Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Circle is winding down USDC on Noble, and Cosmos is adopting Injective-issued USDC. Key dates: October 31 burn limits shrink, January 12, 2027 contract pause.

Circle has stopped minting new USDC on Noble, the chain that has issued the stablecoin for the Cosmos ecosystem, and the first deadline for holders arrives next week. Cosmos is shifting to a version of USDC issued on Injective, the chain behind $INJ.

What changes on October 31 and January 12According to Coinpaprika, Circle disabled new USDC minting on Noble on October 13, 2026, and will pause the Noble USDC contract on January 12, 2027. The staged timeline has burn limits shrinking from October 31, and exit routes narrowing after December 1.

The October 31 date matters because it affects the older transfer system. Blockonomi reports that CCTP V1 burn limits on Noble start shrinking on that date and reach zero on a rolling basis as the January deadline approaches. CCTP is Circle's Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol.

The reason is technical. Circle is moving to CCTP V2, and Noble will not receive it, according to Coinpaprika. The change ends USDC's legacy infrastructure on Noble rather than a withdrawal from Cosmos. Noble itself is not shutting down, edgeX notes.

Injective USDC becomes the Cosmos standardCrypto Briefing reports that Cosmos Hub, dYdX and the routing layer Skip:Go have signed on, making Injective USDC the canonical stablecoin standard across chains that previously relied on Noble for issuance.

Holders can swap Noble USDC, now displayed as USDC.n, for Injective-issued USDC, or USDC.inj, through Skip:Go. CryptoSlate reported that migration opened on September 11. The same report put the affected amount at roughly $92 million in USDC. DeFiLlama data cited by edgeX showed about 91.6 million USDC circulating on Noble as of September 11.

Holders who miss the deadlines still have a backstop, but it is narrower. Circle plans to take a snapshot of remaining balances on January 12 and open manual redemption the next day. BitRss, republishing CryptoSlate, said eligibility requires the USDC to be in a wallet controlled by the user and that holders pass Circle's compliance and security checks. USDC left in liquidity pools or smart contracts at the snapshot will not qualify, so protocol-level migration is more urgent than the January date suggests.

Cosmos Labs has urged holders to migrate before October 31 rather than wait for January, Coinpaprika reports.

SourcesCoinpaprika: Circle Pulls USDC From Noble, Forcing Cosmos Onto Injective
CryptoSlate: Circle's Noble shutdown leaves Cosmos racing to move $92 million in USDC
Crypto Briefing: Injective USDC becomes canonical USDC standard across Cosmos

Injective ($INJ) has grown its native $USDC supply by 43% in 30 days to $16.5M, as it positions itself as the canonical dollar standard for Cosmos and 20+ chains.

@Injective has expanded its native $USDC supply by 43% over the past 30 days, lifting the total on-chain dollar supply on the network to $16.5M. The financial Layer-1 blockchain is positioning itself as the canonical dollar standard across more than 20 chains, including @Cosmos.

The increase comes ahead of a liquidity rotation in which protocols are expected to allocate more than $100M in bridged and native stablecoins to $INJ.

How Injective Became a Dollar HubThe growth follows a series of integrations over the past several months. , giving the chain direct access to the largest regulated stablecoin without wrapped assets. That design avoids reliance on third-party bridges.

Native USDC later went live on mainnet. That figure refers to the broader USDC ecosystem, not the amount currently held on Injective.

The Cosmos link followed in May.

Why Cosmos Liquidity Is ShiftingThe move addresses a long-standing issue in Cosmos.

For $INJ, the potential benefit is indirect. That outcome is not assured, and the current $16.5M supply remains small next to the wider stablecoin market.

Investors will be watching whether the planned stablecoin allocations materialise and whether more Cosmos chains complete the move to Injective USDC.

Sources:

Injective: USDC adopted by Cosmos and dYdX as canonical stablecoin standardBlockchain.News: Circle brings native USDC to Injective with CCTPCrypto Economy: Injective's USDC becomes the stablecoin standard for Cosmos and dYdX

ValueChain‘s SoDEX trading and wealth application has integrated Morpho, the on-chain credit network that reported more than $16 billion in deposits as of October 2026. The integration allows SoDEX users to deposit USDC into a Morpho Vault curated by Unified Labs, earning yield generated by borrowing activity across the markets to which the vault allocates. The product is live now at sodex.com/wealth.
The vault’s allocation policy, collateral parameters and risk limits are set by Unified Labs, which describes itself as Asia’s first institutional-grade risk curator focused on the intersection of real-world assets and decentralised finance. Deposits and redemptions are handled within the SoDEX interface, removing the need for a separate wallet connection or a standalone DeFi workflow.

How the product works
The earn product sits inside SoDEX Wealth and is enabled by the ValueChain-Base bridge, which routes stablecoin deposits from ValueChain’s layer-one blockchain onto the Base network where the Morpho Vault operates. Yield accrues from borrowing demand rather than from token emissions, a structural distinction that matters to institutions and advisers assessing sustainability of returns. The release did not disclose an indicative annual percentage yield or detail the specific collateral types the vault currently accepts.

May Wang, co-founder of ValueChain, framed the integration as a diversification of the ecosystem’s opportunity set further along the risk spectrum, consistent with ValueChain’s stated aim of giving self-custodial investors access to a range of on-chain financial products alongside spot and perpetuals trading and AI-powered research.

For Morpho, the deal is primarily a distribution move into Asia-Pacific. Shanshan Shui, APAC go-to-market lead at Morpho, said the integration allows the protocol to reach SoDEX and SoSoValue users inside their existing interface, rather than requiring those users to navigate to Morpho directly.

Market context
The integration illustrates a structural pattern that has accelerated across the DeFi and crypto-adjacent fintech space: protocols such as Morpho, Aave and Compound are increasingly positioned as shared yield infrastructure that product teams embed rather than replicate. Morpho’s publicly listed partners include Coinbase, Robinhood and Société Générale, which signals an appetite among regulated and semi-regulated distribution platforms to access on-chain credit yield without building the underlying credit infrastructure themselves.

From a regulatory standpoint, the product occupies a zone that regulators in multiple jurisdictions are actively examining. In the European Union, the Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation came into full application in 2024 and covers certain stablecoin and crypto-asset service activities, though pure DeFi protocols sit in a grey area pending further Commission guidance. In Singapore, where ValueChain is based, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has indicated that yield-bearing digital-asset products may attract licensing requirements depending on their structure. Neither ValueChain nor Morpho addressed the regulatory framing of the earn product in the release.

Unified Labs’ role as vault curator is the risk-management layer that makes the product viable for a broader audience. Louis Wan, co-founder and chief executive of Unified Labs, said Morpho is becoming the yield layer that fintech platforms integrate rather than rebuild, which captures the infrastructure logic of the arrangement. Whether the vault’s curated parameters are sufficient to satisfy institutional or regulated-platform risk standards will depend on how Unified Labs documents and publishes its collateral and allocation methodology over time.

AI level 1 of 5: written by Darlyn Ho; AI helped with tone, structure or wording; edited and signed off by Mark Walker, Editorial Director. What the levels mean

Extended, a decentralized exchange built around perpetual contracts, has fully moved to Arc. Trading is live, with USDC and cirBTC as the accepted collateral.

How the move went down The migration took place on October 22, 2026, at 13:00 UTC. Extended shifted its settlement infrastructure from Starknet to Arc, carrying approximately $120 million in total value locked (TVL) with it.

Open positions and orders came along intact. Traders did not need to close out and rebuild their books on the other side.

Deposits and withdrawals did pause briefly during the transition. Both have since been restored.

The collateral menu changed, though. On Arc, Extended now accepts native USDC as its main collateral and cirBTC as its Bitcoin collateral asset.

cirBTC is a token issued by Circle and backed 1:1 by Bitcoin.

Two familiar assets did not survive the trip. USDT and wBTC are not supported on Arc.

Users holding more than $1 of USDT or wBTC had to act by October 21, 2026. They could either withdraw or convert into USDC or cirBTC at a 1:1 rate plus a 0.50% premium.

ETH holders got off easier. Their balances converted automatically to wETH during the migration.

What Arc brings to the table Arc is Circle’s EVM-compatible Layer 1 blockchain. The network launched its mainnet on September 16, 2026. Extended’s arrival comes roughly five weeks later.

Arc offers sub-second deterministic finality. Gas fees on Arc are paid in USDC.

The validator lineup includes founding validators such as BlackRock, DTCC, ICE, Visa, and Mastercard.

Extended also gains access to Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP). CCTP lets USDC move natively between blockchains, rather than relying on wrapped versions issued by third-party bridges.

The Circle partnership and Extended’s track record The migration is described as the first step in a broader partnership between Extended and Circle.

Extended reports more than $200 billion in lifetime trading volume across multiple asset classes, including traditional stocks and digital currencies.

What this means for traders and the perps market For existing Extended users, the immediate changes are practical. Collateral options narrowed to USDC and cirBTC, and anyone still holding USDT or wBTC had to make a decision before the October 21 deadline.

The 0.50% conversion premium sweetened that deal. Exchanges rarely pay users to switch assets, so the incentive suggests Extended wanted the collateral base consolidated quickly and cleanly.

The things to track from here: whether TVL grows beyond the approximately $120 million that made the trip, how cirBTC adoption develops as Bitcoin collateral, and what the next phase of the Extended and Circle partnership actually delivers.

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

Ahmed Barakat

Author

Ahmed Barakat

Part of the Team Since

Mar 2024

About Author

Ahmed Barakat is a journalist and copywriter based in Georgia with a growing focus on blockchain technology, DeFi, AI, privacy, digital assets, and fintech innovation.

Has Also Written

Fact Checked by

CryptoNews Editorial Team

Author

CryptoNews Editorial Team

Part of the Team Since

Sep 2018

About Author

The CryptoNews editorial team is composed of seasoned writers specializing in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Their expertise ensures comprehensive, accurate, and insightful content for...

Has Also Written

Last updated: 

The US stablecoin market is entering a new regulatory phase, with Circle’s USDC and Tether’s USDT facing different challenges as federal oversight takes shape. Last night, UK time, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized rules implementing the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. The framework establishes requirements covering reserves, redemptions, risk management, reporting, and regulatory supervision, with an effective date of January 18, 2027.

President Trump fundamentally transformed the future of finance with the signing of the GENIUS Act last year.

Today, U.S. Treasury’s @USOCC took a critical step toward implementing this historic legislation with the release of a final rule that delivers a federal framework for… pic.twitter.com/JXypSNdz6P

— Treasury Department (@USTreasury) October 21, 2026 Circle could benefit from its established US regulatory positioning, while Tether faces questions about how its international stablecoin business will fit into the new framework. The stablecoin market has USDT’s market share at 60.7%, compared with 23.9% for USDC. Together, the tokens represented 84.6% of the market.

Stablecoin Market Cap, DefiLlamaThe figures highlight both Circle’s opportunity and the scale of the challenge. USDC has room to expand, particularly among institutions seeking regulated digital-dollar infrastructure, but winning market share will require continued adoption, liquidity, and integration.

For Tether, the priority is protecting USDT’s established position while adapting to the requirements of an increasingly regulated market. Its international user base remains a significant competitive asset.

Discover: Crypto IPO to Watch This Q4

GENIUS Act on Exchanges and InstitutionsThe effects of the GENIUS Act extend beyond stablecoin issuers. Exchanges, payment providers, and financial institutions must assess which tokens they can support and how their products fit within the new framework.

Stablecoin rewards have emerged as another important battleground. The OCC’s final rule prohibits issuers from directly paying interest or yield to holders simply for holding payment stablecoins, but it does not impose a blanket ban on third-party reward programs. Instead, regulators will assess these arrangements case by case, including whether they circumvent the law’s restrictions.

That approach could shape how exchanges compete for stablecoin deposits. Platforms may retain room to offer qualifying rewards, while issuers and their partners will need to consider how their arrangements are structured.

The GENIUS Act also leaves further implementation work ahead, including separate requirements for anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance. The January 18, 2027, effective date gives affected businesses time to prepare, but regulatory applications and decisions will help determine how the framework operates in practice.

Can USDC Close the Gap With USDT?Circle has an opportunity to turn its regulatory positioning into stronger adoption among US institutions, payment companies and businesses seeking compliant stablecoin infrastructure. Tether, meanwhile, must preserve USDT’s global dominance while navigating the requirements governing access to the American market.

The GENIUS Act could make regulatory compliance a more important competitive factor, particularly for companies building payment and settlement services around dollar-backed tokens. That creates an opening for USDC to gain ground even as USDT retains its international advantages.

The next milestones will be issuer applications, regulatory decisions, and the January 2027 implementation deadline. These developments will help clarify which stablecoins are best positioned to serve American customers.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

Regulations

21 October 2026
|
08:45

Stablecoin purchases can move deposits from local banks to the large banks holding issuer reserves. Community bankers want the SEC to study that shift before finalizing a crypto rule.

Key Takeaways

Community bankers want deposit analysis before SEC rule.
Group says crypto exemptions could boost stablecoin use.
USDC reserve cash sits mostly at major banks.
Higher deposit rates preceded slower stablecoin growth.

In a comment letter filed on October 20, the last day for comments, the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) asked the SEC not to finalize Regulation Crypto Assets until it studies the rule’s effect on community-bank deposits and local lending.

What the SEC proposed and what ICBA wants
The proposal, published in the Federal Register on August 21, would exempt certain crypto-linked investment contracts from Securities Act registration in exchange for principles-based disclosures. One exemption covers raises of up to $5 million over four years; a second allows up to $75 million in each 12-month period. A conditional safe harbor would also let a token stop being treated as subject to an investment contract.

The rule covers securities offerings, not stablecoins. ICBA connects the two through the rule’s purpose. Cheaper, less risky issuance is meant to bring more tokens, trading and participants, and the letter argues that much of that activity runs on stablecoins, which serve as trading pairs, collateral and the bridge between bank money and blockchains. More trading, by that logic, means more stablecoin balances funded from community-bank accounts.

The letter also describes a slower pathway. The SEC wants exempted tokens to spread quickly and build network effects, and ICBA argues those networks could eventually carry payments that compete with checking accounts.

ICBA does not claim this proposal alone would drain a measurable sum. It frames the risk as cumulative, with the rule sitting alongside other SEC work on trading platforms, custody, broker-dealer treatment and tokenization, and says it sees no analysis of what that combined package means for bank funding. The group grounds its request in Section 2(b) of the Securities Act, which requires the SEC to weigh efficiency, competition and capital formation. In ICBA’s view, capital formation should also count deposits diverted from small-business and farm lending.

If the SEC goes ahead, ICBA’s conditions

First, a supplemental economic analysis written with the federal banking agencies. Then, in the final rule:

Tighter limits

Narrower offering thresholds or eligibility periods

More reporting

On stablecoin settlement and banking relationships

Regular reviews

Of deposit concentration and funding effects

Suspension power

To pause the relief if material risks emerge

Automatic sunset

The relief lapses unless the SEC renews it

The deposits don’t vanish – they change banks
Take a customer who moves $10,000 from a community bank to buy newly issued stablecoins, where the issuer keeps the backing cash at a large bank:

Community bank

Loses a $10,000 retail deposit

→

Stablecoin issuer

Issues $10,000 in tokens

→

Reserve bank

Gains a $10,000 institutional balance

If the issuer buys Treasury bills instead, part of the money can still return to banks, because the dealers selling the bills deposit the proceeds. Federal Reserve staff economists, in a May note reflecting their own views rather than Fed policy, conclude that stablecoins can change the mix of deposits without shrinking the total one-for-one.

That change in mix is what worries local lenders. ICBA separates lasting losses from one-off trades: “The concern is durable displacement, not merely a one-time transfer.” Buying existing tokens shifts dollars from the buyer’s bank to the seller’s. The risk is customers who start keeping working balances in stablecoin wallets instead of local checking accounts.

Those balances can pool at a few institutions. Circle says most of the USDC reserve is held in a government money market fund managed by BlackRock, with the remaining cash mostly at a handful of the world’s largest banks. A September 2025 Fed survey of senior bank finance officers, cited in the same note, found that about 40% of respondents plan to prioritize holding reserve assets for stablecoin issuers. ICBA warns that such balances may be more rate-sensitive and quicker to move than local operating deposits.

What losing them costs a community lender
ICBA’s members lend to small businesses, farmers, ranchers and homebuyers, many of whom have few other credit options, and local deposits fund that lending. When an operating account leaves, the letter says, a bank loses both the funding and its payment relationship with the customer, and replacement funding may cost more. Smaller banks, it adds, have fewer replacement options and less room to absorb outflows that persist.

A hypothetical funding gap

$10M

low-cost deposits lost

+3 pts

cost of replacement funding

$300K

extra interest per year

A bank can absorb that as lower profit, charge more on loans, or drop loans whose margins no longer cover the cost. The figures are illustrative, not an estimate of stablecoin losses.

ICBA puts a far larger figure on the wider stablecoin threat. In earlier letters to the OCC and FDIC on GENIUS Act rules, it modeled a scenario in which stablecoin yield or rewards draw up to $1.3 trillion from community banks and cut their lending capacity by about $850 billion. It says those numbers do not estimate this SEC rule, which would work through a different route. For the link between deposits and credit, it cites University of Pittsburgh professor Leming Lin, whose research found that stock market booms slow deposit growth and tighten credit for small private firms.

Banks can compete on price – at a cost
A BIS working paper published on October 13 shows the lever banks hold. Rashad Ahmed and Iñaki Aldasoro used weekly US data from January 2019 to June 2025 and found that higher deposit rates were followed by slower stablecoin growth, making the two partial substitutes. The effect was stronger for USDC than for USDT, which the authors link to USDC’s closer ties to US depositors.

That supports the case that banks can compete with stablecoins by paying savers more. For community banks, it is also a trade-off: higher deposit rates raise the same funding costs ICBA wants the SEC to examine. The May Fed note makes a similar point, saying competition for liquid balances could lift deposit rates or squeeze bank margins.

Smaller banks have adapted more slowly in earlier contests, according to the same note. When money market funds drew savings away in the 1970s and early 1980s, many community banks lacked the scale to offer sweep accounts or matching rates. In digital payments, large banks built rival products earlier, while smaller ones often relied on third-party providers. The authors also observe that banks lobbied against money market funds then, as they press for limits on stablecoins now.

Some evidence cuts the other way. Foreign demand for dollar stablecoins can add deposits at US banks when issuers hold reserves domestically, the Fed economists write. The BIS paper, for its part, tracks where savers put their money and does not show that stablecoin growth reduces total deposits or lending.

What would settle the question
With comments closed, ICBA’s case is now part of the SEC’s record. Testing it would take bank-level data: which lenders lose balances for good, which collect the reserves, what replacement funding costs, and whether local lending slows as a result. National totals would reveal little, since the money can stay in the system while changing hands. For community banks, the outcome turns on two prices: what it costs to replace lost deposits, and what it costs to keep them.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice.

Author

Alex is Editor-in-Chief of Coindoo and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, with nearly a decade of experience covering financial markets - crypto first, then everything else.
It started in 2016 with Bitcoin. Like most people at the time, he didn't fully understand it - so he kept digging. Blockchain, tokenomics, the projects, the cycles. That curiosity never stopped, and eventually pulled him into traditional markets too: equities, commodities, macro. Not because he left crypto behind, but because you can't properly understand one without the other.
What drives him is straightforward: he wants to know why something is happening, not just that it's happening. Most market coverage stops at the headline - price up, price down, here's a chart. Alex finds that kind of reporting actively unhelpful. If you walk away from an article without understanding the mechanism behind the move, what did you actually learn?
He holds a degree in Tourism from New Bulgarian University - not the most obvious path into financial markets, but markets have a way of pulling in people who are simply too curious to stay out. He has authored over 200 in-depth analyses and more than 10,000 articles across crypto and traditional finance. He still thinks every day in markets teaches him something new. That's probably why he hasn't stopped.

France's National Assembly has backed a 31.4% flat tax on crypto-to-stablecoin swaps, ending tax deferral on conversions into $USDC, $USDT and $EURC-type tokens from 2027.

French lawmakers have voted to impose a 31.4% flat tax on conversions from cryptocurrency into stablecoins, ending a tax-deferred treatment that has applied to on-chain rebalancing. Under the measure, swapping digital assets into tokens such as $USDC, $USDT and $EURC would trigger a taxable event, regardless of whether proceeds stay in self-custody wallets.

What the amendment changes

The rate is not new.

Not yet lawThe vote is a first step.

The thin margin leaves the outcome open.

Industry analysts have flagged the risk of displacement. CoinDesk reported that the firm warned the proposal could drive crypto activity offshore.

For French holders, the practical effect is on strategy.

Sources

Crypto Briefing: France pushes budget vote on stablecoin swap tax to November 3CoinDesk: France's 31.4% stablecoin tax proposal risks driving crypto activity offshore, warns ChainalysisBitcoin.com News: French Assembly Narrowly Adopts Stablecoin Swap Tax Proposal

Visa has moved stablecoin prefunding on Visa Direct, its push-payments network, from pilot into commercial deployment. Payments processor Inyo Global is the first enabler, and its clients can now prefund cross-border payouts with USDC in near real time instead of relying only on traditional bank funding windows, according to Visa's October 15 release.

The stablecoin sits on the sender's side of the transaction. Inyo's platform pays out across more than 180 countries, and recipients still receive local currency. The release names USDC as the only stablecoin and does not identify the blockchains used, the corridors covered or any expected volumes. Availability "varies by eligibility and geography," the release says.

"The next chapter for stablecoins is adoption," said Vira Platonova, Global Head of Visa Direct. "We're now seeing those efforts translate into live implementations." Robson Dantas, Chief Product and Technology Officer and co-founder at Inyo Global, said: "Innovation in money movement is ultimately about creating a better experience for customers."

The production launch arrives a little over a year after Visa announced the prefunding pilot at Sibos in September 2025, when it said the pilot was expected to reach limited availability by April 2026.

Visa's own disclosures show its broader stablecoin numbers climbing quickly. At its Visa Payments Forum in June, the company put stablecoin settlement across VisaNet at an annualized run rate of approximately $7 billion and said more than 160 stablecoin-linked card programs were live or in development. By September 8, a Visa web page said settlement volume had "recently surpassed a $20 billion annualized run rate, up more than 15x year over year."

Those figures warrant some caution. Visa has not said what period the run rates are annualized from or how stablecoin settlement volume is counted.

The competitive picture has also shifted under Visa Direct. BVNK, which began powering stablecoin payments for Visa Direct in January, agreed in March to be acquired by Mastercard for up to $1.8 billion, including $300 million in contingent payments, in a deal expected to close by year-end.

Visa's fiscal year closed on September 30, and its fourth-quarter results will be the next opportunity for the company to put stablecoin settlement volume on a formal reporting footing and to name further Visa Direct partners going live.

Europe’s banking regulator has classified Circle’s USDC as its first significant e-money token. The decision shifts supervision of the European issuer’s reserves and redemption arrangements to the EBA in November, while France keeps other oversight.

Summary

The EBA classified USDC as the first significant token among 45 e-money tokens notified under MiCA.
Direct EBA supervision of specified USDC safeguards begins November 12, 2026, according to the regulator.
France’s ACPR retains responsibility for Circle Europe’s governance, ownership assessments, outsourcing and conflicts of interest.
Circle’s French entity issues USDC in the EEA, while a separate U.S. entity issues it outside the region.
The EBA announced a New York supervisory agreement to exchange information about cross-border stablecoin activity.

USDC will come under a divided European supervisory arrangement on November 12 after the European Banking Authority classified it as a significant e-money token. In its October 14 announcement, the EBA said it would take direct responsibility for specified own-funds, reserve, liquidity, recovery and redemption matters currently handled by France’s banking regulator. The French authority, ACPR, will continue supervising other aspects of Circle’s European issuer.

JUST IN: Circle’s $USDC becomes the EU’s first “significant” e-money token under MiCA

Starting Nov. 12, 2026, the European Banking Authority will directly supervise USDC’s reserves, liquidity and redemption plans, following its assessment under the EU’s crypto rules. pic.twitter.com/5tYj6K4Enn

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 15, 2026

Significant status can sound like a new license or a judgment that USDC is safer than every other stablecoin. It is neither. Circle had already established a regulated European issuance route. The classification identifies a token that meets the regulation’s scale and activity criteria and assigns additional obligations and supervisory work accordingly. The most useful question for users and businesses is what changes in the rules governing the issuer, and what remains the same when they hold or redeem a dollar token.

The November handover is divided, not total
The EBA counts 45 e-money tokens notified in the European Union and calls USDC the first it has designated significant. From November 12, the agency will directly supervise the areas it names: capital, reserve assets, liquidity, recovery and redemption plans. The ACPR retains governance, qualifying holdings, checks on management suitability, outsourcing and conflicts of interest. Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS is the issuer whose European activities are at issue.

Crypto.news reported the designation after the EBA’s decision. The regulator’s own account makes the division clear: it is possible for the token to have a European-level supervisor for prudential safeguards and a French supervisor for corporate conduct at the same time. A problem involving redemption liquidity might require EBA attention, while a question about an outsourced provider or management suitability remains within the ACPR’s remit, with coordination between them.

The transfer has a date rather than an instantaneous effect from the press release. An October 14 decision and November 12 start create a period for handover of supervisory files and responsibilities. It does not imply the French authority stops paying attention to reserves before that date or that Circle can avoid existing MiCA duties meanwhile. The classification also does not describe a change in the token’s $1 reference value, contract addresses or the basic right of eligible holders to redeem.

MiCA Article 117’s supervisory allocation distinguishes a significant e-money token issued by an electronic money institution from a significant asset-referenced token. The former is jointly supervised, with the EBA overseeing compliance with Articles 55 and 58 in its assigned areas. Describing USDC as simply “taken over” by Brussels would erase the continuing French responsibilities.

How a token becomes significant
An e-money token under MiCA refers to one official currency. USDC refers to the U.S. dollar. The Article 56 classification process draws on the significance criteria in Article 43, which address such factors as holders, value, transactions and the issuer’s interconnected activities. The EBA reviews classifications under the regulation rather than attaching the label as a promotional badge.

The October 14 announcement says the EBA assessed USDC against those criteria but does not enumerate the exact indicators or calculations that made it qualify. Readers should not reverse-engineer an official finding from one circulating-supply estimate and assert that a particular threshold was decisive. A globally used dollar token may have several relevant dimensions, including issuance, transfer activity and links among issuers and services. The public release does not disclose which three criteria determined this decision.

The designation is reviewed, not irrevocable. The EBA regularly assesses whether a classified token continues to meet the criteria. If the underlying facts change, MiCA provides a procedure to reconsider significance. Such a review is separate from whether USDC itself remains redeemable or tradable. A fall in market capitalization would not automatically revoke Circle’s French authorization, and a rise in usage would not by itself alter holder terms overnight.

A classification can nevertheless change business costs. Circle may need more supervisory reporting, liquidity planning and capital than under a less demanding category. It may also gain a clearer European supervisory relationship for institutions evaluating stablecoin exposure. Those are possible commercial consequences, not amounts quantified by the EBA’s October release. Until Circle discloses its compliance costs and reserve allocation, claims of a specific hit to profit are speculative.

JUST IN: Tether’s USDT generates $19.6B in yield, outpacing Circle’s USDC

Since May 2021, Tether has generated roughly $19.6 billion in yield from assets backing USDT, compared with Circle’s $7.4 billion from USDC since July 2022, according to DeFiLlama data. pic.twitter.com/05JPcdydEQ

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 20, 2026

Two issuers support a token used across borders
The EBA identifies Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS as USDC’s EU issuer and Circle Internet Financial, LLC as its U.S. issuer. A customer can encounter the same USDC brand in different jurisdictions while the legal right against a particular issuer depends on location and applicable terms. Regulatory attention to an EU entity does not place all worldwide USDC balances into a single French balance sheet.

Circle’s European USDC white paper sets out the issuer’s legal identity, holder rights and risks. It says EEA holders have redemption rights under the relevant European terms, while holders outside the EEA should consult the U.S. entity’s terms and do not have a right to seek redemption from the French company under that white paper. The distinction matters when comparing a global token supply chart with the obligations placed on Circle’s EU issuer.

A token may move between wallets while its holder moves between countries, making the cross-border arrangement more than a bookkeeping detail. The white paper says a transfer assigns the redemption right to a subsequent eligible holder. Operational controls still govern identity checks and the path to fiat payment. Neither the existence of a blockchain transfer nor the new significant classification tells a particular user that a same-day bank payout is guaranteed in their jurisdiction.

Circle’s September 2026 European redemption policy describes the co-issuance model and a route for EEA holders seeking redemption from Circle France. It also distinguishes selling a token at an exchange from redeeming with the issuer. A person exchanging USDC for euros in a trading market receives a price and service under that venue’s terms; issuer redemption is a claim governed by the issuer’s terms and MiCA. The two paths can diverge under stress.

The EBA says it has signed a memorandum of understanding with New York’s Department of Financial Services to facilitate information exchange on cross-border stablecoin activity. A memorandum is a coordination tool, not a merger of the two legal regimes. The agencies retain their respective powers. The fact that regulators need a formal bridge underscores the difficulty of supervising one widely transferable token through multiple issuer entities.

Reserves and liquidity move into EBA’s remit
A dollar token promises access to dollar value under its redemption terms. Its issuer needs assets that can meet withdrawals when requested, not merely a large nominal portfolio. Reserve composition, maturity, concentration at banks and operational access to cash all influence the ability to redeem during a sudden surge. The EBA’s new responsibility covers those safeguards as specified under MiCA.

Article 58’s additional obligations for e-money tokens brings significant issuers into selected reserve, liquidity and own-funds requirements drawn from the asset-referenced token provisions. Article 54 addresses how funds received for e-money tokens are held and invested. The text distinguishes bank deposits from remaining funds invested in secure, liquid instruments denominated in the referenced currency. An issuer’s prudential compliance cannot be inferred from a single public attestation without applying the exact regulatory scope and entity boundary.

Liquidity is about timing as well as nominal value. A reserve asset may ultimately be worth a dollar while taking days to convert to funds available for redemption. A bank deposit can be readily payable in normal circumstances yet exposed to the bank’s own disruption. A short-term security may be liquid but still require custody, settlement and market access. Stress planning tests whether those paths work when many holders seek cash at once.

The EBA will supervise recovery and redemption plans too. A recovery plan concerns how an issuer responds before failure when its finances or operations deteriorate. A redemption plan describes an orderly path for holders when ordinary arrangements cannot continue. A prepared plan does not mean a crisis is expected or that a government guarantees every claim. It assigns procedures and accountability so the issuer can be examined before and during trouble.

Circle has argued for changes to Europe’s fixed bank deposit requirements. Its request to ease the reserve rules focused on the tradeoff between mandated deposits and exposure to banking counterparties. Significant classification applies the existing legal framework; the EBA’s notice does not approve Circle’s proposed amendment. A supervisor must enforce the law in effect while policymakers consider whether to revise it.

What the additional duties require in practice
Significant status changes more than the address to which a report is sent. Article 58 applies specified rules on reserve management, custody, independent audits and liquidity to an electronic money institution issuing a significant token. The legal text calls for an independent reserve audit every six months from the classification decision. It also replaces some baseline e-money requirements with the MiCA provisions applicable to significant issuers. The date of that decision and the schedule for supervisory responsibility are related but distinct milestones.

The capital question requires care with the denominator. MiCA applies the significant-token own-funds rule through Article 58. Article 45(5) sets a 3% measure against average reserve assets for relevant significant issuers. The rule is a regulatory capital requirement for the issuer, not an automatic 3% charge on each customer’s transfer, and not a claim that the other 97% of reserves may be missing. Capital and the assets backing outstanding tokens are different balance-sheet concepts. Circle’s actual requirement and any supervisory add-on need entity-specific data.

Article 54 separately requires at least 30% of the funds received for e-money tokens to be deposited in separate credit-institution accounts. Other provisions for significant reserves and technical standards may impose stricter liquidity and deposit conditions in their applicable circumstances. Circle’s call to revise fixed deposit ratios should therefore be read against the layered rules rather than summarized as a request to eliminate reserves. An issuer can argue that holding too much at commercial banks concentrates counterparty risk while a regulator argues that deposits provide dependable immediate liquidity. Both positions require evidence about actual banks, instruments and redemption timing.

Suppose a provider holds liquid securities but its bank transfer channel is unavailable on a heavy redemption day. A solvent portfolio would not necessarily translate into immediate payouts. Conversely, keeping a large share at one bank can simplify normal operations while creating exposure to that institution. Stress tests ask whether several pressures can be met together. The EBA can examine the policies, concentration limits and access arrangements; an outside reader generally cannot reconstruct those answers from an aggregate supply chart.

Reporting requirements can reveal other distinctions. The EBA’s significance process uses indicators for transaction value, holder counts and issuer activity, but the public announcement does not publish a table of USDC’s result on each criterion. Future disclosure may provide more detail about reserves or redemption readiness without making commercially sensitive supervision files public. The strongest measurable outcome of the handover would be an observable change to safeguards, reporting or enforcement, rather than simply a larger global USDC balance.

More oversight is not an insurance policy
Circle’s white paper states that the EU investor compensation and deposit guarantee schemes identified there do not cover USDC. MiCA redemption rights and prudential oversight are meaningful protections, but they should not be described as an insured bank balance. The rights rest on a legal claim and the issuer’s ability to honor it within the applicable arrangements.

A user holding USDC through a custodian also faces the custodian’s terms. Some exchanges may restrict withdrawals, temporarily suspend a trading pair or experience operational outages independently of the underlying issuer. A regulated issuer cannot prevent every platform-specific loss or make an intermediary’s promises equivalent to its own. The relevant question after the EBA decision is whether Circle’s European reserve and redemption arrangements are supervised more intensively, not whether every place showing a USDC balance has become supervised by the EBA.

A label can be misunderstood in the opposite direction too. Significant does not mean the regulator found USDC unsafe. MiCA uses the status for a token large or connected enough to warrant more intensive oversight. Additional reporting and stress tests may reveal vulnerabilities earlier, but classification alone is not a finding that reserves were deficient. The EBA did not allege a reserve shortfall in its announcement.

Crypto.news examined Circle’s position on MiCA revisions before the classification. Circle’s policy arguments deserve separate treatment from its legal duties. A company can comply with current requirements while seeking a different future framework. Neither its advocacy nor a positive status label replaces the reserve disclosures and supervisory findings needed to judge present performance.

An exchange conversion is not a redemption
The distinction becomes visible when a user wants cash. An exchange can offer a USDC trading pair in which another customer or market maker takes the other side. The quoted price may be slightly below or above $1 and the venue can impose its own fees and access rules. Direct redemption from an issuer invokes a different obligation: the eligible holder presents tokens through the issuer’s process and seeks payment under the legal terms. A token can remain transferable while one particular exchange has suspended trading or withdrawals.

Circle’s European redemption policy identifies the licensed French entity and explains that EEA holders can seek redemption under its terms. It describes what information a claimant may need to provide and the issuer’s process for handling requests. A reader assessing practical access should look at eligibility, identification, payment method, business-day timing and complaint procedures. A claim of redemption at par does not mean every anonymous wallet can immediately exchange tokens for notes at a physical counter.

MiCA supervision can examine whether plans hold up when normal arrangements fail. If an intermediary refuses a withdrawal, the holder may have a claim against that intermediary as well as a potential route to the issuer, depending on legal ownership and eligibility. If the issuer itself encounters a reserve or operational problem, its recovery and redemption plans become central. These are different failure points; describing all of them as a stablecoin depeg conceals who owes what to whom.

European platforms have already adjusted access to competing dollar tokens under MiCA. A conversion route offered by OKX Europe illustrates how an exchange listing decision can affect a holder’s practical choices without rewriting Circle’s issuer obligations. USDC’s significant designation may influence institutional confidence, but the EBA did not direct an exchange to add a pair or require a customer to switch tokens.

The case for a single global token
A strong argument for the co-issuance model is that businesses can use one familiar digital dollar across payments, trading and treasury operations without maintaining a different brand for each region. A compliant European issuer can give regulated counterparties a clear entity and legal framework, while the U.S. entity operates under its own rules. Shared technology and interoperability can improve access if redemption duties and reserves are mapped correctly.

The counterargument is that a token moving freely across borders is hard to divide neatly into local obligations. A holder may buy from one exchange, transfer through another wallet and redeem in a different jurisdiction. Supervisors need reliable information about where issuance and redemption risk sits. Cross-border information sharing cannot erase differences in legal rights, reserve location or local payment access. The EBA’s agreement with New York regulators addresses cooperation, while leaving these distinctions intact.

The EBA must establish and chair a supervisory college under MiCA Article 119 following a significant classification. Such a college brings relevant authorities together to exchange views on the issuer. Its opinions and coordination do not turn every participating authority into one regulator. The practical value will depend on whether information arrives early enough to guide decisions about liquidity and redemption.

USDC’s global reach might make significant status commercially useful as a signal that the EU has a named issuer and a formal supervisory arrangement. It could also impose costs and constraints that make some uses less attractive. The EBA has not forecast demand growth, platform listings or a change in USDC’s share of stablecoin transfers. A token’s market position depends on users, exchange access, payout routes and competitors as much as its regulatory designation.

JUST IN: Circle and Volante partner to expand $USDC payments

The partnership will help financial institutions evaluate USDC payment and settlement workflows within their existing payment infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/ohXBQO16ml

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 29, 2026

What November 12 can and cannot prove
The first thing November 12 can establish is a new supervisory allocation. EBA responsibility for specified safeguards transfers from ACPR while France retains its separate fields. A later statement from either regulator may describe examination priorities, data requests or changes to reserve practice. The effective date alone cannot show that the stock of USDC increased, that holders redeemed faster, or that the issuer altered its portfolio.

A concrete comparison requires entity-specific disclosure. A worldwide USDC number includes activity beyond Circle France, while a European supervision question concerns the entity and rights under MiCA. An analyst should identify which reserve report covers which liabilities, in what currency, on what date and with what assurance. Comparing an all-chain market cap to French legal capital without matching scope would create a striking but meaningless ratio.

Crypto.news’s report on Circle’s wider market plans examines expansion outside this specific supervisory handover. A company can seek new corridors while regulators apply stricter standards to an established token. Neither development proves actual consumer payments until services launch and usage is reported with definitions.

The designation is most consequential when claims are tested: can Circle’s European entity provide redemption at par under its stated procedure, maintain appropriate liquid assets, and communicate reliably with both regulators during stress? The EBA’s October announcement fixes which authority will ask those questions from November 12. Evidence of compliance will come from the issuer’s ongoing disclosures and supervisory work, not from the word significant printed beside the token.

What to watch

November 12 handover: Check the EBA and ACPR for any clarification of their respective responsibilities and implementation dates.
European reserve disclosures: Match Circle Europe’s asset disclosures with the corresponding liabilities and the period reported.
Redemption practice: Track published processing terms and whether eligible EEA holders can redeem at par under the stated process.
Rule review: Follow EU action on bank deposit and liquidity requirements without treating Circle’s proposals as enacted law.
Cross-border coordination: Look for concrete EBA, ACPR and New York information-sharing arrangements affecting the two issuer entities.

FAQ

What does significant e-money token mean?
It is a MiCA regulatory classification for an e-money token meeting prescribed significance criteria. It brings additional requirements and EBA supervision in specified areas. It is not a consumer safety grade or a new exchange listing.

When does the EBA begin supervising USDC?
The EBA says its direct responsibility for Circle Europe’s specified financial safeguards begins November 12, 2026. France’s ACPR continues supervising other areas of the European issuer’s business.

Is Circle newly licensed in Europe?
No. Circle’s French entity already held an electronic money institution authorization and issued USDC under the European framework. The October decision concerns significant classification and the resulting supervisory allocation.

Does the EBA supervise all USDC worldwide?
No. The EBA’s decision concerns the token issued in the EU by Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS. Circle identifies a separate U.S. issuer. Authorities have arranged to cooperate on cross-border matters.

Can EEA holders redeem USDC?
Circle’s European white paper and redemption policy describe rights for eligible EEA holders under MiCA. The procedure is different from selling USDC on an exchange, where price, fees and access depend on that platform.

Does significant status insure USDC deposits?
No. Circle’s EU white paper says the cited investor compensation and deposit guarantee schemes do not cover the token. Regulatory oversight and redemption rights should not be confused with deposit insurance.

Which regulator checks Circle’s reserves?
Beginning November 12, the EBA takes direct responsibility for the European issuer’s reserve, liquidity, own-funds, recovery and redemption requirements identified in its announcement. The ACPR keeps other assigned duties.

Will the classification change USDC’s price?
The EBA decision does not make a price forecast or change the token’s dollar reference. Market prices, redemption access and demand have other drivers that need separate evidence. 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 October 19, 2026.

Canadians trading crypto with their own dollars are increasingly buying something designed not to move. By June 2026, stablecoins accounted for 44% of Canadian dollar crypto order book volume, according to Chainalysis.

A year earlier, that share was 30%. The coin doing most of the work is USDC, a token pegged to the US dollar.

The findings come from Chainalysis’s 2026 North America Crypto Adoption report, released in mid-October 2026.

Stablecoins pull ahead of the classics
The headline figure is the 14-percentage-point jump in stablecoin share over twelve months. That growth pushed stablecoins past traditional store-of-value assets, which made up only 29% of CAD order book volume.

Within the stablecoin category, USDC dominated. Chainalysis found minimal activity in stablecoins pegged to the Canadian dollar itself.

The broader numbers also stand out. Canada’s crypto economy grew 2.3% year over year, reaching $247.7 billion in the twelve months leading up to June 2026.

That growth came while the wider North American market saw a slight decline.

Remittances are doing the heavy lifting
Chainalysis ties much of this stablecoin activity to strong peer-to-peer usage. The driver is demographic as much as financial.

Foreign-born residents make up 23% of Canada’s population, the highest share in the G7. Many of those residents send money to family abroad, and traditional remittance channels are expensive.

High remittance costs have pushed a growing number of senders toward crypto, according to the report.

Remittance-sized transfers from Canada to countries including India, China, and the Philippines rose 141% year over year. Those flows reached $2.36 billion across 3.56 million transactions in the year to June 2026.

The average transfer size was $663. The Philippines corridor alone accounted for about $61 million, spread over roughly 73,564 transactions.

A policy headache with a maple leaf on it
The report also flags a thornier issue for Canadian regulators. Strong demand for US dollar stablecoins could potentially divert investment away from Canadian government debt.

Major dollar stablecoins are typically backed by reserves, so money flowing into them can end up supporting US assets rather than Canadian ones.

Canada has started to respond. Recent legislation facilitating the issuance of CAD-pegged stablecoins has been enacted, with the aim of strengthening Canada’s competitive position in crypto and keeping capital at home.

CAD-pegged alternatives currently see minimal trading, while USDC has the liquidity, the network effects, and the head start.

What this means
For investors and traders, the clearest signal is that Canadian crypto demand is tilting toward utility. A 44% stablecoin share of CAD order book volume, up from 30%, suggests a growing slice of activity is about payments and transfers rather than price bets.

The remittance numbers deserve the closest watch. A 141% annual jump to $2.36 billion indicates the corridor is growing fast from a meaningful base.

Canada’s 2.3% crypto economy growth, set against a slight North American decline, also hints that demographic demand may make Canadian crypto activity less sensitive to market cycles. Remittances do not stop because prices fall, which gives this segment a different rhythm than trading-driven volume.

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

solana coin

Circle has reportedly minted about 3.75 billion USDC on the Solana blockchain over the past seven days, according to data shared by @SolanaFloor on social media. This significant issuance represents gross minting and highlights the ongoing expansion of USDC liquidity on the Solana network. As of early October, Solana’s native USDC holdings were approximately $7.3 billion, constituting about 10% of the total USDC supply. This development suggests that Solana continues to be a key platform for stablecoin activity, supporting various applications in payments and decentralized finance (DeFi).

Key Takeaways The minting of 3.75 billion USDC on Solana suggests increased liquidity provision on the platform. This development appears consistent with scenarios that could support a rise in Solana’s price, as enhanced liquidity may drive demand. Market pricing implies moderate confidence in Solana reaching higher price targets, with some sub-markets reflecting this sentiment. What to Watch Markets will be monitoring any further increases in USDC minting on Solana and its potential impact on Solana’s price. Key indicators include regulatory developments, such as SEC decisions on spot-SOL ETFs, and technological milestones like the successful activation of Solana’s Alpenglow upgrade. These factors could influence market sentiment towards Solana’s price reaching or exceeding significant thresholds, such as $190, in October 2026.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h November 1 2026 0.6% — — View market → November 1 2026 3.9% — — View market → November 1 2026 15.5% — — View market → November 1 2026 4% — — View market → November 1 2026 0.4% — — View market → November 1 2026 0.9% — — View market → November 1 2026 1.4% — — View market → November 1 2026 1.8% — — View market → November 1 2026 1.5% — — View market → November 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → November 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → November 1 2026 8.5% — — View market → November 1 2026 0.4% — — View market → November 1 2026 2% — — View market → November 1 2026 55% — — View market →

9h05 ▪ 4 min read ▪ by Fenelon L.

Summarize this article with:

A slight increase in interest rates on bank deposits could slow the growth of stablecoins. This is the finding of a study by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which highlights competition between bank savings and these cryptocurrencies pegged to traditional currencies. However, the effect varies depending on the players: Circle’s USDC appears more sensitive to this competition than Tether’s USDT.

In Brief A one basis point increase in deposit rates reduces stablecoin growth over ten weeks, from 15% to 12% in the main estimate, and down to 6% in an alternative estimate. USDC reacts more than USDT, especially due to its closer ties with American users. The study neither proves deposit outflows nor credit contraction. It also highlights the limits of an analysis conducted during a period of high rates. Higher Savings Rates to Slow Stablecoins The question of the links between banks and stablecoins continues to fuel debate. Tether already contested, at the end of August, the BIS’s reading on tokenized deposits. This time, the institution moves on to data analysis with a study by Rashad Ahmed and Iñaki Aldasoro.

The researchers studied American weekly data from January 2019 to June 2025. They notably took into account policy rates, bond yields, the dollar, and stock market volatility.

Their finding is clear: a one basis point increase, or 0.01 percentage point, reduces stablecoin growth over ten weeks from about 15% to 12%. Another estimate, which adjusts for banks’ reactions in setting their rates, brings this growth to about 6%.

Why? The rates offered by banks do not mechanically follow those of the central bank. They change little when rates remain low, then adjust more strongly beyond a certain threshold. 

The researchers use this difference to measure the effect of rates on stablecoins. Their results hold up to several tests, including excluding the Silicon Valley Bank episode.

USDC and USDT, Different Sensitivity to Bank Rates The study also highlights a difference between the two main stablecoins. Circle’s USDC reacts more to changes in deposit rates than Tether’s USDT. The researchers attribute this gap mainly to Circle’s proximity to American users.

The results also do not seem to reflect a simple overall trend in the crypto market. An additional test does not show the same link between the instrument used by the researchers and the growth of other cryptocurrencies.

Furthermore, a Federal Reserve note explains that funds placed in stablecoins can return to the banking system in the form of deposits held by issuers. Deposits therefore do not necessarily disappear, but their distribution changes. Banks may nonetheless have to hold more liquid assets if they depend on more volatile funding.

The Study’s Limits and Open Questions However, caution is needed not to draw excessive conclusions. The study does not demonstrate either an actual decrease in deposits or a credit contraction. In addition, it covers only one episode of high rates. Yield-bearing stablecoins and tokenized money market funds could also change this competition by directly offering a return to their holders.

On the regulatory side the Federal Reserve proposed at the end of September a two-day deadline to reimburse stablecoin holders. In January, the head of Bank of America also mentioned the risk of several thousands of billions of dollars leaving bank deposits.

In essence, banks have a simple lever to remain competitive: better remuneration of savings. The competition with stablecoins therefore relies not only on technology but also on the yield offered to liquidity holders.

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

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Fenelon L.

Passionné par le Bitcoin, j'aime explorer les méandres de la blockchain et des cryptos et je partage mes découvertes avec la communauté. Mon rêve est de vivre dans un monde où la vie privée et la liberté financière sont garanties pour tous, et je crois fermement que Bitcoin est l'outil qui peut rendre cela possible.

DISCLAIMER

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

Circle’s plan to pursue approximately 40 emerging and developing markets has put a measurable question behind its global expansion: where can a business receive USDC and turn it into spendable local money today? The answer changes depending on whether a market means a wallet can hold USDC, a licensed company can issue or redeem it, or a payment provider can deliver a local currency payout. Circle has published evidence for some of those routes, but no country list or opening dates for the 40-market plan.

Summary

Circle’s chief executive described a push into approximately 40 emerging and developing markets on October 16. USDC circulation stood at $72.7 billion on Circle’s October 12 reserve page. Circle’s pending Tazapay purchase would add payout rails spanning more than 100 markets if it closes in 2027. Circle Payments Network reported 175 enrolled financial institutions and $14.7 billion in annualized volume at the end of June. European supervisors will assume part of USDC’s oversight on November 12 after its significant token designation. Circle has outlined an expansion into approximately 40 emerging and developing markets, putting a fresh number on its effort to distribute the dollar stablecoin USDC outside its established routes.

In a Reuters interview published October 16, chief executive Jeremy Allaire identified Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East as regions where he sees demand. He did not provide the 40 countries, their licensing status, a sequence for entering them, or a timetable for individual payment corridors. The missing details are material to a payment business that must connect a digital dollar to banks, exchanges and domestic settlement systems.

Forty prospective markets are not forty live corridors The statement describes where Circle intends to expand. It is not a list of newly launched products. A person with a blockchain wallet can generally receive a token over a supported network; that does not give the person a direct account with the issuer, a lawful retail offer in every jurisdiction, or a way to redeem dollars at a local bank. Even a licensed payout provider may serve a limited set of customers and transaction types within the country where it operates.

Circle’s own USDC product page says the coin is available in more than 185 countries. The figure describes potential geographic reach of the token. It cannot be subtracted from, or added to, the 40-market target to calculate newly accessible payment markets. The issuer has not published a common definition linking those two numbers. Its first-party minting and redemption products, commercial network memberships and third-party availability each have different eligibility rules.

Its September agreement to buy Singapore-based Tazapay supplies another number that could easily be mistaken for the new plan. Circle said Tazapay had local payout rails in more than 100 markets and more than 60 banking and fintech partners. The acquisition is subject to conditions, including Singapore regulatory approval, and is expected to close in 2027. Tazapay’s existing coverage therefore cannot be presented as 100 new Circle-owned payment markets in October. The parties said Tazapay customers would see no interruption to their existing service during the transaction. A prior account of the $400 million stock deal sets out the announced price and the prospective payment footprint.

The same announcement puts Tazapay’s annualized payment volume above $25 billion and says approximately 60% of its transaction volume already includes stablecoins. Neither statistic measures dollars of new USDC demand caused by the acquisition. The first is a run-rate measure of Tazapay’s payment activity. The second is a share of its existing throughput, which may involve different stablecoins and business uses. Circle did not publish a before-and-after conversion forecast for each corridor.

The most concrete list of working routes is narrower. In an earlier corridor announcement, Circle identified payouts to India through Saber, Singapore and the United States through Tazapay, the Philippines through Coins.ph, the United Arab Emirates through LuLu, and the European Union through Saber. Circle named domestic rails, including India’s IMPS and RTGS, Singapore’s FAST and Europe’s SEPA. Those are named integrations; their existence does not establish identical access, transaction limits or settlement speed for every user within those places.

JUST IN: Visa moves USDC-powered cross-border payouts from pilot to production

Through Inyo Global, eligible businesses can now pre-fund Visa Direct payouts using $USDC, enabling near-real-time funding for international transfers. pic.twitter.com/hXUPMU1S9U

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 16, 2026 A payment has at least two separate legs Consider a company that holds dollars in one country and pays a supplier in another. A participating financial institution can obtain USDC, transfer it across a supported blockchain, and instruct a receiving provider to deliver local currency. The token may settle between institutions while the supplier sees only a bank deposit. A recipient who accepts USDC directly follows a different route and takes responsibility for holding or disposing of the token. The availability of one route says little about the other.

The payment also has two prices. USDC aims to retain a one-dollar value against dollars, but the amount of local currency received depends on foreign exchange pricing, fees and the provider executing the payout. A quoted transfer time might measure blockchain confirmation while excluding onboarding, compliance review or the domestic payment rail. Without a standard transaction example in each proposed market, the 40-market announcement cannot tell readers the final sum received or the full time to funds.

Regulated counterparties have practical jobs along this chain. An originator screens the sender, a liquidity provider supplies the token or local currency, and a receiving institution meets the destination country’s requirements. A payment can fail at any of those handoffs despite a successful onchain transfer. The claim that a coin is transferable around the clock establishes the availability of the digital leg; it does not make every bank account or domestic system operate on the same schedule.

Circle’s second-quarter report offers a measure of its existing commercial network. At the end of June, Circle Payments Network had 175 enrolled financial institutions, up 29% from the previous quarter, with $14.7 billion in annualized transaction volume based on the trailing 30 days, up 76%. Both are company-defined operating figures. An enrolled institution is not necessarily an active participant in every corridor, and annualizing a recent month is not the same as reporting a completed year’s volume.

One direct arithmetic check shows the scale distinction. Dividing the stated $14.7 billion annualized network figure by 12 produces an implied monthly rate of $1.225 billion, assuming the 30-day pace persisted. Circle reported $14.8 trillion of USDC onchain transfer volume for the entire second quarter. The measurements cover different activity and periods, so their quotient would not be an adoption rate. The smaller commercial network measure is the more relevant starting point for assessing cross-border payment deployment; the far larger chain number includes token movement outside that specific network.

Circle’s second-quarter disclosure provides all three network inputs, as well as $73.3 billion of USDC in circulation at June 30. The number of coins outstanding can rise through exchange balances, trading collateral and other uses without any corresponding increase in final local-currency payouts. A corridor-level breakdown would be needed to test the specific claim that emerging-market payment demand is driving an expansion.

The unreported unit is a completed local payout An original audit of this plan should count transactions at the destination, not simply supported countries or tokens sent. For each named market it would record the originating entity, licensed receiving partner, eligible customer class, currencies, minimum and maximum amounts, quoted and delivered exchange rates, hours of operation, and whether the beneficiary receives USDC or bank money. A second column would distinguish an announced arrangement from one with observed commercial payouts. Circle has disclosed pieces of that map across releases but not a single verified 40-market table.

The distinction matters even when the technology and counterparties are real. If a company pays an overseas contractor through a licensed institution that accepts USDC, the contractor may never open a crypto wallet. The resulting service can be useful without increasing the number of retail USDC users. Conversely, an individual can hold USDC through an exchange in a country with no Circle Payments Network payout partner. Counting both people under the same definition of availability would obscure what the service actually offers.

Circle’s acquisition plan provides a potential way to supply the missing local end. Tazapay brings bank and fintech relationships, existing customer integrations and payout arrangements, according to Circle’s September release. An agreement to acquire those capabilities is an agreement about future corporate control, not a confirmation that Circle has already integrated every account and corridor. Regulatory approvals and the eventual closing date are observable gates.

The company has a second distribution path through exchanges. Binance made a $100 million equity investment and agreed to a five-year commercial arrangement in September. Its stated goal is to promote and integrate USDC across its platform, especially in emerging markets. Exchange access can deepen liquidity for users buying or selling the coin, but the agreement does not identify a corresponding list of licensed local bank payouts. The reported $100 million investment therefore belongs beside the payment plan without being counted as a new payout corridor.

Exchange distribution and payment use carry different evidence The strongest case for Circle’s expansion is that the necessary pieces are already being assembled. Circle issues a widely traded dollar token, reports substantial reserve assets, operates a network with enrolled financial institutions, and has named bank and payment partners. Tazapay says a majority of its current transaction volume involves stablecoins. Binance has a large international user base and a five-year incentive to make USDC more visible. Each fact supports the feasibility of expansion, even before the company names all 40 places.

The opposing case is about classification and timing, not whether those businesses exist. A token available through an exchange is not a locally regulated payment product. A partner’s coverage can exceed the markets where USDC is the actual funding instrument. A planned acquisition can have a different closing date from a planned market entry. A disclosed annualized run rate can change in the following month. Investors and merchants looking for commercial traction need dated payment evidence for the specific routes under discussion.

Binance and Circle’s company announcement describes equity purchased through a private placement and restrictions on share transfers. It does not commit to a public country-by-country minimum in USDC transactions. The financial investment and commercial contract are related but separate instruments; neither confirms that a consumer in one of the 40 proposed markets can redeem directly with Circle.

There are constraints on the issuer side as well. Circle’s October 12 reserve disclosure showed $72.7 billion of USDC outstanding against $73.0 billion of reserves. It reported $8.6 billion issued and $10.1 billion redeemed over the preceding seven days, a net change of negative $1.5 billion. The date is essential because both circulation and redemption totals move. These figures establish the scale of the existing coin and reserve reporting, not the value transferred to the 40 prospective destinations.

The original arithmetic is straightforward: $10.1 billion redeemed minus $8.6 billion issued equals $1.5 billion more redemptions than issuance during the seven-day window. That movement can coexist with plans to enter new countries. It should not be read as a country-specific verdict because the reserve page does not assign issuance or redemption to individual markets, platforms or payment uses.

Licenses determine who can offer which service Different legal permissions attach to issuance, custody, transfer and local payouts. In the European Union, USDC received the European Banking Authority’s first significant e-money token designation. From November 12, the EBA will directly supervise specified matters including own funds, reserves, liquidity and recovery and redemption plans, while the French authority retains duties in areas such as governance and outsourcing. The European classification changes supervisory responsibilities for an existing token. It does not itself authorize Circle to open 40 new countries.

JUST IN: Circle’s $USDC becomes the EU’s first “significant” e-money token under MiCA

Starting Nov. 12, 2026, the European Banking Authority will directly supervise USDC’s reserves, liquidity and redemption plans, following its assessment under the EU’s crypto rules. pic.twitter.com/5tYj6K4Enn

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 15, 2026 The EBA says 45 e-money tokens had been notified under MiCA when it made the decision. USDC was the first it classified as significant. Circle’s European issuance sits with its French company, whereas the U.S. issuance sits with a different legal entity. A merchant or institution examining redemption rights needs to know which issuer and intermediaries are involved. A token ticker alone is an incomplete map of those obligations.

Circle has argued for changes to European stablecoin reserve rules, saying only three of the world’s 30 largest stablecoins met MiCA requirements at the beginning of October. Its position illustrates that a firm can be authorized in a major market and still dispute the design of the applicable rules. In prior comments on MiCA reserves, Circle called for more flexibility in the assets and deposits used to back tokens. The EBA designation does not decide that policy debate.

The U.S. national trust bank charter is another category. Circle received final approval for a trust bank in July, allowing federally supervised custody and related trust functions. The charter does not transform a USDC balance into an insured bank deposit. The trust bank approval matters to institutional infrastructure and reserve management, while local payment service permissions remain separate questions in each destination.

The revenue case depends on use, rates and counterparties USDC circulation generates reserve income for Circle when the backing assets earn interest, subject to arrangements with distribution partners and costs. The second-quarter company results showed $668 million of reserve income, up 5% from a year earlier, while average USDC circulation rose 25%; Circle attributed the slower income growth partly to a 66-basis-point decline in its reserve return rate. Those numbers show why a larger coin balance does not translate mechanically into the same percentage of revenue growth.

Other revenue was $34 million for the quarter, up 41%, and included subscription and service businesses. Payment infrastructure could grow that category, but the current filing does not assign a forecast of fees to the 40-market ambition. Distribution contracts may create costs as well as demand. Circle reported $412 million in distribution, transaction and other costs for the quarter. A commercial agreement that raises USDC use can benefit a partner and require Circle to share economic returns.

Reserve income is tied to outstanding balances over time. A cross-border payment that uses USDC for minutes can create substantial transfer volume while adding little average token balance. A recipient who keeps the digital dollars for months has a different balance-sheet effect. One needs cohort and holding-time data to translate payment growth into reserve income. The company has not published those figures for the planned markets.

The operational question differs from the token price question. USDC seeks to be worth one dollar; the variable here is who earns fees, which users can redeem, and whether the payout chain offers a practical improvement. Comparing a week of token issuance with an annualized payment run rate would mix stocks, flows and periods. Circle’s financial disclosures can establish the baseline; corridor-level results would establish whether the new strategy is working.

The quarter’s reported $701 million in total revenue and reserve income can be decomposed from the company’s figures into $668 million in reserve income and $34 million in other revenue, with the one-million-dollar difference due to rounded line items. The composition illustrates a business still heavily tied to income earned on reserve assets. It would be unsound to assign all the planned market expansion to the smaller services category, since payments can increase outstanding USDC balances and distribution costs at the same time. Circle has not published market-specific contribution margins for the proposed rollout.

Payment growth could instead produce very different outcomes across corridors. A business treasury moving USDC to another institutional account may retain a token balance for a longer period. A remittance company that acquires USDC and immediately sells it to fund a local bank transfer may leave a smaller end-of-day balance. An exchange listing can generate repeated trading of the same outstanding tokens. None of these outcomes can be reconstructed from gross onchain transfer totals alone. The accounting question for a feature is how much new average circulation and fee revenue survive after local liquidity providers and exchange partners receive their share.

Circle’s quarterly report supplies one other check on scale. It counted 175 institutions enrolled in its payment network, yet did not state that all 175 conducted transactions in the trailing 30 days used for the annualized volume figure. Dividing $14.7 billion by 175 would yield $84 million per enrolled institution per year only under an unsupported assumption that each member originated an equal share. The calculation is mathematically possible but commercially misleading, so the feature cannot use it as a measure of typical partner activity. An active-institution count and a distribution of volume by corridor would be more informative.

What the October announcement still leaves open Allaire’s description did not name the 40 countries or a deadline for reaching them. The September Tazapay release anticipates a 2027 closing, so any assumption that the acquisition supplies immediate October coverage would move a future event into the present. Existing network integrations and exchange availability do establish channels for USDC. They do not provide a public reconciliation of how many proposed markets have functioning local payouts today.

There is a strong argument for following the buildout even before every country is named. The existing network has identifiable partners and reported transaction volume; the token has substantial outstanding circulation; the company is spending equity and commercial resources to enlarge distribution. The proposition can be assessed against subsequent disclosures: named countries, eligible clients, local counterparties, transaction volumes and completed payouts. A press release that only expands a geographic total without those details would leave the original claim difficult to measure.

Currency conversion is one remaining uncertainty for the beneficiary. A successful onchain transfer can deliver USDC to a receiving institution in seconds while a bank payout waits for a domestic batch, a compliance decision or liquidity in the recipient currency. A provider might guarantee its quoted exchange rate for a period or pass through changes before execution; those terms have to be read in the actual service agreement. Circle’s description of its India, Singapore and Philippines corridors names the local rails, but it does not provide a universal consumer rate or service guarantee for every institution using the network.

Eligibility is equally specific. The originator might be a licensed payment service provider rather than an individual sender. A destination bank might accept only business beneficiaries or require identity data that a wallet address alone cannot provide. An exchange user who can buy USDC in a country may still be unable to send a payout through a particular network partner. Circle’s regional demand narrative can coexist with those restrictions. A definitive map would state the customer class and recipient type for each route before attaching a country flag to it.

Nor does a partner’s market count establish uniform dollar access. Tazapay’s network covers more than 100 payout markets, according to Circle, while its local bank integrations and permitted transaction structures vary by destination. If Circle later counts some of those markets toward its new 40, the distinction between acquired reach and newly built reach should appear in the company’s reporting. The September acquisition statement gives a closing target and footprint but no allocation of markets to the October plan. Counting the same country under an exchange listing, a pending purchase and a live payout corridor three times would inflate progress without adding a single recipient.

On September 8, Circle said its Tazapay transaction was expected to close in 2027 following customary conditions and approval from the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The company had not identified the prospective 40 markets in its October 16 interview.

What to watch Country list: A dated Circle disclosure naming the approximately 40 target markets and distinguishing planned from live service. Payout evidence: Named local partners, recipient currencies and completed commercial payments in each newly announced corridor. Acquisition closing: Singapore regulatory approval and completion of the Tazapay purchase, which Circle expects in 2027. Network reporting: Updated enrolled institution and transaction volume figures, with the measurement period and definition preserved. Redemption route: Published eligibility for direct minting and redemption, separately from exchange access and partner payouts. FAQ Which 40 countries is Circle entering? Circle’s October 16 interview described approximately 40 emerging and developing markets but did not publish their names. It identified Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East as regions of interest. A region is not a list of launched payment corridors.

Does USDC availability mean Circle offers local payouts? No. Circle says USDC is available in more than 185 countries, a different measure from a named banking route that delivers domestic currency. A user may hold or trade the coin without being eligible for direct redemption or a local payout product.

Has Circle completed its Tazapay acquisition? Circle signed an agreement in September to buy Tazapay for $400 million in stock. The company said it expected closing in 2027, subject to conditions and Singapore regulatory approval. Tazapay’s existing operations should not be counted as a completed acquisition.

How many markets does Tazapay cover? Circle’s acquisition announcement said Tazapay had payout rails spanning more than 100 markets and more than 60 banking and fintech partners. Coverage says nothing by itself about each market’s eligible customers or current USDC-funded transaction volume.

How large is Circle Payments Network? At June 30, Circle reported 175 enrolled financial institutions and a $14.7 billion annualized transaction rate based on the trailing 30 days. Enrollment and annualization do not measure an entire year of settled payments in the proposed 40 markets.

How much USDC was outstanding when Circle announced the plan? Circle’s October 12 reserve page showed $72.7 billion in circulation and $73.0 billion in reserves. The balances change with new issuance and redemption. They cannot identify the markets in which the coin was used.

Does Circle’s U.S. bank charter insure USDC holders? No. Circle’s national trust charter permits specified trust and custody functions; it does not turn a USDC holding into an insured deposit. Redemption rights and intermediaries still need to be checked for the relevant issuer and service.

What would demonstrate that the expansion is working? Named operating corridors, local counterparties, eligible client groups and dated completed payout volume would show commercial activity. Those details would let readers separate 40 prospective entries from functioning services. 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 October 16, 2026.

Circle Internet Group (CRCL) reported approximately $1.4 billion in revenue in the first half of 2026, paying $819 million to USDC distribution partners and transaction costs while reinvesting about $473 million in infrastructure, compliance, and product development.

The company outlined those economics in a blog post Friday, pushing back against new stablecoin entrants that argue existing issuers retain too much revenue, charge too much for redemptions, and could be replaced by more efficient models.

"That reinvestment is not overhead," wrote Circle COO Kash Razzaghi. "It is what makes USDC useful, and it reflects more than 8 years of building. A digital dollar has to work everywhere: redeemable at any hour, held by regulated institutions, and moving natively across the chains and platforms where businesses operate."

Expand Chart

Circle said it retained roughly 7 cents in net profit for every dollar of revenue. USDC processed more than $36 trillion in onchain transaction volume and accounted for about 77% of global stablecoin transaction volume in June, up from 60% a year earlier.

Stablecoin monthly transfer value has averaged nearly $10 trillion this year, according to Standard Chartered Bank, which published a report earlier this week.

In an investor note last month, William Blair analysts said Circle could benefit from a broader crypto recovery, with regulatory rulemaking, growing tokenized-asset activity and diversification supporting the stock into 2027.

Circle will report its third-quarter financial results on Nov. 4.

Spout Finance has secured $2 million in funding to develop its interest-free USDC lending initiative for tokenized equities.
The platform’s margin loans are set at a 50% loan-to-value, can be stretched to multiple years, and users get to retain the ownership and subsequent income accrued on their stock.

Lender yield is funded by systematic covered call premium written against that collateral rather than by a rate spread charged to the borrower.

Spout beta is currently running on Solana devnet at beta.spout.finance, and interested users can sign up for access to the upcoming private beta launch.

Spout Finance has raised $2 million in a fundraising campaign to democratize prime brokerage with zero-interest lending against tokenized equities. 

Participants in the round included Draper Dragon, Anchorage Digital, Flow Traders, Taisu Ventures, Vessel Capital, Solayer, 2Square Capital, and Bering Waters Ventures, with strategic backing from Solana Labs.

Why Spot Finance is loaning tokenized equities 
In the current traditional financial system, a share-collateralized loan attracts punitive interest rates. For instance, at Charles Schwab, the base interest rate is 10.25%. Meanwhile, the interest rate for borrowing against your shares in the company, or even those in Fidelity Investments, is 12.075% for a margin under $25,000. Vanguard Group’s rate is higher at 12.25%, while E*TRADE Financial Holdings charges even more at 12.70%. 

On top of that, these rates are tiered such that higher loans attract lower interest rates and smaller debts pay the highest rates. With the Federal Funds Rate placed at just 3.88%, these institutions benefit highly from the huge difference between those figures.

Additional profits for these institutions comes from securities lending programs, which allow brokerages to loan out your shares to other market players. Interactive Brokers retains 50% of the gross revenue generated from this model, while Robinhood retains a massive 85%. 

Historically, private banks have offered friendlier interest rates on securities-backed lending but with certain stringent conditions. Private bank customers have to achieve a relationship minimum of $5 million or more in assets under management (AUM) to enjoy a leaner 4-6% loan interest rate. This feat proves hard for most people to achieve, pushing them outside of the relationship bracket where they accrue even harsher tax interest rates of 12%.

What Spout Finance does differently 
This is where Spout Finance comes in. Contrary to the above institutions, Spout lets users collateralize their digital US equities to borrow USDC at a 50% loan-to-value (LTV). 

Best of all is the 0% interest rates, which applies for as long as the loan exists. The reason behind this incredibly low interest rate is that Spout’s lenders earn from the premiums resulting from the weekly far out-of-the-money (OTM) covered calls made on the collateral. Meanwhile, users enjoy friendly loans and get to keep any income that their shares may generate.

More importantly, Spout enables multi-year loans without interest rates crippling users’ portfolios. Current equities-backed lending is only useful in the short term because over a long time the daily charges become too expensive for long-term debtors to cover. Spout not only serves both kinds of users interest-free, it also enables them to retain ownership of their stakes rather than dispose of them for cash.

As Chris Giancarlo, former Chairman of the CFTC and an angel investor in Spout explained, “Spout lets individuals put up tokenized shares of stock as collateral for margin loans without paying interest. Spout covers its costs in a different way: by selling options contracts tied to the pledged shares, and the fees it collects from selling those options pay for the loan instead of the borrower. That is prime brokerage economics made available to individuals. It is why I have invested in the company and serve as a strategic advisor.”

Samiz Bayan, partner at Draper Dragon, added, “Tokenizing a stock is only the first step. What gives it value is what you can do with it afterward. Spout offers holders the kind of borrowing that used to sit behind private bank minimums, and funds it from the portfolio itself.”

At the moment, Spout is running in beta on Solana devnet at beta.spout.finance. Those interested can sign up for access to the upcoming private beta launch by messaging @0xmryan or @SpoutFi on X.

Notably, capital raised in the latest round will be allocated to expanding the Spout team. Funds will also be channeled towards developing a credit layer that connects issuers, exchanges, and wallets.

Investors and advisers 
Other than the investing entities listed above, Spout is proud to have received the critical backing and strategic support of a stellar group of angel investors including Solana Labs co-founders Anatoly Yakovenko and Raj Gokal. 

Another is J. Christopher Giancarlo, the 13th Chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and Spout’s regulatory and policy advisor. Giancarlo is also a board member of Nomura, Paxos, and Digital Asset Holdings, the chair of Polymarket’s advisory board, and a senior adviser to Jefferies. He is also the co-founder and Chairman of the Digital Dollar Project.

Additional investors are Eric Chen, the co-founder and CEO of Injective; Dean Swennumson the co-founder and Head of Operations at Superstate (formerly Compound Labs), and Anna Yuan the founder of Perena and former Stablecoin lead at the Solana Foundation. 

Others are Paul Taylor – America’s most active crypto angel investor in 2024 and a former member of BlackRock Private Equity, and also Saiprasad Raut a former Chief Technology Advisor for Crypto at Worldpay (FIS), former co-chair of the Hedera Council’s Technical Steering and Product Committee, and Spout’s product advisor.

More are Shane Qiu the founder and CEO of Bitway, James Parillo a former General Partner at Figment Capital, Stefano Glauser a partner at Polymorphic Capital, Whales Lee a co-founder of CollegeDAO and the former Head of Product at Solayer, Steve Schoonebeek the Business Development Executive at Triton One and Riley Wild the M&A and corporate development at Figment.

A final advisor is Neil Amhis, who is a quantitative strategy advisor with a PhD from UCL, a former quantitative analyst at BNP Paribas and Natixis, and now the Lead Researcher at Zann Capital.

Earn on Startale App now takes USDC Startale App introduces two new Earn vaults today, expanding the assets you can put to work directly from the App. Earn now supports USDC alongside USDSC and ETH, with more to come.

Both vaults lend your USDC to borrowers and pay you interest.

Gauntlet USDC Prime vault Gauntlet USDC Prime vault is curated by Gauntlet, powered by Morpho. Your USDC is lent to borrowers who post major crypto assets as collateral. Borrowers post more than they borrow while you earn the interest they pay.

Flowmark fGenesis USDC vault Flowmark fGenesis USDC vault is curated by Flowmark, powered by Morpho. Your USDC is currently lent to borrowers who post PGNGI+ as collateral. PGNGI+ is tokenized by Asseto and linked to the Partners Group Next Generation Infrastructure strategy. Asseto brings the real-world asset onchain, Flowmark sets the risk parameters, and you earn the interest borrowers pay.

How to deposit into the USDC vaults Both vaults are on the Ethereum network and accept deposits from your Startale Smart Wallet only. External wallets such as MetaMask cannot deposit into them. Earnings compound automatically and are added to your position, so your earnings start earning too. There's no need to claim or manually redeposit.

Fees and withdrawals There are no deposit fees on either vault. On the Gauntlet USDC Prime vault, Startale takes a small share of what you earn, never of your deposit. The Flowmark fGenesis vault has no withdrawal fee. Full details on deposits, withdrawals, earnings and fees for each Earn vault are in the FAQ.

There is no lock-up period, and withdrawals are usually instant. When the vault is fully lent, you can withdraw what’s available instantly and the rest once borrowers repay or new deposits come in. Your position keeps earning while you wait, and this mainly affects very large withdrawals.

How these differ from the USDSC vault All three vaults earn on stablecoins. The USDSC vault pays you the interest from the short-term US Treasury bills that back USDSC, on Soneium, with instant withdrawals and no Startale fee. The two USDC vaults on Ethereum earn from onchain lending, and withdrawals depend on how much of the vault is lent at that moment.

Start earning Open the App, go to Earn, and see what your holdings could be making.

Join now

Samsung is putting a stablecoin in the same app where people keep their boarding passes. On October 7, 2026, Samsung Electronics said its Wallet and Pay apps will support USDC transfers on the Solana blockchain for eligible US users.

The rollout is scheduled for the last week of October. It covers 82 million compatible Galaxy devices.

How the Samsung Wallet USDC feature works
USDC is a stablecoin, a digital token designed to track the US dollar one for one.

Inside Samsung Wallet, eligible users will be able to send USDC to external wallets that accept it. They can also convert it into local currency and deposit it into bank accounts in more than 60 countries.

Samsung says it will not charge a fee for sending USDC to external wallets. That is not the same as free, though. Network fees or fees on the recipient’s side may still apply.

Access comes with guardrails. The service is limited to US residents who are 18 or older. Users must pass identity verification and confirm transactions with biometric authentication.

The feature requires a compatible device running Android 13 or later.

The partners behind the curtain
Samsung is not building the plumbing alone. Solana provides the blockchain infrastructure that moves the tokens, while Bastion supplies a licensed stablecoin framework for the payment service.

Coinbase serves as sub-custodian of the USDC. A custodian is the party that actually holds the assets, so Coinbase handles safekeeping while Samsung owns the front end.

Sui is also listed as a supporting blockchain partner. Solana, however, is the chain named for the USDC transfers at launch.

Solana’s stablecoin numbers
The deal lands as Solana’s stablecoin business has been expanding. Stablecoin supply on the network grew by nearly 20% year over year.

Solana processed more than $5.25 trillion in stablecoin transaction volume in 2026. Its stablecoin supply also hit a record $17.51 billion in September 2026.

The announcement did not come out of nowhere. In July 2026, Samsung teased that stablecoin features were coming but did not reveal which blockchain or which issuer it would use.

That left about three months of speculation. The October reveal answered both questions: USDC as the stablecoin and Solana as the rails.

The news has also fed bullish commentary. A Motley Fool contributor pointed to the integration in a piece titled “Here’s Why I’m Buying Solana Right Now.”

What this means for Solana, USDC, and payments
The most important number here is 82 million. Crypto companies have spent years trying to coax consumers into downloading new apps and opening new accounts. Samsung is skipping that step by putting stablecoin transfers into software already installed on its phones.

Cross-border transfers look like the clearest use case. The ability to cash out into local bank accounts in more than 60 countries targets that pain point directly.

The service is US-only at launch, and expansion to other markets depends on local regulations.

The eligibility rules will also narrow the audience. Not all 82 million device owners will be adults who pass identity checks, run Android 13 or later, and actually want to send stablecoins.

Samsung waiving its own charge is helpful, but users may still see network or recipient-side costs.

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

Circle has a new customer segment in mind, and it does not have a pulse.

In an October 12, 2026 appearance on the NYSE/ICE House Podcast, Circle Chief Commercial Officer Kash Razzaghi described AI agents as a fresh category of buyer. He also argued that these agents gravitate toward USDC for a handful of practical reasons.

What Razzaghi laid out Razzaghi framed USDC’s appeal around three priorities that matter to machines more than to people: programmability, low transaction costs, and availability at any hour.

Circle’s own figures suggest the pitch is landing. As of mid-October 2026, the company reported 165 million transactions involving approximately 80,000 agents.

Circle also reported that USDC accounted for 99-99.8% of transaction value on the x402 protocol, a payments standard used for these agent-driven transactions.

Cost is a big part of the story. Circle says USDC enables near-zero-cost settlement, with transactions as small as $0.000001.

AI agents are becoming new customers that prefer USDC based on three key priorities.

That framing, shared alongside the interview, captures how Circle wants the market to see this shift. Agents are not just tools that move money on someone’s behalf. In Circle’s telling, they are customers in their own right.

The Agent Stack behind the numbers The figures Razzaghi cited trace back to a product launch earlier in the year. On May 11, 2026, Circle rolled out its Agent Stack, a suite of tools built specifically for autonomous AI agents.

The stack has four main pieces: Agent Wallets, an Agent Marketplace, the Circle CLI, and nanopayments.

The wallets give agents somewhere to hold funds, while the marketplace gives them somewhere to spend them. The CLI lets developers work with Circle’s tools directly from code rather than through a dashboard. Nanopayments handle the ultra-small transactions that make machine-to-machine commerce viable.

Together, the tools are meant to let agents transact programmatically across different chains and protocols. Traditional payment methods typically carry higher costs and onboarding hurdles, which Circle argues makes them a nonstarter for high-frequency machine-to-machine transactions.

What this means for Circle and the agentic economy Circle is trying to make USDC the default settlement asset for what it calls the agentic economy, and the early data gives it a credible claim to that position.

That said, the numbers deserve some context. Roughly 165 million transactions sounds enormous, but when individual payments can be as small as $0.000001, transaction count and economic value are very different measurements.

There is also the question of concentration. A market where one stablecoin captures 99-99.8% of transaction value on a key protocol means the agent economy’s payment layer leans heavily on a single issuer.

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

Aave announced at 15:47 UTC on October 13, 2026 that its DAO had approved incentives for the Coinbase Tokenized Stocks market on Base. The published program terms say rewards began that day, are paid in $USDC through Merkl, and continue until the budget runs out. They do not state a campaign-specific budget.

The campaign covers supply positions in AAPLc, AMZNc, GOOGLc, METAc, MSFTc, NVDAc, and TSLAc. The rate is variable and not guaranteed. Aave can modify, pause, or end the program early, while rewards accrued before a change remain claimable for eligible users.

Access follows the issuer’s jurisdictional restrictions. The terms exclude US persons and anyone located in the United States. They also exclude people in jurisdictions where Coinbase does not offer the tokens, comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions, listed persons and addresses, and anyone whose participation would violate local law.

Claiming rewards amounts to a representation that the claimant is eligible, acquired the tokens under the issuer’s terms, and complies with applicable law. The terms say rewards accrued by an ineligible person are not validly earned and may be withheld. This makes eligibility part of the claim process rather than a promise that every address supplying collateral will receive rewards.

The DAO approved the incentive budget through a broader funding update. TokenLogic said rewards are drawn only against live campaigns and that it will report incentive spending through its governance updates. The incentive post does not identify how much of the broader allowance is assigned to this campaign, so its end date cannot be calculated from the published terms.

What the incentives pay for
The incentives sit on top of an isolated lending market rather than turning the stocks into borrowable assets. Aave’s Base market specification places the seven stocks in a dedicated Equities Hub. Users can post any combination as collateral and borrow $USDC. The equities themselves cannot be borrowed.

That separation matters to $USDC suppliers. Joining the hub explicitly opts them into lending against tokenized equity collateral, and the exposure does not extend to Aave’s other Base markets. The hub also includes a supply-only tokenized $USDC spoke for vaults and aggregators.

Pooling lets one borrower use a combination of supported stocks in one position. Each asset keeps its own collateral factor, so the composition of the account determines borrowing capacity. A diversified basket does not receive a separate borrowing multiplier. The market’s separation also means a problem with this collateral set does not automatically spread its exposure to lenders in other Aave markets.

Borrowing power varies by stock. The approved collateral factors are 78% for AAPLc, 73% for AMZNc, 76% for GOOGLc, 65% for METAc, 79% for MSFTc, 70% for NVDAc, and 65% for TSLAc. The market uses a 5.5% maximum liquidation bonus and a 10% liquidation fee. Its $USDC reserve has a 32 million add cap and a 21 million draw cap.

The token structure adds risks that do not exist for ordinary crypto collateral. LlamaRisk’s technical assessment says each token is a certificate over shares held in segregated custody under a bare trust governed by Abu Dhabi Global Market law. Secondary-market buyers initially have economic exposure but no redemption right until they complete the issuer’s vesting process. The program terms also say Coinbase, not Aave DAO, TokenLogic, or Aave Labs, issues the tokens.

The price feed includes an issuer multiplier as well as the underlying share price. The multiplier begins at 1.0 and changes for corporate actions. A reinvested dividend raises it after fees and withholding tax, while a stock split changes it by the split ratio. During a corporate action, the issuer pauses its registry flag, minting and redemption stop, and the feed holds its last value until the adjusted price is confirmed. Token transfers can continue during that window.

The price feed stops when stocks stop trading
The market operates continuously, but its equity prices do not. Chainlink’s tokenized equity feeds publish from Sunday evening through Friday evening in US Eastern time and hold their last value during weekends and market holidays. The feeds use a 0.5% deviation threshold and a 24-hour heartbeat while sessions are open.

A frozen feed means a position’s reported collateral value does not move during a closure. Its health factor can still fall as interest accrues. When the feed resumes, news accumulated during the closure can appear in one price update and push a position below its liquidation threshold. LlamaRisk modeled the collateral factors around that gap, including a historical closure lasting 92 hours and 35 minutes and a 24% stressed debt rate.

Liquidators may also face a delay after taking collateral. The assessment says issuer redemption is available only to vested holders and settles during regular market hours. Base secondary liquidity can be thin, while an off-hours liquidator may need to hedge until the underlying market opens. The maximum liquidation bonus is designed around redemption, secondary-market sale, and perpetual-hedge routes.

For stock holders, the immediate change is a variable $USDC subsidy on collateral they could already use to borrow $USDC. The reward is not a contractual entitlement, and its rate can fall as participation grows. A supplier also remains exposed to the issuer, custody arrangement, price feed, smart contracts, and liquidation process.

For $USDC suppliers, the campaign may bring more collateral into the isolated hub, but it does not remove weekend repricing or liquidation-path risk. They have opted into that risk by supplying to this hub rather than another Aave market.

The next milestone is not dated. The campaign ends when its budget is exhausted unless Aave modifies, pauses, or stops it earlier. The figure to watch is whether borrowing demand remains after the variable subsidy changes or disappears.

A prominent UK-based crypto trader known as @rrealist on X reported a violent home invasion late Monday, resulting in the theft of approximately $800,000 in digital assets. The trader recounted being restrained and threatened at knifepoint, highlighting a growing trend of attacks targeting cryptocurrency holders in Britain.

Details of the armed robberyAccording to @rrealist, masked intruders entered his home on Monday night and restrained him with tape. He said the attackers brandished three knives in front of his face, threatened his life, and demanded access to his cryptocurrency holdings.

The losses from the robbery included around $40,000 transferred from primary crypto wallets and about $720,000 drained from a Ledger hardware wallet. The intruders also took the trader’s Rolex watch and damaged his phone during the incident.

Total confirmed losses in cryptocurrency amounted to approximately $760,000, based on both the trader’s publicly shared blockchain records and his account. The theft of the Rolex was not included in this figure.

The trader described the severity of the incident, stating that he was taped up, held at knifepoint, and robbed for $800,000. He warned other crypto holders in the UK about the growing threat, urging them to take extra precautions.

Police are currently investigating the crime, treating the property as a crime scene. As of now, law enforcement authorities have not released an official statement verifying the attack or providing additional details on the suspects.

Tracing the stolen fundsShortly after the incident, @rrealist published a Solana address linked to the stolen funds. The address reportedly received an initial deposit of 346.13 SOL, followed by a transfer of 718,735.8 USDC, combining to a total value of $755,730 at prevailing market rates.

Blockchain data indicates the assets remained idle at the disclosed Solana address for more than two hours. Within 32 minutes of the trader publicly revealing the address, the funds were quickly drained, suggesting the perpetrators were monitoring social channels or blockchain tracking services for exposure of their activity.

USDC is a widely used stablecoin pegged to the US dollar, while Solana is a high-performance blockchain network known for its speed and low transaction costs.

Mini dictionary: Ledger hardware wallet, a physical device used to store and protect cryptocurrency private keys offline, often considered a safer alternative to storing funds on exchanges or online wallets.

AssetAmountValue (approx.)SOL346.13$36,999USDC718,735.8$718,732Total–$755,731Rising trend of crypto-targeted attacks in the UK and EuropeViolent robberies targeting crypto holders have become increasingly common in the UK, with several high-profile incidents reported in the past year. In December 2025, a gang in the Smith’s Wood area of Solihull forced their way into a couple’s home, physically assaulted the husband, and threatened his pregnant wife. Crimestoppers later offered a £10,000 reward for information regarding that case.

In August, a UK court convicted five men for holding two French crypto investors captive in a London apartment for 52 hours, forcing them to transfer $30,000 before being released. More recently, three teenagers from Sheffield were sentenced for posing as delivery drivers and stealing $4.3 million in crypto during another knife-point home invasion in Hoxton.

Analytics firm Chainalysis documented 46 reported “wrench attack” cases worldwide in the first half of 2026, with 20 home invasions so far this year compared to just one in 2025. Global losses in such attacks exceeded $30 million in the first half of 2026 and could surpass 2025’s full-year total of $58 million if the trend continues.

France has emerged as a significant hotspot for these incidents. By mid-2026, Chainalysis reported 30 publicly known cases in France, while Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez cited 77 first-half cases of crypto-related kidnappings, extortions, or attempted extortions involving wealthy digital asset holders.

USDC moved $81.2 billion through decentralized exchanges in the 30 days ending around October 12, 2026.

Uniswap’s v3 and v4 deployments handled $26.4 billion of that total, or roughly a third.

Breaking down the numbers
Across 35 trading venues, all stablecoins combined generated $161.4 billion in DEX volume over the same 30-day window. USDC accounted for roughly half of all stablecoin trading on decentralized exchanges.

Uniswap’s v3 and v4 platforms captured 47.2% of total stablecoin DEX activity, amounting to $76.2 billion. Thirty-four other venues split what was left.

USDC’s circulating supply sat at approximately $74.6 billion at the end of September 2026. So the 30-day trading volume exceeded the entire stock of USDC in existence.

Weekends are a big deal on-chain
USDC generated $40.2 billion in weekend DEX trading volume during the third quarter of 2026.

What is driving the activity
About 69% of USDC’s on-chain activity is linked to DEX liquidity provision.

There is a caveat worth noting. Some DEX volume gets inflated by flash loans, which are uncollateralized loans borrowed and repaid within a single transaction. These can create large headline numbers without reflecting sustained trading demand.

Why Uniswap keeps winning
Uniswap’s v4 release introduced lower fees and enhanced routing options. For stablecoin pairs, those features matter a great deal. When you are swapping one dollar-pegged token for another, the price barely moves. The main cost is the fee itself, so shaving it down makes a real difference for high-volume traders.

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

Banks close for the weekend. Decentralized exchanges apparently never got that memo.

USDC, the dollar-pegged stablecoin issued by Circle, traded $40.2 billion on decentralized exchanges during weekends in the third quarter, according to figures shared on X. All of that activity happened during the days when conventional bank transfers stop moving.

The weekend numbers The $40.2 billion total covers USDC trading on DEXs across Q3 weekends. These venues match trades through smart contracts instead of brokers or clearinghouses.

Weekend stablecoin transfers could reach up to $38 billion in a single day, a pace that mirrors Visa’s typical daily transaction volume.

Visa’s daily average sits at roughly $40 billion. That makes the comparison less of a flex and more of a benchmark: on-chain dollars are now moving at card-network scale on days when wire desks are dark.

Total DEX trading volume across chains reached approximately $721.7 billion in Q3 2026, with stablecoins such as USDC and USDT accounting for a significant slice of that flow.

Recent 30-day stablecoin DEX volume landed in the $161 billion range.

Where USDC actually goes Roughly 69% of USDC’s on-chain activity was tied to DEX liquidity provision.

Liquidity provision means depositing tokens into pools that other traders swap against. The depositors earn fees, and the pools keep markets functioning at 3 a.m. on a Sunday.

Another 23% of USDC activity came from flashloans on platforms like Base and Aerodrome. A flashloan lets someone borrow funds and repay them within the same transaction, with no collateral required.

If the loan cannot be repaid by the end of that transaction, the whole thing simply reverses.

USDC’s circulating supply stood at around $74.6 billion by the end of September 2026.

In certain 2026 periods, USDC held approximately 77% of adjusted transfer volume across chains.

Background: a two-horse stablecoin race The total stablecoin supply during Q3 2026 was estimated between $304 billion and $311 billion. USDT and USDC together controlled approximately 85% of that market.

What this means for traders, Circle and the banks For Circle, the numbers support the case that USDC is a preferred tool for automated trading and liquidity management. Its strong turnover relative to USDT may make it more attractive to institutional players that value deep, active markets over raw supply figures.

When around 23% of activity comes from flashloans, headline totals can look larger than the amount of new capital actually moving through the system. Bots borrowing and repaying in the same transaction generate real volume, but not necessarily real economic demand. Liquidity provision is a stronger signal, since it reflects capital parked in pools rather than recycled in seconds.

Three things are worth watching next. First, whether USDC’s weekend DEX volume keeps pace as its $74.6 billion supply grows. Second, whether its turnover edge over USDT persists. Third, whether the mix shifts away from flashloans and toward longer-term liquidity.

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

solana coin

Circle has minted approximately $3.5 billion worth of USDC on the Solana blockchain over the past week, as reported by @SolanaFloor. This substantial issuance adds to the overall supply of the stablecoin on the network, suggesting heightened activity and liquidity. While this development could indicate increased use of USDC on Solana, it does not necessarily confirm that all minted tokens have entered circulation or signify a direct rise in market demand.

The minting of USDC by Circle, a prominent player in the stablecoin market, reflects its ongoing commitment to expanding the availability of its dollar-pegged token across various blockchain networks. As of October 8, 2026, Circle reported a global USDC circulation of about $73 billion. The recent minting on Solana aligns with broader trends of leveraging the blockchain’s speed and low transaction costs to facilitate digital asset transactions.

Market participants have taken note of this significant minting activity, which may impact Solana’s market dynamics. Observers suggest that increased liquidity could potentially influence Solana’s price, though the ultimate effect remains uncertain.

Key Takeaways The recent minting of $3.5 billion USDC on Solana by Circle suggests increased liquidity and network activity. This development aligns with Circle’s strategy to expand USDC’s availability across various blockchains, contributing to its $73 billion global circulation. Market participants are considering the implications of this issuance on Solana’s price, with potential for positive influence, though the outcome is not guaranteed. What to Watch Observers will be watching for any immediate impacts on Solana’s market price, especially in relation to the $190 price target for October. Key indicators include any announcements from Solana Labs or significant changes in volume and liquidity. Additionally, regulatory developments or further integration announcements involving Solana and USDC could provide further clarity on the network’s future performance.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h November 1 2026 1.1% — — View market → November 1 2026 11.5% — — View market → November 1 2026 9% — — View market → November 1 2026 4.2% — — View market → November 1 2026 0.5% — — View market → November 1 2026 0.5% — — View market → November 1 2026 1.9% — — View market →

Altcoins

11 October 2026 | 11:32 Most perpetuals trades end with a simple result: the trader wins or loses. Papertrade adds a second outcome by issuing PAPER after eligible losses, tying its token model directly to the way its market settles trades.

Key Takeaways Eligible trading losses may trigger PAPER issuance under the protocol’s emission rules. PAPER does not replace the USDC that was lost on the trade. The same loss-funded pool is responsible for paying traders who win. The model needs both reliable winner payouts and a sustainable reason to hold PAPER. A perpetuals market built around one shared pool Papertrade is a perpetuals venue built on Hyperliquid infrastructure. Traders take leveraged positions on crypto prices without buying the underlying asset, while the platform’s settlement model relies on a shared USDC reserve called the Martingaler LP.

Like other leveraged perpetuals, the product can magnify a small price move, accumulate funding costs and liquidate an underfunded position. These are the mechanics involved in trading crypto with leverage. Papertrade adds a separate token outcome: an eligible loss may trigger the issuance of PAPER.

The USDC loss remains real. PAPER gives the trader a separate asset whose eventual value depends on the protocol’s activity, token supply, demand and the terms available to holders.

What a $100 loss leaves behind

If a trader loses $100, the USDC loss can help replenish the shared Martingaler LP. PAPER may then be issued according to the protocol’s live emission rules. The token does not restore the $100; it gives the trader a separate asset with an uncertain future value.

What PAPER leaves behind after a loss That difference is important because a token reward can be mistaken for compensation. It is better understood as a new position created after the trade has already closed. Its price may rise, fall or remain illiquid, and a trader who sells it immediately could receive far less than the USDC lost.

Papertrade’s materials describe PAPER staking as a route through which holders may participate in protocol revenue. Whether that creates durable value depends on activity, fees, token issuance, market demand and the live terms of the staking system. Traders should check the current documentation and contracts for reward formulas, transferability and restrictions before relying on any promotional description.

The model therefore places two questions in front of a losing trader. First, how much USDC could be lost through leverage? Second, does holding the PAPER received afterward make economic sense once dilution, liquidity and the protocol’s revenue are considered?

The same pool must pay the traders who win PAPER’s story cannot be separated from the pool behind the market. The USDC that enters after losses helps support the liquidity needed to settle winning positions, connecting the token mechanism to the platform’s ability to pay traders.

Papertrade’s whitepaper describes a queue for situations in which the pool does not have enough immediately available USDC to cover every profitable withdrawal. In that scenario, a winning trader may need to wait for the pool to receive further liquidity. Bankless described the same mechanism at launch as a first-in, first-out payout process.

Such a queue is a disclosed part of the proposed design, not proof that payouts will fail. It does mean that the market should be judged by its settlement record as well as its trading interface. A perpetuals venue is only as useful as its ability to deliver gains when traders are entitled to withdraw them.

A loss token can influence risk-taking The token may change how some traders approach a risky position. A person considering a highly leveraged trade could view PAPER as a possible residual benefit after a loss, particularly if they expect the protocol to grow and the token to gain demand.

That expectation can be dangerous if it becomes a reason to take a position that would otherwise be too large. PAPER is not a hedge with a defined payout, and it cannot reduce the USDC loss at the moment a liquidation or losing close occurs. Its future value must be weighed against the immediate, known cost of the trade.

There is also a supply question. Issuing more tokens after more losses may broaden participation, yet it can also dilute existing holders if protocol revenue and demand do not expand at a comparable pace. The model needs a credible connection between trading activity, settlement liquidity and value for PAPER holders; issuing tokens alone cannot create that connection.

Four places where Papertrade has to deliver First test

Can winners withdraw USDC?

The shared pool needs enough liquidity to meet profitable traders’ withdrawal claims without a prolonged queue.

Second test

Does PAPER have a reason to be held?

Its supply needs to stay connected to real demand, staking participation and protocol revenue rather than issuance alone.

Third test

How does the pool behave under pressure?

A market with more winning positions than losses could expose whether the payout mechanism works during an unfavourable trading period.

Fourth test

What do losing traders do with PAPER?

Consistent holding or staking would show a different kind of demand from immediate selling after each loss.

These measures offer a more useful view of Papertrade than token price alone. A rising PAPER price would not prove that the payout mechanism is robust, while a short period of smooth withdrawals would not settle the longer-term question of token supply and demand.

The model has two promises to meet Papertrade is trying to turn a familiar frustration in leveraged trading into part of its economic design. Instead of leaving every losing trader with only a reduced balance, it gives eligible participants a token that may have value if the venue builds lasting activity and revenue.

The approach can only prove itself if two outcomes hold together over time: profitable traders can access their USDC when due, and PAPER develops an economic role that does not rely on an ever-expanding flow of new losing trades. Until that evidence exists, PAPER should be treated as a speculative token received after a loss, rather than a recovery guarantee.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Perpetual futures and leveraged trading carry a high risk of loss. Product terms, token mechanics and eligibility rules may change.

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.

Circle has reportedly minted approximately 750 million USDC on the Solana blockchain within the past 24 hours, according to data shared by @SolanaFloor. This minting activity suggests an increase in USDC liquidity on Solana, a network that has become the second-largest holder of USDC by supply. As of early October, Solana had about $7.3–$7.45 billion in native USDC, highlighting the significance of this recent mint. While this increase in stablecoin reserves on Solana could indicate potential demand for the network’s native token SOL, it remains uncertain whether this newly minted USDC has been actively circulated or deployed in markets. The information comes from a Tier 3 social media source, which may impact its reliability.

Key Takeaways The minting of 750 million USDC on Solana appears to suggest increased liquidity on the network. Market pricing implies that participants may view this development as supportive of a potential increase in SOL demand. While the minting is significant, it is unclear how much of this USDC will enter active circulation. What to Watch Observers will be monitoring how the newly minted USDC impacts Solana’s economic activity, particularly whether it translates to increased demand for SOL. Key developments could include announcements from Solana Labs regarding new projects or partnerships that leverage this liquidity. Additionally, any regulatory changes or shifts in the broader cryptocurrency market could influence Solana’s price movements. Market participants are also likely to watch for any significant changes in decentralized-exchange volume and active addresses on the Solana network.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h November 1 2026 1.1% — — View market → November 1 2026 8.5% — — View market → November 1 2026 15% — — View market → November 1 2026 5% — — View market → November 1 2026 0.5% — — View market → November 1 2026 1.2% — — View market → November 1 2026 2.3% — — View market →