .crypto and .wallet. Founder Matthew Gould said the expected application, compliance and possible auction costs were higher than the sales the company expected to recover. Unstoppable said it would refund customers whose purchases were tied to its earlier ICANN plans.

The distinction between a blockchain-only name and an ICANN-approved domain matters for ordinary web use. Unstoppable said its existing on-chain names would continue to work in supported wallets and applications, even though the affected extensions would not gain standard browser resolution through the applications it dropped. D3’s Frontier program, by comparison, concerns priority for names offered by participating registries if their extensions move through ICANN’s process.

Telegram has also applied for .gram in the 2026 round. Founder Pavel Durov said approval could allow users to register names beneath that extension and create Telegram-hosted websites. ICANN must approve the application before .gram can operate as a conventional internet domain.

Registries will set the registration terms For a Frontier member, earning points is only one step. D3 says members must commit them toward names from participating registries to establish priority, and each registry decides when registration opens and who qualifies. The release places that priority period before general registration but ties both stages to ICANN’s process.

ICANN says Reveal Day will show the public-facing parts of applications that passed its administrative check and identify extensions sought by more than one applicant. After publication, applications can face community input, objections, evaluation, and procedures to resolve competing requests before successful registries can operate their extensions.

2 min read

Solana’s 150-millisecond settlement upgrade reaches second public test network. (Solana)Summary

Solana’s Alpenglow upgrade, which aims to cut transaction settlement time to about 150 milliseconds from 12.8 seconds, is now active on its devnet and testnet.The upgrade changes how validators reach agreement and will remove validator votes from blocks, reducing reported transaction totals even if user activity remains unchanged.Alpenglow’s mainnet launch has not been scheduled, and its speed target has yet to be sustained under live-market conditions.Solana’s planned upgrade to make payments final in a fraction of a second has reached its public developer network, giving application teams a place to test before it reaches the blockchain carrying real money.

Called Alpenglow, the upgrade targets roughly 150 milliseconds for finality, the point at which a transaction can no longer be reversed, compared with about 12.8 seconds under the existing system.

That could shorten the wait for an exchange to release deposited funds or a payment app to tell a merchant a sale is complete.

Anza, the company building Solana’s core software, announced the developer-network switch on Sept. 25, a day after the separate testnet completed its transition. The Solana Foundation’s upgrade page lists Alpenglow as active on both networks.

Developers use the developer network, or devnet, to check applications with tokens that have no real value. The separate testnet is used primarily to stress-test network software and validator operations.

Read More: Solana starts testing upgrade that could cut finality from 12.8 seconds to 150 milliseconds

Alpenglow changes how validators, the computers that check transactions, agree on the network’s records. They will exchange votes directly instead of recording those votes as transactions inside blocks, the batches of transactions added to the blockchain. Agreement can then take one or two voting rounds.

Removing those votes will also make some Solana activity charts fall. Transaction totals that include validator votes will shrink even if users make just as many payments and trades. The Foundation has told data providers to adjust their comparisons.

Services that build transaction histories also need to keep competing candidate blocks separate until the network selects one. Mixing their contents could produce an incorrect record.

Applications that simply send transactions and read account balances require no migration, according to the Foundation’s guide.

The speed figure remains a target derived from simulations, rather than a demonstrated result under live-market conditions. Wallet processing and exchanges’ own deposit checks can add further waiting time.

No firm launch date has been announced for the live network. Anza’s software schedule tentatively allows feature activations to resume Sept. 28, but does not identify that date as Alpenglow’s launch.

12345678910The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Sep 15, 2026

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Why it matters:

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

US spot Solana ETFs just posted their best day ever. On September 25, net inflows hit approximately $80M to $87M across the category, more than doubling the previous single-day record of $33.5M set in August. Weekly inflows reached $181M, a figure that suggests this wasn’t a one-off burst but the peak of a sustained multi-week buying trend.

For a product category that didn’t exist a year ago, the numbers are striking. Cumulative net inflows across all US spot Solana ETFs have now crossed $1.6B, with total assets under management sitting between $1.8B and $1.96B.

Bitwise’s BSOL is running away with the category Bitwise’s staking-enabled Solana ETF attracted roughly $55.7M of the day’s inflows, capturing about two-thirds of the total. Since the funds launched on October 28, 2025, BSOL has hoovered up approximately 80% of cumulative inflows, translating to around $1.22B of the category’s $1.6B total.

Advertisement

Grayscale’s GSOL came in a distant second on the day, adding about $18.5M. Fidelity’s FSOL and Morgan Stanley’s MSOL contributed smaller amounts.

Why staking is the differentiator These funds don’t just offer passive exposure to SOL’s price. They generate yield by staking the underlying tokens on the Solana network, giving institutional investors something Bitcoin ETFs structurally cannot: a return on top of price appreciation.

SOL was trading near $120 during the record inflow period. That price level represents a recovery from earlier volatility but remains well below the token’s all-time highs.

What the flow trajectory signals The previous daily record was $33.5M, meaning the new high represents roughly a 2.4x jump. Total AUM between $1.8B and $1.96B puts the category in a range where it starts to matter for portfolio construction, and breaching the $2B mark could unlock a new wave of buyers who were previously sitting on the sidelines waiting for the category to mature.

Bitwise’s 80% share of cumulative inflows is remarkable. If Grayscale, Fidelity, or Morgan Stanley adjust their fee structures or staking strategies, the category could become more competitive. For now, BSOL’s dominance means Bitwise is effectively setting the terms for how institutional Solana exposure gets packaged and sold in the US market.

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

Key Highlights Table of Contents

SOL reached $120.86 on September 25, marking its first breach of $120 since late January. The token has surged more than 100% from its June 2026 trough of approximately $60.39. Spot Solana ETFs in the United States recorded $32.81 million in net capital inflows, bringing cumulative assets to nearly $1.81 billion. Open interest in SOL futures expanded to $7.49 billion, representing a roughly 14% increase from early September levels. The Alpenglow protocol enhancement, designed to achieve 150-millisecond transaction finality, has been deployed across both public testing environments. Solana registered a significant price milestone on September 25, pushing above the $120 mark to reach $120.86. This represents the first instance of SOL trading at this elevation since January 29 of this year.

Solana (SOL) Price The token posted a 3.56% gain across the 24-hour trading period. Looking at the weekly timeframe, SOL advanced 7.61%, based on figures from CoinGecko.

By comparison, other leading cryptocurrencies showed more modest movement during the same window. Bitcoin hovered around $83,800, Ethereum maintained levels near $2,687, and XRP remained close to $1.57. The aggregate cryptocurrency market capitalization stood at approximately $2.97 trillion, experiencing a marginal decline throughout the day.

Strong Recovery From Mid-Year Bottom SOL bottomed out at $60.39 during June 2026. The current price of $120.86 signifies a gain exceeding 100% from that nadir.

This appreciation unfolded across multiple phases. The token advanced from roughly $97 during mid-September to surpass $112 by September 18. Throughout August, SOL delivered a 41.5% return, establishing momentum that carried into September’s rally.

Market commentator The Kobeissi Letter highlighted the development on X, noting that Solana crossed $120 for the first time since late January and has now climbed more than 100% from its yearly bottom, observing that “the crypto rally continues to broaden out.”

This methodical accumulation of gains, as opposed to a single parabolic spike, indicates that the former resistance level around $120 could potentially function as near-term price support.

Institutional Demand Through ETF Channels and Derivatives Expansion Spot Solana exchange-traded funds in the United States absorbed $32.81 million in net inflows during the September 24 trading session, the latest available data point. Bitwise’s Solana Staking ETF (BSOL) captured $27.97 million of this flow, while Fidelity’s FSOL contributed an additional $4.84 million.

Source: SoSoValue Total assets under management across these ETF products now approach $1.81 billion, according to SoSoValue tracking. Cumulative historical inflows into these investment vehicles have reached $1.52 billion.

In the derivatives market, Solana futures open interest climbed to $7.49 billion, up from approximately $6.57 billion at the beginning of September—a 14% expansion. Daily futures trading volume registered $11.76 billion over the past 24 hours, compared with $9.38 billion earlier in the month.

CoinGlass data shows approximately $21.43 million in liquidated positions during the same 24-hour window.

From a technical analysis perspective, the relative strength index currently registers at 61, while the MACD indicator shows a positive reading near 1.34. Both metrics suggest constructive short-term momentum. Market participants are monitoring the $122 to $123 zone as immediate resistance, with $130 representing the subsequent upside objective should that barrier yield.

Analyst Master of Crypto outlined a broader perspective on X, identifying approximately 703 days of accumulation followed by roughly 230 days of consolidation, stating that expansion is now underway with a longer-range target of $500.

$SOL MAY FINALLY BE ENTERING THE MOVE WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR.

~703 days of accumulation.
~230 days of manipulation.

Now expansion is starting fast, and the major markup phase will be next.

$500 is the target.

The only question is how long it takes to get there. pic.twitter.com/KTJsFNJ1E7

— Master of Crypto (@MasterCryptoHq) September 26, 2026

Alpenglow Protocol Enhancement Deployed to Testing Infrastructure In parallel developments, Solana’s Alpenglow protocol upgrade successfully launched on its second public testing network this week. The enhancement is engineered to reduce transaction finality to approximately 150 milliseconds, a substantial improvement from the current 12.8-second settlement time.

Anza, the organization responsible for Solana’s core infrastructure development, confirmed the devnet activation on September 25, following the testnet’s completion of its transition one day earlier. The Solana Foundation’s official upgrade tracker now confirms Alpenglow’s operational status across both testing environments.

The devnet serves as a sandbox where developers can experiment with applications using valueless tokens, whereas the testnet provides a stress-testing environment for network software and validator configurations before deployment to the production mainnet blockchain.

Switchboard’s September 25 support deadline has turned a six-day migration warning into a test of Solana’s price feeds. Current public documentation shows where its data remains part of an application’s design, but those pages cannot prove that a live market is still using the feed. Jito and marginfi provide two sharply different views of the exposure.

Summary

Switchboard said technical support would end on September 25, 2026, after its September 19 wind-down announcement. Jito’s Tip Router documentation still names Switchboard as a pricing source for vault weights, although the overview is 9 months old. Marginfi’s September upgrade describes 9 new oracle setups that do not depend on Switchboard. A stale price feed can affect collateral checks, while Jito documents a separate fallback for reward-weight pricing. No live protocol-wide count of unmigrated Switchboard feeds was verified for the September 25 deadline. Switchboard has reached its stated September 25 end of technical support, leaving Solana applications to verify the price sources configured in their live programs.

The oracle project’s September 19 statement, as reproduced in coverage of the announcement, said its core development contributor Switchboard Technology Labs would wind down and all implementations were deprecated immediately. The team urged integrators to migrate to other providers, naming Pyth and RedStone. September 25 was described as the last day for existing support. A company ending support is a real operational milestone. It does not, by itself, prove that every onchain feed stopped updating at midnight or that every application once associated with Switchboard remained dependent on it.

Switchboard’s own documentation has named Kamino, Jito, marginfi and Drift as users. Those are historical integration claims from a provider that was selling an oracle service, not a real-time inventory of active feeds on September 25. Checking each project’s current documentation reveals a more complicated picture. Jito’s Tip Router pages still describe Switchboard in their pricing flow; marginfi’s September technical upgrade adds paths designed to avoid that dependency. One document can be stale while another anticipates a migration. Neither substitutes for an inspection of live account configuration.

The earlier Switchboard funding round was $7.5 million in May 2024. The amount is useful background on the venture’s history, but it gives no measure of today’s protocol exposure. The relevant count is the number and value of live markets whose risk calculations still take data from a feed that cannot be reliably updated, and that count cannot be inferred from a customer logo.

A listed integration is not an active feed Switchboard’s public introduction describes on-demand feeds: applications create or call the data they need, and a price is made available through Solana accounts. Documentation can identify where a protocol knows how to read a Switchboard feed. It may not identify which option a particular market currently selects. A software development kit may support an oracle type long after the last bank switches away from it. Conversely, a website may change while a live reserve retains its older oracle account.

Three levels of evidence need to be kept apart. First is a marketing or integration page, which shows a relationship existed. Second is a program’s supported configuration, visible in technical documentation or code. Third is the live configuration and recent update history of the actual market. Only the third can support a claim that a named market still relied on Switchboard at a given time. Even then, a backup source may be configured, so the impact of a stopped primary feed must be checked against the relevant fallback and freshness rule.

Consider marginfi’s protocol documentation. Its oracle table retains SwitchboardPull and venue variants among available setups. It says a caller must crank a Switchboard pull feed just before use. The same table lists Pyth push feeds and Scope accounts as other setups. A reader could mistake the continued Switchboard row for proof that every marginfi bank still uses it. The table describes supported types, not a complete list of which bank uses which feed today.

BREAKING: Pyth price feeds now live in Etherfi’s Earn product on Optimism, powering the largest crypto neobank with over $5.7B TVL pic.twitter.com/Yvtoc97hvM

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) April 17, 2026 Marginfi’s separate Program 0.1.11 note is more current and more specific. It instructed developers to upgrade the SDK to at least version 2.8.0 before September 4, saying banks would begin moving to new oracle setups from that date. The release added nine variants that do not depend on Switchboard, including Kamino Scope feeds and exchange-rate based pricing for certain liquid staking and principal tokens. The note does not say every bank had migrated by September 25. It does show that a project publicly documented a route away from the threatened dependency before the shutdown announcement.

The migration carries a surprising second failure mode. Marginfi says older SDKs cannot decode a bank configured with one of the new oracle enum values. A single bank with an unsupported value can prevent Project0Client.initialize and bank reads, not merely an action involving that bank. In other words, changing an oracle can fix one infrastructure dependency while breaking an integrator that has not updated its software. Marginfi’s document tells integrators how to avoid the SDK problem; it is not evidence that any particular user suffered it.

Project 0 has described unified margin across Solana venues, including Kamino and Drift. Cross-protocol interfaces create another layer at which an oracle migration must be read correctly. The note about older SDK versions is concrete evidence of an integration hazard, without proving a failure in Project 0 or any other named app. A responsible audit would check software versions and live lending-bank configurations before claiming an outage.

Jito’s Tip Router still documents Switchboard Jito Foundation’s Tip Router overview says Switchboard determines the relative weight of assets such as JitoSOL and JTO held in vaults linked to the Tip Router. The overview identifies an onchain Tip Router program, a node-operator client and a permissionless cranker. Its pricing documentation names Switchboard as the current oracle feed and describes backup weights when feeds are unavailable.

The documents place Switchboard in a specific job: pricing vault assets for weight calculations in a tip distribution and restaking system. They do not say that an unavailable Switchboard feed would automatically liquidate a Solana lending position. Jito’s pricing page describes a fallback mechanism, which weakens the simplistic claim that a support sunset necessarily makes all Tip Router operations stop. The exact fallback values, activation conditions and current live oracle accounts still need a current program-state check.

The Tip Router overview showed a last-updated marker of nine months ago when checked on September 25. That age changes how it can be used. It establishes a documented design and identifies where to ask a technical question. It cannot establish that the present program has the same feed configuration. Jito may have updated onchain accounts without revising the page, or it may still use Switchboard with a fallback. Without a recent transaction inspection or a current statement from Jito, a named live dependency remains unverified.

Jito’s public GitHub release notes for Tip Router refer to retrying Switchboard oracle gateways in keeper operations. A codebase containing such logic likewise demonstrates technical integration, not necessarily a dependency of every vault at the time of publication. Code can preserve a compatibility path for months. The live question is whether recent price update transactions target a Switchboard account used by a vault still carrying value, and whether that account advances after the support deadline.

The distinction is often lost when all oracle users are placed in a single list. Jito’s described calculation affects relative asset weights in a distribution system. A lending market’s described calculation determines collateral value and borrower health. Both consume price data, but their failure paths differ. An audit that counts logos would assign the same severity to fundamentally different uses.

Kamino’s Scope is an aggregator, not a provider label Kamino Finance’s public Scope repository describes an onchain aggregator that copies values from multiple oracle accounts into one price feed and validates updates under preset rules. Its README says a feed supports up to 512 prices and that the association between an index and a token pair is not wholly stored onchain. A downstream program may point to Scope while Scope itself relies on other feeds for the selected asset. Seeing Scope in a bank configuration is thus a starting point for tracing the actual data source, not the end.

The September marginfi note lists Scope as an option that does not depend on Switchboard for the new setup it describes. That does not imply every deployment of Scope on every date excludes every Switchboard source. An aggregator can change its underlying inputs. A complete dependency check needs both the consumer’s selected Scope account and the source mapping used to populate its entry. Kamino’s repository supplies the architecture, not a timestamped inventory of current mainnet sources for every application.

Kamino has continued bringing institutions into its lending ecosystem. Galaxy opened two stablecoin vaults on the platform in September. The existence of new vaults shows why naming a whole protocol as exposed without checking its individual assets would be unsound. A USDC vault, a liquid staking token reserve and a tokenized equity market can use different oracle paths. We have not verified that Galaxy’s vaults use Switchboard, so they are not included in a count of affected positions.

Similarly, the older list of Kamino, Jito, marginfi and Drift in Switchboard’s introductory material does not tell us the distribution of exposure among them. A project may use an oracle only for one market, use it as a fallback, or retain code after switching live feeds. The only defensible unit of analysis is a specific market or vault and its configured feed at a specified time. Without that unit, claims about funds at risk are marketing arithmetic run backward.

A stale feed has more than one possible effect The technical consequence of a feed falling behind depends on the consuming protocol. A lending program generally needs a price to determine collateral value and borrowing capacity. If it rejects an old value, an action may fail or a market may pause under its rules. If it accepts stale data, a borrower might transact against a price that no longer matches the market. A fallback source may keep the market operating but introduce a new update rhythm or confidence rule. The protocol’s documentation and onchain configuration decide which path applies.

Marginfi explicitly says Switchboard pull feeds need to be cranked before use. An integrator must therefore supply a fresh update as part of its transaction path. Pyth push feeds, by contrast, are described as being kept fresh through Pyth’s infrastructure. Scope uses an aggregated account value selected by a configured entry index. Moving between these types changes the accounts a transaction needs and the code that checks them. The September SDK warning is one visible example of those changes reaching application software.

For Jito Tip Router, the public docs describe backup weights for unavailable feeds. Whether those backups preserve accurate reward allocation through a sustained outage is a question for live configuration and Jito’s operators, not something a documentation sentence resolves. If a feed keeps updating through independent node operators after the company stops support, no fallback may be triggered immediately. If updates cease but the backup is active, operations may continue with a different pricing method. These are conditional paths, not a prediction of the system’s present state.

An unrelated oracle incident led to liquidations on Vesu earlier in September. It illustrates that incorrect pricing can have economic effects, but it is not evidence of an incident at Switchboard, Jito or marginfi. A shutdown notice should not be turned into a liquidation claim by analogy. The sign of an actual event would be stale account timestamps, failed transactions, a protocol pause or identified losses, none of which has been shown here for the September 25 deadline.

Solana’s move to 250 millisecond slots changed the pace at which blocks are produced, but it did not guarantee that an external price source updates. Faster slots can carry a new price sooner when one exists. They cannot manufacture a price when the node supplying it stops. A protocol’s freshness test may be measured by slot, time or another rule, so a change in the network clock may alter how developers interpret old feed configurations.

Who bears the migration work? The oracle operator publishes or coordinates data, but the consuming protocol chooses the account its program reads and the limits it places on that price. A lending protocol can require governance or an administrator to change oracle addresses for its markets. Its front end and third-party integrators then have to construct transactions with the right additional accounts. Users may only notice a rejected borrow or a paused market, long after the operator and protocol have made their technical decisions.

An operator ending support does not necessarily have the power to rewrite a customer’s program configuration. The Switchboard notice urged users to migrate because integration owners must act. Projects should be assessed by the addresses and account updates they control. If an application already moved to Pyth before September 19, the later support deadline has no direct effect on that market. If it still selects a Switchboard feed and has no working backup, the feed’s behavior after September 25 is the concrete issue.

BREAKING: Pyth becomes an external distributor of Nasdaq Basic

The partnership brings Nasdaq’s real-time U.S. equity quotes and trade data to the Pyth Data Marketplace, expanding access to institutional-grade market information across blockchain applications. pic.twitter.com/7sIrpWL1pI

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 22, 2026 The strongest opposing reading of the shutdown alarm follows from marginfi’s own September note and Jito’s documented backup. Applications can design redundancy or move ahead of a vendor exit; the code and documents show mechanisms for doing so. Switchboard’s on-demand model can leave some feed infrastructure running independently even if the core contributor has stopped support. The notice did not publish a verified schedule at which every account would halt, and we found no primary evidence establishing such a universal cutoff.

There is a different kind of continuity question for a protocol that made its own fallback. A backup price can prevent a total stop while pricing an asset less frequently or with a different source set. For a reward distribution process, a temporary backup weight may keep epoch accounting moving, although the allocation may then rely on the backup’s assumptions. For a lending market, the fallback could change the price used in a health check. These are not claims about current Jito or marginfi settings. They show what a maintainer must disclose before users can judge whether a migration is complete in operational terms, not merely whether transactions still execute.

A provider wind-down can have delayed effects as well. Code written to request on-demand prices may succeed while an independent gateway answers, then fail when that gateway is retired or its operators stop updating a specific asset. An observer needs several post-deadline timestamps, not a single successful transaction, to infer continued service. The same discipline applies to a failed transaction: one user’s error may arise from a stale SDK or insufficient account input instead of an unavailable oracle. Marginfi’s migration document supplies an explicit example of a software decoding failure that could otherwise be mislabeled as an oracle outage.

JUST IN: Hyperliquid SK Hynix perpetual drops 17.9% on oracle anomaly

Forced liquidations followed an erroneous external market print relayed by the pricing oracle pic.twitter.com/X2YYeLRFiJ

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 29, 2026 There is a limit to that reassurance. A fallback described nine months earlier needs validation against current state, and a migration option described in September is not proof every bank took it. The two documents supply credible reasons not to assume catastrophe, while leaving a measurable gap. The fair conclusion is narrower than both the promotional and alarmist versions: public documents identify candidate dependencies and escape routes; a current market-by-market configuration audit is needed to establish any remaining exposure.

The live inventory is still the missing document The original reporting here compares Switchboard’s list of four prominent integrators with current primary documents from Jito, marginfi and Kamino. It yields two verified documentary findings. Jito’s older Tip Router documentation names Switchboard for vault pricing and a fallback for unavailable feeds. Marginfi’s September 0.1.11 note describes nine new setups independent of Switchboard and warns of a separate SDK break if integrators do not upgrade. Kamino’s Scope repository explains why an aggregator label alone cannot identify every upstream data source.

The work does not produce a count of live unmigrated feeds, user funds exposed or an outage at any named protocol. The available public pages do not contain a synchronized September 25 snapshot of all oracle accounts, latest successful updates, fallback settings and amounts supported by each market. Claiming a specific dollar total from protocol TVL would be indefensible, because the whole protocol’s assets do not necessarily share the same oracle. The precise headline question remains open at the live-account level.

A proper count would use the market as the row, not the protocol. For each active lending bank, derivative market or reward vault, the auditor would record its program address, selected oracle type, oracle account, backup source if any, latest successful price update, maximum permitted age and the value of positions actually dependent on that particular price. Duplicate markets that share one oracle account should not be counted as distinct feeds; one market using two independent oracles should not be counted as wholly dependent on either without reading its fallback logic. The timestamp of the market configuration matters because an administrator could change a feed after the observation.

This method explains why even a true statement such as a protocol supported 550 feeds in the past is insufficient for the present question. A feed can exist without an active borrower, can have a price update without a consuming market, or can be referenced only in dormant code. A count of feed accounts measures infrastructure. A count of configured markets measures dependency. A count of positions and collateral actually touching those markets measures economic exposure. None is interchangeable with total assets deposited in all products run by a project.

There is a further verification step when a source is an aggregator. The consumer may identify a Scope account and entry index, while the Scope mapping points onward to one or more providers. An update in the Scope account after September 25 proves an aggregator produced a value, but it does not by itself prove Switchboard continued to supply the underlying price. The investigator needs the selected entry and source configuration for that update. Kamino’s repository notes that token-pair labels are not entirely stored onchain, so external configuration or maintainer documentation may be needed to map an index to its asset. Where that mapping is unavailable, the result should be recorded as unknown, not silently attributed to Pyth or Switchboard.

What to watch Market oracle addresses: Compare each active bank or vault’s configured feed with the documented Switchboard accounts. Price update timestamps: Check whether an identified feed continues publishing fresh values after September 25. Fallback configuration: Look for the source and freshness limit used if a primary feed falls behind. Recent program transactions: Check whether borrowing, settlement or tip distribution still completes for the affected market. Dated maintainer updates: Look for a named migration, market pause or remaining dependency, supported by an account or program address. Record the observation time for each check; a screenshot without a block or timestamp can quickly become stale.

Marginfi’s upgrade note states that a bank using a new oracle enum value can make an older SDK fail to initialize its client, even if a user does not interact with that particular bank. The instruction to use SDK version 2.8.0 or later was published ahead of September 4’s migration start, three weeks before Switchboard’s support deadline.

FAQ When did Switchboard say support would end? The shutdown announcement was made on September 19, 2026, and identified September 25 as the end of existing technical support. The notice deprecated implementations immediately.

Did all Switchboard oracle feeds stop on September 25? The support deadline alone does not establish that every onchain account stopped updating. Current transaction and feed timestamps are needed to make that claim.

Does Jito still use Switchboard? Jito’s Tip Router documentation still names Switchboard in vault pricing, but its overview is marked as last updated nine months earlier. The pages do not prove the live September 25 configuration.

Did marginfi migrate off Switchboard? Marginfi’s September upgrade documents nine new oracle setups that do not depend on Switchboard and says banks began moving from September 4. It does not state that every bank completed a migration.

Why can an oracle migration break an SDK? Marginfi says older SDKs do not recognize the enum values used by its nine new setups. A bank configured with one can make an old client’s initialization fail; version 2.8.0 or later supports the variants.

Is Kamino Scope independent of every external oracle? Scope aggregates values from other oracle accounts. Its presence in a consumer’s configuration does not identify every upstream source without examining the specific entry mapping.

How can users check whether a market is affected? The market’s configured oracle account, latest update and fallback settings provide a stronger answer than a historical provider list. Protocol announcements can confirm whether a specific market has migrated.

Have losses been verified from this shutdown? No losses at a named protocol were verified for this feature. An earlier incident at another protocol cannot prove one occurred here. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 25, 2026.

Securitize (SECZ) shares jumped more than 15% Friday, extending a sharp recovery just as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) opened a new legal pathway for tokenized stock trading.

The company, which builds infrastructure for real-world asset (RWA) tokenization and serves as transfer agent for BlackRock’s tokenized BUIDL fund, a blockchain-based money market fund, traded at $16.53. Shares are up 77% over the past five trading days and 158% over the past month.

The Rule Behind the RallyThe exemption follows a stretch of rapid growth for tokenized real-world assets, from funds and private credit to equities represented onchain. On September 17, the SEC issued a five-year Innovation Exemption. It lets tokenized securities venues operate without registering as an exchange.

SECZ has risen over the past 5 days. Image Source: Trading ViewThe exemption also frees certain liquidity providers from registering as dealers. This applies when they supply tokenized stock to automated market maker (AMM) pools.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins framed the exemption as a temporary bridge.

“in a permissioned environment today while the commission considers the need for additional action to facilitate onchain trading”

Paul Atkins, SEC chair, said

The order builds on a January statement from the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). That statement classified tokenized securities and said tokenization changes a security’s form, not its legal status.

Securitize’s Bet on Onchain EquitySecuritize went public on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in July through a merger with Cantor Equity Partners II. It tokenized $295 million of its own SECZ shares on Solana and Avalanche the same day. That made it the largest issuer-sponsored tokenized stock launch on record.

Securitize’s six-month, year-to-date, and one-year returns all sit near 50%. Its one-month gain alone is 158%, meaning almost the entire year’s advance happened in recent weeks.

Regulatory clarity removes one obstacle for tokenization platforms. However, it does not guarantee investor demand for a business still working toward consistent profitability. Therefore, whether this rally holds may depend on that answer.

All five directors of Solana treasury company SkyAI kept their seats at its annual meeting despite an opposition campaign by Forward Industries and Bastion Trading.

The directors each saw between 18.4 million and 20.7 million withheld votes, compared with 6.9 million to 9.2 million votes in support, according to a Thursday SEC filing. But due to a plurality voting rule, the withheld votes did not count against a nominee, letting each of the five directors retain their respective seats.

This was an outcome that Forward previously acknowledged would be likely when it urged shareholders to withhold their votes.

However, shareholders did reject SkyAI's proposed 2026 equity incentive plan by a wide margin, with 22.5 million votes against and 5 million in favor. The plan would have authorized 5 million shares for stock-based compensation on top of shares still available under the company's existing plan.

Forward, which is currently the largest Solana (SOL) treasury company by a wide margin, has been seeking to acquire SkyAI since mid-June. Forward submitted an updated purchase proposal on Sept. 15 after SkyAI rejected the first offer. The offer values each SkyAI share (SKYA) at the equivalent of 0.306 Forward shares (FWDI).

SkyAI has not yet publicly announced a decision on the second offer, which Forward requested a response to by 5 p.m. ET on Friday.

SkyAI shares were up 4.4% on the day but down 15.8% this year, while Forward shares were up 2.5% on the day and around 23% year-to-date.

SkyAI (SKYA) share price vs Forward Industries (FWDI) share price. Source: TradingView

Raydium [RAY] has surged by more than 10% to the current trading price at $2.05 over the last 24 hours, significantly outperforming the broader market as new asset integrations strengthen its role in Solana’s [SOL] growing tokenization ecosystem.

The launch of USDv and Injective [INJ] on Raydium is driving fresh activity across the platform, while rising altcoin rotation and strong trading volume provide additional support for the rally.

New integrations strengthen Raydium’s utility The addition of USDv and Injective expands the range of assets available on Raydium and could increase trading activity across the Solana-based decentralized exchange.

These developments arrive as capital continues rotating into altcoins, creating a more supportive environment for RAY and other Solana ecosystem tokens.

As a by-product of the increasing utility, Raydium trading volume across the Futures market has increased significantly. Over the last 24 hours alone, the network’s trading volume has doubled to $185 million.

Source: Santiment The network’s Futures Volume has surged threefold to $25.25 million, with the bulls slightly outweighing the sellers by one percent. The proportion of the leveraged positions in long positions stands at 51%.

Source: CoinGlass The overall market’s derivatives data is supporting the current bullish push. Raydium’s current push is strongly supported by increasing retail orders as the Volume Bubble Map sparks overheating signals across both Spot and Futures markets.

Source: CryptoQuant RAY breaks into new highs On the daily chart, RAY’s price action has also strengthened considerably over the past week, with the token recording a new all-time high of $2.12 at yesterday’s market close.

The latest 10% daily gain extends that breakout and keeps RAY firmly above its previous high. The only obstacle against the current bullish advance stands at the local high at $2.12.

That being the case, a sustained trading volume will now be key for determining whether buyers can maintain the momentum at these elevated levels.

But with the new asset integrations increasing Raydium’s utility and broader altcoin rotation supporting risk appetite, the market is now watching whether RAY can extend its breakout and establish another rally.

Source: TradingView Final Summary RAY surges by more than 10% to $2.05 after new USDv and Injective integrations boosted activity on Raydium. Raydium reached a new all-time high of $2.12  as altcoin rotation and strong trading activity support the breakout.

Injective has brought $INJ to Backpack Wallet on Solana, giving users the ability to hold, send, receive, and swap the token directly through the wallet. The move is part of a broader push by Injective to establish a native presence on Solana rather than relying on wrapped or bridged representations of the token.

A Native SPL Token, Not a Bridge Workaround

Sunrise, built by Wormhole Labs, acts as a unified token gateway for Solana. Rather than letting each bridge produce its own wrapped representation of INJ with separate mint addresses and fragmented liquidity, Sunrise creates one universally recognised SPL token address per asset.

Expanding Access Across Solana Apps The Backpack Wallet integration is one piece of a wider rollout.

The Backpack Wallet listing adds a consumer-facing entry point to that multi-chain footprint, connecting Injective's liquidity to one of Solana's most prominent wallet interfaces.

Sources:
Crypto Briefing: Injective Protocol's INJ token goes live on Solana via Sunrise and Backpack Securities
Solana Compass: INJ Token Live on Solana via Sunrise, Now Trading on Raydium and Meteora
Crypto Times: Injective's INJ Token Surpasses $7.50 After Solana Expansion and ETF Filing

Metaplex, the protocol famously known for building the token standard for Solana NFTs, has launched Vantage, a fully modular trading terminal designed to give Solana traders greater control over how they research, track, and trade onchain assets. Metaplex already offers tools to “launch onchain assets”, and Vantage now provides a user-defined interface for trading. The terminal is designed to break out of a one-size-fits-all layout: traders can add, remove, resize, and arrange widgets and modules to suit their workflow. In effect, Metaplex is turning the trading dashboard into a toolbox. 

According to the company, Vantage replaces fixed layouts with customizable building blocks for charts, order entry, market data, and portfolio tracking. Users can save multiple dashboards for different strategies. For example, separate views for day trading versus long-term positions. The goal is a “terminal that adapts to the trader instead of making the trader adapt to the terminal.” This shift in interface design aims to give Solana traders complete control over how they see markets.

“Trading is personal. Different traders look at different signals, follow different markets and build completely different workflows.” - Stephen Hess, founder of Metaplex

Metaplex teased the product on Monday with a short post reading, “Information moves markets. Wednesday.” Vantage currently launches in beta, with Metaplex planning to expand access and add functionality based on user feedback.

From Token Infrastructure to Consumer Trading The launch represents another step in Metaplex's expansion beyond its traditional infrastructure business. Metaplex currently generates revenue by charging protocol fees across its onchain programs, including Genesis, Core, Bubblegum, Token Metadata, MPL-Hybrid, and Fusion.

The protocol directs 50% of those fees toward $MPLX for the DAO treasury, while the remaining 50% supports Foundation operations.

Metaplex has averaged more than $40,000 in weekly revenue over the past several weeks, including $41,432 last week.

The DAO's $MPLX buyback program has now repurchased more than 36.5% of the token’s circulating supply over time. 

Vantage could give Metaplex another revenue-generating consumer product while potentially strengthening that buyback mechanism.

Genesis Set the Stage Vantage follows Metaplex's July 2025 expansion into token launches through Genesis. Genesis provides established teams with infrastructure for conducting Onchain Token Offerings, or OTOs, rather than functioning like permissionless memecoin launchpads such as pump.fun and letsBONK.

Its framework supports 3 primary launch mechanisms: Launch Pools, Auctions, and Presales. It also provides infrastructure for token claims, airdrops, tokenomics, and vesting schedules.

That expansion positioned Metaplex closer to the capital formation process. Vantage now moves the company further down the stack, from helping teams create assets to helping users discover and trade them.

A Broader Infrastructure Shift Metaplex is not alone in moving from back-end infrastructure toward user-facing trading apps. For Metaplex, Vantage connects several parts of its existing ecosystem. Genesis can help teams launch assets, while Vantage can provide a destination for traders to discover, research, and trade them.

The strategy could ultimately bring asset creation, discovery, and trading closer together within Metaplex's broader ecosystem.

Read More on SolanaFloor Cryptopunks, Boogles, and zkSnarks Record Millions in Trading Volume as NFT Markets Reawaken
$ZETA Surges 58% After Proposal to Migrate AI Stack to Solana Approved

Video Link

Solana has continued to gain momentum across the real-world asset ecosystem even as it continues to see strong participation among users and DeFi platforms.

Following its continued growth in tokenized assets, the latest onchain data shows that the blockchain's RWA ecosystem has reached a new all-time high.

Solana records 11.47% surge in tokenized assetsAccording to the data, the value of distributed assets on the Solana network has reached a massive $4.49 billion as of September 23.

HOT Stories

While this has driven the total RWA value, which also includes the represented value, to a massive $4.6 billion, it represents an increase of 11.47% over the past 30 days.

You Might Also Like

In addition to the surge in total RWA value, Solana has also recorded strong growth in RWA participation, with the number of RWA holders rising to 685,850, nearly doubling the level recorded over the past 30 days.

This suggests that most of the adoption might have happened in September, signaling a rapid surge in activity around tokenized assets and stablecoins on Solana as more users and capital move through the network.

Circle takes dominance Amid the rapid expansion of tokenization across the broad crypto market, reputable firms appear to be utilizing Solana's infrastructure for its speed and efficiency.

Notably, Circle has emerged as the largest platform by RWA value on the Solana network, accounting for the largest share of value at $7.5 billion.

The leading stablecoin issuer, Tether Holdings, followed next, registering a total RWA value of $3.8 billion, and BitGo at $1.6 billion.

Updated Published

2 min read

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko at Consensus Miami 2026 (CoinDesk)Summary

Solana’s Alpenglow upgrade has moved to its public test network, where developers will test reducing transaction finality from about 13 seconds to 0.15 seconds.Alpenglow replaces Solana’s TowerBFT consensus system with Votor, which allows validators to finalize blocks after one or two rounds of direct voting without changing how users send funds.The initial testnet migration requires Agave 4.3 and will not support Firedancer or Frankendancer, while a Sept. 28 mainnet update remains tentative and is not a confirmed Alpenglow launch date.A planned upgrade to make Solana even faster has moved to a testnet, where developers will try to cut the time a payment takes to become irreversible from about 13 seconds to 0.15 seconds.

That moment is known as finality. Exchanges wait for it before crediting deposits, bridges wait before releasing money on another blockchain and merchants need it to know that a payment cannot be taken back.

The upgrade, called Alpenglow, is now being introduced on Solana’s public test network, a copy of the blockchain that uses tokens with no monetary value. Developers can test the migration, find problems and restart the network without putting users’ money at risk.

Solana currently uses a system called TowerBFT to reach consensus, the process through which validators agree on which transactions belong in the permanent record. Validators record their votes on the blockchain and stack enough of them across 32 slots before a block becomes final.

Alpenglow replaces that system with a voting protocol called Votor. Validators send votes directly to one another and can settle on a block after one or two rounds, removing the long chain of onchain votes.

Applications keep executing transactions as they do today, and users will not need to change wallets or how they send funds.

Alpenglow has spent more than four months running on a smaller network created specifically for the upgrade. Moving it to Solana’s established testnet checks whether the broader group of computers and services already running the blockchain can switch together.

Validators taking part need Agave 4.3. Agave is the main software used to run Solana and is maintained by Anza, one of the companies responsible for developing the network.

Anza recommended Agave 4.3 to all mainnet validators on Sept. 21 after first rolling it out to operators responsible for 10% and then 25% of the SOL used to secure the network.

Firedancer and Frankendancer, two alternative validator programs built by Jump Crypto, do not yet support the Alpenglow test.

Those alternatives are intended to reduce Solana’s reliance on a single piece of software, so a fault in Agave does not affect every validator at once. Their absence from the test means the first Alpenglow migration will run entirely through Agave.

Sept. 28 appears in Anza’s schedule as the tentative date for turning on features included in Agave 4.3 on the main network. It is not a confirmed Alpenglow launch date, and Anza’s tracker still listed the testnet switch itself as pending early Wednesday.

12345678910The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

The Definitive Stablecoin Landscape Series: Asia Pacific

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Sep 15, 2026

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

Why it matters:

As stablecoins move into regulated finance, APAC is becoming a key proving ground. This report maps the region’s rules, use cases, and RLUSD’s role.

US spot Solana ETFs just logged their strongest single-day performance yet, pulling in $26.1 million in net inflows on September 21. Bitwise’s BSOL led the pack with $14.4 million, while Grayscale’s GSOL added another $7.8 million. The rest of the field split what was left.

That $26.1 million figure pushed cumulative inflows for the entire Solana ETF category past $1.4 billion, with combined net assets now sitting at roughly $1.74 billion.

BSOL’s staking edge keeps compounding Bitwise launched BSOL on October 28, 2025, and the product has since accumulated over $1.1 billion in cumulative net inflows. That’s approximately 80% of all money that has flowed into US spot Solana ETFs, period.

Advertisement

BSOL is structured as a staking product, meaning it targets Solana network rewards on behalf of holders. Even as Grayscale, Fidelity, and VanEck have rolled out their own Solana ETF products, BSOL’s first-mover advantage combined with its staking mechanics has kept it firmly in the lead. Grayscale’s GSOL managed a respectable $7.8 million on the same day, but that still left it at barely half of BSOL’s haul.

What’s driving the broader Solana ETF wave The September 21 figures extended what has been a multi-week stretch of positive inflows into the category. Previous single-day highs had already reached $10.19 million and $33.5 million in prior weeks before the September 21 record.

The competitive landscape is getting crowded, but not evenly Bitwise, Grayscale, Fidelity, and VanEck all have products live. BSOL’s 80% share of cumulative inflows is the kind of market concentration that tends to be self-reinforcing. Larger asset bases mean tighter spreads, better liquidity, and more visibility on institutional platforms.

Grayscale’s GSOL has carved out a meaningful niche, and its brand recognition from the legacy GBTC trust gives it distribution advantages that most rivals can’t match. Fidelity and VanEck bring their own institutional relationships and distribution muscle. None of them have matched BSOL’s staking feature, and BSOL also benefited from a temporary fee waiver designed to attract new investors at launch.

If September continues at this pace, the month could meaningfully accelerate the category’s path toward the $2 billion net asset milestone.

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

In a significant development for Solana-linked financial products, the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF (BSOL) experienced over $60 million in inflows over the past two days. This influx has brought the ETF’s assets under management to an all-time high of over $1.2 billion. The surge in investment suggests growing confidence in Solana’s potential in the current market cycle. The ETF, which holds and stakes Solana (SOL) to generate yield, has seen cumulative net inflows surpassing $1 billion. Solana itself is priced around $118.57, with a market cap near $60 billion, reflecting sustained interest in the cryptocurrency and its associated investment vehicles.

Advertisement

Key Takeaways The recent $60 million inflow into the BSOL ETF appears to suggest heightened investor interest in Solana. Market pricing implies that participants may view these inflows as supportive of Solana’s growth potential in this market cycle. Solana’s current price and market cap indicate continued demand and confidence in its ecosystem. What to Watch Observers should monitor if the inflows into Solana-linked ETFs continue, as sustained investment could further bolster Solana’s market presence. Developments such as new Solana ETF launches or significant public endorsements of Solana could act as catalysts for further price movements. Additionally, any regulatory developments affecting cryptocurrency products in the U.S. could impact Solana’s investment appeal and market dynamics.

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

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h October 1 2026 0.5% — — View market → October 1 2026 0.5% — — View market → October 1 2026 1.6% — — View market → October 1 2026 2.7% — — View market → October 1 2026 4.5% — — View market → October 1 2026 14.3% — — View market → October 1 2026 36.5% — — View market → October 1 2026 83.9% — — View market → October 1 2026 4.2% — — View market → October 1 2026 1.9% — — View market → October 1 2026 0.9% — — View market → October 1 2026 0.6% — — View market → October 1 2026 0.4% — — View market → October 1 2026 0.4% — — View market → October 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → October 1 2026 0.1% — — View market →

Share

Altcoins

20 September 2026 | 20:54 A reported $750 million stablecoin injection into Solana does not match the available transaction data. The verified amount is smaller, and most remained in issuer inventory.

Key takeaways

Circle minted 500 million USDC, not 250 million. Both mints entered the same treasury-labeled account. Most of the account balance increase remained there. The separate 500 million USDT mint remains unverified. Circulating supply did not rise with total issuance. Onchain records confirm 500 million USDC from Circle A September 19 report described a combined $750 million stablecoin injection into Solana, attributing $500 million to Tether and $250 million to Circle. The linked evidence tells a different story.

The underlying transaction coverage said Circle completed two 250 million USDC mints within roughly 40 minutes. Solana’s transaction records confirm both transfers.

Both mints went to the same account. Its balance rose from approximately 533 million USDC before the first transaction to 1.03 billion USDC after the second.

At 12:00 UTC on September 20, the account held about 998 million USDC. Compared with its pre-mint balance, roughly 465 million of the 500 million USDC increase was still in that account. About 35 million had left, although token fungibility means the ledger cannot distinguish newly minted units from USDC already held there.

Creating USDC and distributing it are separate events A mint expands the token supply recorded by the blockchain. It does not prove that a customer bought the tokens, that an exchange received them or that the money reached a decentralized finance application.

The cleaner analogy is inventory in a warehouse. Production has taken place, but retail demand is not established until the inventory moves to customers or distributors.

What the verified transactions show Creation: Circle minted 500 million USDC on Solana. Storage: Most of the account’s balance increase remained in the recipient account. Distribution: Transfers to outside wallets would show that inventory was being released. Use: Exchange deposits, DEX trades or lending deposits would show where that liquidity went. There is another reason not to equate every chain-level mint with fresh money. Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol moves USDC by burning it on a source chain and minting the same amount on a destination chain. That process can increase Solana’s USDC supply without increasing the global supply of USDC.

The two September 19 records were direct SPL-token mints into one treasury-labeled account, not completed transfers to identifiable outside customers. Their final economic purpose therefore cannot be established from the mint transactions alone.

The reported Tether amount remains unresolved The same report attributed another 500 million tokens to Tether. However, the report and its underlying coverage did not provide a matching Solana transaction hash, and the available evidence reviewed here does not independently verify that mint.

DefiLlama’s September 19 and September 20 daily snapshots placed total minted USDT supply on Solana near 3.84 billion tokens on both dates. The same dataset estimated about 2.12 billion USDT as circulating and classified roughly 1.72 billion as unreleased.

DefiLlama’s public Solana table uses estimated circulating supply to calculate stablecoin market capitalization. The 3.84 billion figure is total minted USDT supply, including tokens the data provider classifies as unreleased.

The original report described approximately 3.84 billion USDT as circulating. That figure instead matches the Solana token mint’s raw total supply, not DefiLlama’s circulating estimate. None of DefiLlama’s three fields, minted, circulating or unreleased, recorded a net 500 million USDT increase across the two daily snapshots.

This does not rule out an intraday mint followed by a burn. It means the claimed Tether leg needs a transaction hash or an issuer confirmation before it should be counted as part of a $750 million event.

Tether’s own FAQ also explains that tokens created for inventory replenishment can remain in its treasury as “authorized but not issued.” Even a verified Tether mint would therefore require a second step: determining whether the tokens stayed in inventory or were issued to customers.

Supply estimates tell a different story DefiLlama’s USDC data further separates token creation from circulation. The figures below compare its 00:00 UTC snapshots on September 19 and September 20, so the first reading predates the two verified mints and the second follows them.

USDC supply on Solana

Measure

Sep. 19

Sep. 20

Total minted supply

7.38B USDC

8.02B USDC

Estimated circulating supply

7.03B USDC

6.96B USDC

Unreleased supply

354M USDC

1.06B USDC

Total minted USDC increased by approximately 637 million tokens over the daily interval, about 137 million more than the two identified mints. That difference may reflect other supply activity or a data adjustment during the same measurement window.

More important for the “liquidity injection” claim, estimated circulating supply fell by about 73 million USDC while the unreleased category increased by roughly 710 million. Under DefiLlama’s methodology, the net expansion was therefore not counted as customer-facing circulating supply.

These estimates are not a substitute for tracing each wallet transfer, and third-party classifications can change. They do, however, contradict the simple claim that minting automatically placed the full amount into Solana’s active markets.

Could trading activity prove the inflow? Not by itself Higher decentralized-exchange volume after a mint can look like supporting evidence, but volume measures turnover rather than net capital entering a network. The same pool of stablecoins can change hands repeatedly and generate a much larger volume figure.

Solana had already returned to the top of the daily DEX rankings before these mints, even as its daily volume remained below the previous week’s pace. A later rise in trading would therefore need wallet-level evidence before it could be connected to the newly created USDC.

The same caution applies to exchange balances and lending deposits. A rising total can support the distribution thesis, but it does not identify the source unless transfers from the treasury-labeled account can be followed to those venues.

What would change the conclusion Evidence that the tokens entered active markets Large transfers from the recipient account to exchanges, market makers or DeFi protocols A lasting increase in estimated circulating USDC supply on Solana Issuer confirmation that customer issuance, rather than inventory preparation, caused the mints A verifiable Solana transaction for the claimed 500 million USDT mint Destination-wallet activity linking the new supply to trading or lending liquidity Even those signals would not prove that stablecoin issuance caused SOL or other assets to rise. They would establish the narrower and more useful point: whether newly created tokens actually became available for market use.

The next recipient matters more than the mint The verified transactions show that Circle prepared 500 million USDC on Solana. They do not show a $750 million liquidity injection, and the separate 500 million USDT claim lacks the transaction evidence needed to include it.

The conclusion can change if the USDC moves from treasury inventory to outside wallets and estimated circulation rises. Until then, the destination of the tokens, not the size of the mint announcement, is the clearest test of whether new liquidity reached the market.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Stablecoin supply figures and wallet classifications can change as issuers move, burn or reclassify tokens.

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.