Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Winter Park, Florida, Oct. 19, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Tron Inc. (Nasdaq: TRON), the largest publicly traded holder of TRON (TRX) tokens, today announced its successful election as one of the 27 Super Representative (SR) nodes on the TRON network, ranking #27 as of October 18, 2026 with 0.76 Billion in delegated TRX tokens.

As an SR, Tron Inc. will expand its digital asset strategy from TRX treasury accumulation into active participation in blockchain infrastructure. Tron Inc. will participate (via its wholly owned subsidiary) in block production, transaction validation, network security, and on-chain governance, further deepening its integration with the TRON ecosystem and capitalizing on its success as the leading settlement protocol for on-chain stablecoin and agentic AI payment solutions.

“This milestone marks an important step in our strategy to generate recurring on-chain revenue and contribute directly to the TRON network’s continued growth and resilience,” said Rich Miller, Chief Executive Officer of Tron Inc. The Company remains committed to responsible node operation and delivering value for TRX holders and the broader community.

About TRON DAO Founded in 2017, TRON blockchain is one of the world’s most popular layer-1 networks and the dominant settlement protocol for on-chain stablecoin payment. As of July 31, 2026, TRON blockchain hosts about $90 billion in TRC-20 USDT stablecoin, accounting for nearly half of the total global supply. With over 396 million user wallets internationally and cumulative transaction counts approaching 15 billion as of July 31, 2026, TRON blockchain ecosystem is the de facto global standard for on-chain USDT settlement.

According to a recent industry report by Allium, an on-chain research institution, about 90% of stablecoin payment volume settles on TRON. Annual USDT transfer volume grew at a rapid pace of over 40% per annum for three consecutive years to nearly $8 trillion in 2025. About Tron Inc. Tron Inc. is a publicly traded company pioneering blockchain-integrated treasury strategies.

As the public company with the largest TRON (TRX) tokens holdings, Tron Inc. is committed to transparency, and the adoption of decentralized finance for long-term value creation. In addition, through its wholly owned subsidiary, the Company designs, develops, and manufactures custom merchandise which includes toys and souvenirs for the world’s largest theme parks and other entertainment venues.

Many of the Company’s products are based on award winning multi-billion-dollar entertainment franchises that are featured in popular movies and books. The products are distributed worldwide at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, Universal Parks and Destinations, United Parks and Resorts SeaWorld, Six Flags and other attractions.

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements in this announcement are forward-looking statements. Investors can identify these forward-looking statements by words or phrases such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “aim,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “is/are likely to,” “potential,” “continue”, “seek”, “commit” or other similar expressions.

These statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the Company’s continued expansion into blockchain-powered treasury holdings and long-term vision to build shareholder value through innovation and strategic leadership. These statements are subject to uncertainties and risks including, but not limited to, the risk factors discussed in the Risk Factors and in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations sections of our Forms 10-K, 10-Q and other reports filed with the SEC and available at www.sec.gov.

Although the Company believes that the expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, it cannot assure you that such expectations will turn out to be correct, and the Company cautions investors that actual results may differ materially from the anticipated results and encourages investors to review other factors that may affect its future results in the Company’s registration statement and other filings with the SEC.

Additional factors are discussed in the Company’s filings with the SEC, which are available for review at www.sec.gov. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent occurring events or circumstances, or changes in its expectations that arise after the date hereof, except as may be required by law.

For additional details, follow on X: https://x.com/TRON_INC Investor Relations Contact: Tron Inc. t.network (407) 230-8100 Source: Tron Inc.

The XRP Ledger (XRPL) has recorded $1.9 billion in net real-world asset (RWA) inflows over the past six months, ranking second among tracked blockchain networks. 

XRP Ranks Second in RWA Netflows Data from RWA.xyz, a leading provider of RWA analytics data, shows that BNB Chain leads with $2.2 billion in net inflows, followed by XRPL. Solana ranks third with $1.6 billion, while Stellar comes fourth with $1.5 billion. 

Meanwhile, Avalanche recorded $637 million in positive net flows, while Base, Monad, and Robinhood attracted $210 million, $200 million, and $199 million, respectively. These figures exclude stablecoin flows and show changes in other tokenized real-world assets.

XRP Ledger has recorded nearly $2 billion in RWA netflows in 6 months The rankings change when stablecoins are included. Notably, TRON takes the top spot with $7.8 billion in six-month net flows, followed by HyperEVM with $5.0 billion and Solana with $2.6 billion. XRPL ranks fourth with $2.5 billion in net inflows under this broader measure. 

The increased figure confirms the role of Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin in the network’s growing tokenized asset market. BNB Chain and Stellar each recorded $1.7 billion in stablecoin-inclusive net inflows, while Robinhood followed with $1.2 billion.

Ethereum Leads All Networks in RWA Outflows Ethereum recorded $2.7 billion in net RWA outflows over the same six-month period, the largest decline among blockchain networks in the dataset that excludes stablecoin flows. 

XRPL RWA netflows including stablecoins Plume was the only other network with negative net flows under this measure, recording $223 million in outflows. While most of the tracked networks attracted more capital than they lost, Ethereum and Plume moved in the opposite direction. 

Including stablecoins widened Ethereum’s losses. Its net outflows reached $22.3 billion over six months, exceeding the figures recorded by other networks in the analysis. Arbitrum also posted negative net flows, with $3.0 billion in outflows, while Polygon recorded $619 million. 

This confirms that substantial net capital left Ethereum’s combined tokenized asset and stablecoin ecosystem during the period. However, the data alone does not show that investors have permanently abandoned Ethereum or confirm that all the capital moved to other blockchains.

XRPL Sees Rapid RWA Growth in 2026 The XRP Ledger reached several important milestones in 2026 as its tokenized asset market expanded. The network started the year with $518 million in distributed RWA value. By the end of the first quarter, the figure had climbed to $2.25 billion, marking a 124% increase from the previous quarter. 

Growth continued in May, when XRPL’s tokenized real-world assets surpassed $3.53 billion, setting a new all-time high. The combined value of its RWAs and stablecoins also exceeded $5.37 billion.

XRPL reached $400 million in tokenized value in just 14.9 months, while Ethereum took 36 months to reach the same level. While this shows the faster pace at which XRPL reached its early milestone, it does not guarantee that the network will maintain the same growth rate. 

Several asset types have contributed to XRPL’s expansion. Justoken’s JMWH energy tokens account for $2.23 billion of the network’s total tokenized value, making them its largest single contributor. 

Tokenized commodities and asset-backed credit have also expanded the range of assets available on the ledger. This has helped broaden XRPL’s RWA market, but the large share held by JMWH means that one asset accounts for a substantial part of the reported total.

Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin has also grown considerably, rising from $235 million to more than $1 billion during 2026. In February 2026, Ripple announced a partnership with Aviva Investors to bring traditional fund structures onto the XRP Ledger. 

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.

Zcash showed signs of stabilization on Monday, edging higher after three straight weeks of declines knocked the privacy-focused digital asset down by around 30% from recent levels. ZEC traded near $1,165 following an 11% drop over the previous week, but overall market sentiment remained cautious amid persistent ETF outflows and declining participation in Zcash derivatives.

Grayscale ETF redemptions continueGrayscale, the asset manager known for launching cryptocurrency investment products targeting institutional and accredited investors, registered $19.15 million in net outflows last week from its ZEC-focused exchange-traded fund. This followed two consecutive weeks of larger redemptions totaling $30.72 million and $93.56 million. Over the past three weeks, withdrawals have accumulated to approximately $143.43 million.

Although the latest outflow was smaller than prior weeks, the sustained negative flow suggests that redemptions through the ETF are still outpacing fresh inflows. Grayscale’s ZEC fund remains one of the primary vehicles for traditional investors to gain exposure to Zcash through regulated markets.

Grayscale’s ZEC fund saw $143.43 million in outflows over three weeks, reflecting ongoing investor caution and a preference for liquidity amid market volatility.

A return of consistent positive inflows would signal renewed demand for Zcash among investment funds, but momentum has yet to shift decisively in that direction.

WeekGrayscale ZEC ETF Net OutflowCumulative Outflow3 weeks ago$93.56 million$93.56 million2 weeks ago$30.72 million$124.28 millionLast week$19.15 million$143.43 millionGrayscale is a digital currency asset management firm offering large-scale access to cryptocurrencies through investment trusts and ETFs.

Declining derivatives activityFutures market participation around Zcash has also waned. Data from analytics provider CoinGlass indicated a drop in ZEC futures open interest from $3.29 billion last month to $2.36 billion, a decline of about $930 million or roughly 30%.

Open interest tracks the notional value of outstanding futures contracts and a decline can signal lower trading activity or investor interest. However, falling prices themselves can also reduce the value of open positions, complicating the interpretation of the trend. The open interest figures, alongside ETF outflows, reinforce the overall picture of reduced market engagement with Zcash.

Mini dictionary: Open Interest – This term refers to the total notional value of all currently active (unsettled) contracts in the futures market for a given asset. A decrease in open interest often reflects reduced trading activity or market commitment.

ZEC technical resistance remainsThe Zcash daily trading chart shows the digital asset struggling to break above several critical resistance points. The coin remains below its 50-period Exponential Moving Average (EMA) at $1,184, which forms the first significant technical barrier for any bullish move.

Above this, a longer-term descending trendline near $1,229 and the 200-period EMA at $1,240 provide additional resistance. Clearing these levels would be required to signal a potentially broader trend reversal.

Technical momentum remains weak. The Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) indicator is positioned just above its signal line but remains in negative territory, suggesting the current bullish move is not yet convincing. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) sits below 50, indicating momentum is neutral to bearish rather than favoring buyers.

On the downside, structural support lies around $1,050, marked by the September 4 high, followed by the key $1,000 threshold. Failure to hold these levels could draw Zcash down toward $888, last marked as a local high on August 23.

For now, ZEC’s modest recovery requires a move above $1,184 and further resistance zones to signal a meaningful reduction in selling pressure.

Uniswap (UNI) posted record September protocol revenue of $14.81 million, with Robinhood Chain generating $7.87 million, according to Token Terminal data.

Uniswap (@Uniswap) $UNI generated $14.81 million in protocol revenue in September, its highest monthly total since the fee switch went live. Robinhood (@RobinhoodCrypto) Chain contributed $7.87 million of that figure, or about 53%, according to Token Terminal data reported on October 17.

The network launched in July and accounted for more than half of the decentralized exchange's monthly revenue within about three months of going live.

Tokenized stocks drive fees on Robinhood ChainRobinhood Chain is a Layer-2 network that went live on July 1, 2026, according to Crypto Briefing. The same report says tokenized stock trading drove much of the activity. Uniswap's average fee capture on the chain was 0.465% per trade, versus 0.214% across Uniswap globally.

Uniswap also dominated trading on the network. On September 1, Robinhood Chain processed $1.95 billion in daily volume, and $1.75 billion of that ran through Uniswap's liquidity pools, Crypto Briefing reported. The outlet adds that Uniswap began collecting protocol fees on the network on July 27, nearly four weeks after launch.

Not all of those tokens carry the same rights. NewsBTC noted that stock-linked tokens can differ in legal rights, issuer structures and geographic restrictions. Even so, the fees they generate count as real revenue for the protocol.

What the fee switch means for UNIThe fee switch redirects a portion of swap fees from liquidity providers to the protocol. It followed the passage of the UNIfication governance proposal in December 2025. The Defiant reported that the proposal directs protocol fee revenue to a UNI buyback and burn mechanism, aiming to reduce circulating supply.

Revenue collection and actual token destruction are separate events, so higher fees do not translate into burns on their own timeline. There is also a concentration risk: with $7.87 million coming from Robinhood Chain, roughly $6.94 million was generated across all other Uniswap deployments combined.

Activity on the chain has also cooled. Crypto Briefing and Bloomingbit both report that Robinhood Chain's daily transaction count fell by more than 40% in early October, raising questions about whether September's trading levels can be sustained.

NewsBTC adds that whether the new revenue mix lasts will depend on recurring trading demand rather than a single strong month. Traders and UNI holders will be watching whether Robinhood Chain volumes hold in October and beyond.

Sources:

Crypto Briefing: Uniswap posts record $14.81 million monthly revenueNewsBTC: Robinhood Chain Now Accounts For More Than Half Of Uniswap RevenueThe Defiant: Uniswap Passes 'UNIfication' Fee Switch Proposal

Janus Henderson wants to become the most technologically advanced asset manager. Its plan for getting there is to invest in blockchain builders and the networks they run on.

From fund issuer to network operator
The centerpiece is Avalanche. On September 16, 2026, Janus Henderson announced it had become an active validator on the network.

Picture a blockchain as a shared ledger kept by a committee instead of one bank. Validators sit on that committee. They check transactions, agree on which ones are legitimate, and keep the record consistent across the network.

Nick Cherney, the firm’s Head of Innovation, discussed the partnership on October 19, 2026. He framed the Avalanche work as part of the firm’s goal of becoming a tech-forward asset manager.

A stake in onchain credit
The validator role did not arrive alone. Janus Henderson has also taken an equity interest in Tranched, an onchain credit platform.

Tranched manages $300 million in assets. It also has a pipeline exceeding $3 billion, meaning deals it is working toward but has not yet closed.

Janus Henderson is also set to provide anchor capital for Tranched’s issuances. An anchor investor commits money early, which tends to give other buyers confidence that a deal is real and worth joining.

The products already on Avalanche
Janus Henderson did not show up on Avalanche empty-handed. Its tokenized products have been deploying on the network through partnerships with Grove and Centrifuge, work that dates back to 2024-2025.

Two funds lead that effort. The first is the Janus Henderson Anemoy AAA CLO Fund, known by its ticker JAAA.

A CLO, or collateralized loan obligation, bundles corporate loans and slices them into tiers by risk. The AAA label points to the top-rated slices, the ones designed to get paid first.

JAAA holds approximately $690 million in assets under management. The second fund, the Treasury Fund (JTRSY), offers exposure to US government debt in tokenized form.

The funds also got a boost from a $250 million Grove-led program targeting JAAA and JTRSY. That deployment doubled Avalanche’s real-world asset footprint.

What this means
For Avalanche, landing a validator backed by a manager with approximately $500 billion in assets is a credibility signal.

For Tranched, the equity investment and anchor capital commitment may help convert more of its pipeline of over $3 billion into closed deals.

There are risks worth watching. Operating a validator brings technical and operational responsibilities that traditional asset managers have not historically carried. Owning a stake in a platform while also anchoring its issuances creates overlapping interests that investors and regulators may want explained.

The other thing to track is scale. JAAA at approximately $690 million and Tranched at $300 million are meaningful for onchain markets. Against a $500 billion balance, they remain a small slice of the overall business.

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

LI.FI is launching intent-based execution for Ondo Finance tokenized stocks and ETFs on Solana, linking 450+ assets to its network of 1,000+ wallets, apps and neobanks.

@Lifiprotocol is launching native, intent-based execution for @OndoFinance tokenized stocks and ETFs on @Solana, connecting more than 450 tokenized securities to its distribution network. The network spans more than 1,000 consumer wallets, DeFi applications and neobanks.

The launch uses a Request for Quote (RFQ) liquidity model through LI.FI Intents, enabling one-click secondary market trading of tokenized securities. Retail and institutional traders can trade tokenized stocks against on-chain capital, without routing through traditional broker-dealer clearinghouses or dealing with cross-chain bridging.

How the integration worksLI.FI describes itself as an intent-based execution engine for same-chain and cross-chain token transfers. According to LI.FI, market makers in its network quote competitive prices for tokenized assets, which helps partners offer access at the best available prices across supported chains. Partners can unlock the assets through their existing LI.FI integration.

Ondo and LI.FI first announced the tie-up with support for Ethereum and BNB Chain, with Solana listed as coming soon. Ondo said the integration brought 438+ tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs, including Tesla, NVIDIA, Apple, QQQ and SPY, to LI.FI's partner network. The Solana launch extends that access to a third chain.

Ondo's growing footprint on SolanaOndo Finance brought its tokenized equities platform to Solana on January 21, 2026. The Solana Foundation said the tokens are backed 1:1 by securities held at U.S.-registered broker-dealers, and can be minted and redeemed 24 hours a day, five days a week. That launch made Ondo the largest real-world asset issuer on Solana by asset count.

Tokenized stocks are often spread across several blockchains, which fragments liquidity. LI.FI notes that Ondo's platform currently covers Ethereum, BNB Chain and Solana, and that its products are offered to non-U.S. users, with an institutional-first approach. Routing trades through a single intent-based layer is intended to reduce that friction for wallets and apps.

Tokenized securities give holders economic exposure to the underlying shares rather than shareholder rights, Cointelegraph reported in its explainer on Ondo's Solana plans.

Sources:

LI.FI: Ondo Tokenized Stocks Are Now Live on LI.FIOndo Finance: Ondo Tokenized Stocks Are Live on LI.FISolana Foundation: Ondo Global Markets on Solana

Solana’s developers have scheduled the Alpenglow consensus upgrade for Oct. 21, targeting roughly 150-millisecond finality while asking validators and application operators to prepare for changes during the mainnet handoff.

Summary

Solana’s Alpenglow upgrade is scheduled for Oct. 21, targeting roughly 150-millisecond transaction finality. Quicknode warns of a brief transaction pause and possible data-stream interruptions during the handoff. Validators must use compatible software and fund vote accounts for the 0.8 SOL admission fee. Some RPC nodes may receive finality information later than validators participating directly in consensus. Quicknode’s maintenance notice identifies Wednesday as the planned activation day, but its latest update warns that the original 14:50 UTC estimate could move forward to 13:20 UTC as block production advances. The provider asks operators to be ready from 13:00 UTC, with the consensus handoff following activation by roughly 20 minutes.

Solana Foundation’s current upgrade page puts the change in epoch 1064 and lists mainnet as not yet activated. Its updated estimate places the epoch’s start near 13:20 UTC, making the epoch boundary the relevant trigger instead of a fixed wall-clock appointment.

Solana Alpenglow targets finality, not faster execution Under Anza’s design, Votor replaces TowerBFT’s voting and finality logic. The target is roughly 150 milliseconds under normal network conditions, not a guarantee that every wallet, exchange or trading application will display a completed transaction within that period.

The Foundation says transaction execution, program behavior and fee mechanics remain unchanged. Ordinary users do not need to alter how they sign or approve transactions, while the separate Rotor data-distribution upgrade is reserved for a later release. Its documentation separates the consensus rollout from earlier reductions in slot duration, which govern how frequently the network produces blocks.

Quicknode’s technical overview describes two voting paths operating simultaneously. One can finalize a block in a single round when 80% of validators participate, while the other uses a second round when participation reaches 60%.

The provider distinguishes that process from the early confirmations users already see. Its overview says applications commonly display confirmations within two to three seconds under optimistic settings, before the old system reaches full finality at around 13 seconds.

The October deployment follows an earlier roadmap that linked Alpenglow to Agave 4.3. An August 14 report documented that Alpenglow code was present in Agave 4.2 for testing, without authorizing mainnet activation in that release.

By September 26, the upgrade had reached devnet after testnet’s transition the previous day, as previously covered by crypto.news. Application teams could then check the new consensus behavior before deploying against the network handling users’ funds.

Traders face a short interruption during the handoff Quicknode warns that new transactions will briefly stop entering blocks while the network changes consensus systems. Its notice describes a pause lasting a few seconds, with a longer interruption possible if the transition takes more time.

Transaction submissions may temporarily return a “node unhealthy” preflight error, the provider says. Yellowstone data streams may disconnect once, while subscriptions using the earliest processed commitment can display slots that never reach confirmation.

The maintenance notice recommends confirmed or finalized commitment for data that must not be reverted. Quicknode says its existing Solana endpoints will remain in place and that its team will monitor the network throughout the change.

In the provider’s technical overview, faster irreversible settlement is relevant to financial applications, corporate treasury transfers and real-time services. The document presents those uses as capabilities of the proposed consensus architecture, without establishing that individual trading platforms will adopt new settlement policies on activation day.

Validator readiness includes software and account funding Solana Foundation’s current checklist instructs validators to run version 4.3.2 of Agave, Jito-Solana or Harmonic Salsa before epoch 1064. Firedancer and Frankendancer are not supported during the migration, according to the same guidance.

Operators must keep at least 0.8 SOL above the rent-exempt minimum in their vote accounts to cover the Validator Admission Ticket. The first charge pays for participation in epoch 1065, and an unpaid fee prevents a validator from voting or producing blocks in that next epoch.

Governance approval predates those operational requirements. The proposal passed in September 2025 with 98.27% of votes supporting it, according to coverage of the completed ballot. Participation represented 52% of stake, so the approval percentage describes votes cast rather than the entire validator population.

That earlier vote approved SIMD-0326, the proposal behind the consensus overhaul. The contemporary report recorded 1.05% against and 0.69% abstaining, with the small rounding difference preserved in the published figures.

RPC delivery can lag behind the 150ms target Anza’s operator documentation explains that consensus messages normally circulate among admitted validators. An unstaked node using the default delivery path learns finality from certificates carried in later blocks, typically adding up to one produced-block interval.

Skipped or delayed blocks can lengthen that wait. A node partnered with an admitted validator can receive messages directly, although network latency between the two remains part of the delivery time.

The September devnet coverage documented separate changes for indexers and explorers. Candidate blocks must remain separate until confirmation, and validator participation data moves away from ordinary vote transactions toward certificates attached to block data.

According to that report, removing vote transactions changes dashboard totals even when the number of user payments and trades stays constant. Services counting both categories must reset their comparisons, while systems tracking validator votes need to read the replacement certificate data.

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

Today, the Solana network recorded a historic high: the number of addresses holding tokenized stocks soared to 1.4 million, according to Blockworks data. Fresh on-chain statistics, however, have revealed a deep structural split in the market. While retail investors, amid this unprecedented boom, are aggressively buying up Apple and Tesla shares, large players are in no hurry to take risks and are parking billions in stablecoins and U.S. Treasuries.

1.4 million addresses now hold stocks on Solana https://t.co/0WF8QZfsjz

— Solana (@solana) October 19, 2026 Back in June, the number of stockholders on Solana barely exceeded 500,000, but a powerful influx of users in recent weeks has made the blockchain the absolute leader in the RWA category. The reason for the boom is simple: round-the-clock access. Traditional Wall Street closes on Friday evening, but on the blockchain trading goes on nonstop: up to 65% of tokenized stock trading volume is now conducted outside the standard working hours of U.S. exchanges. 

HOT Stories

You Might Also Like

People are massively using digital versions of Nvidia (NVDAx), Apple, and Tesla shares, as well as stakes in SpaceX, as collateral in DeFi protocols, forcing classic securities to play by the aggressive rules of the crypto market.

A million people are there. But where are the billions?Despite the impressive figure of 1.4 million wallets, the real financial weight of this retail segment is still modest. Capital within Solana is distributed unevenly:

Stablecoins: the network's main safe, holding $14.6 billion.

U.S. Treasuries: a reliable instrument worth $1.5 billion.

Tokenized stocks: a modest $485.2 million.

You Might Also Like

While retail provides the blockchain with loud headlines, big capital is bypassing the stock market. Large players use the network exclusively as cheap transport for conservative instruments from Ondo and Securitize. In the global ranking of tokenized stock platforms (the entire market is valued at $3.42 billion), the bStocks platform ($1.2 billion, BNB Chain) leads, while the xStocks project, two-thirds of whose liquidity is tied to Solana, takes third place with a volume of $582 million.

At the same time, Solana's main challenge now lies in the operational plane. Serving 1.4 million active addresses is demanding: the real stress test for the infrastructure will be the first mass processing of corporate actions (dividend payments, splits, and shareholder votes), which require hundreds of thousands of simultaneous transactions. 

Issuers are trying to solve the problem with the new regulated Token-2022 standard, but only the first large payouts will show the real resilience of this solution.

While the RWA sector celebrates its victory, the network's native token has ignored this triumph: the price of SOL remains squeezed in a $100–$107 corridor due to capital outflows from spot ETFs. It seems that while the ecosystem is building the rails of the finance of the future, exchange speculators simply haven't noticed.

THORChain has paused native Zcash swaps after a bug cut into the bonds of the operators who run its network. Onchain records show about 140 RUNE deducted from 18 node accounts.

The protocol says no user or vault funds were lost. The people who absorbed the damage were the node operators, which is roughly the outcome a bonded security model is built to deliver.

What broke, and who paid
The trouble traced back to how THORChain matches outbound ZEC transactions. An outbound transaction is the protocol sending coins back out of its vaults to a user once a swap settles, and that matching step is where the bug sat.

Something in that process went wrong, and the network treated it as a vault slash, penalizing the nodes responsible for it.

The incident occurred around October 19, 2026. The penalty came out of bonds, the RUNE that node operators lock up as collateral for the privilege of running the network.

Swappers came out clean. THORChain stated that user and vault funds were untouched, so anyone holding liquidity or trading through the protocol did not lose money because of this.

ZEC swaps will stay frozen until a fix arrives in the v3.21 network upgrade. That upgrade is expected around block height ~28,366,100, which lands on October 23, 2026.

A fresh integration hits its first snag
Native ZEC support on THORChain is very new. The liquidity pool launched on October 2, 2026, and a soft launch brought full swap functionality online by October 7-8, 2026.

So the halt arrived less than two weeks after swaps went live.

The integration supports transparent UTXOs and Zcash’s NU6.3 upgrade. Transparent UTXOs are the publicly visible side of Zcash, which works much like Bitcoin’s accounting model, as opposed to the shielded transactions that give Zcash its privacy reputation.

Instead of minting synthetic IOUs on another chain, THORChain holds real coins in decentralized vaults and moves them directly between networks, removing the bridge-and-wrapper layer that has caused so much grief across DeFi.

The second disruption this month
The ZEC halt is not THORChain’s only October headache. On October 9, Tether temporarily blacklisted approximately 1.45 million USDT spread across four of THORChain’s TRON vaults.

That freeze disrupted related swaps and liquidity provision actions for around three hours.

The two incidents have different causes. The Tether episode came from an outside issuer exercising its power to freeze funds, while the ZEC problem came from THORChain’s own code.

What this means for RUNE, ZEC, and the protocol
The most important detail for users is the one that did not happen. No user funds were lost, and the losses that did occur fell on bonded operators, which is how the system is supposed to absorb faults.

For node operators, the episode is a reminder that their bond carries real risk. A software bug, rather than malicious behavior, triggered this slash.

The things to watch are concrete. First, whether v3.21 ships around block height ~28,366,100 on October 23, 2026, as expected. Second, whether ZEC swaps come back without further slashes. Third, whether THORChain shares more detail on what went wrong in outbound matching.

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

Adds details throughout

Oct 19 (Reuters) - Hong Kong-listed Metis TechBio 7666.HK said on Monday it has entered into a collaboration agreement with Eli Lilly LLY.N worth up to $1.1 billion to research and develop tissue-specific drug delivery technologies.

The Chinese biotech will use its proprietary AI-driven drug-delivery platform to develop next-generation technologies aimed at improving how LNP-based drugs reach target tissues.

Metis will be eligible to receive an upfront payment in the low double-digit millions US dollars and up to about $1.1 billion in development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments.

It will also be eligible for tiered royalties at a single-digit percentage of annual net sales of products that are developed due to the collaboration.

The Chinese biotech will use its proprietary AI-driven ionizable lipid discovery and optimisation platform to develop delivery technologies aimed at improving the targeting and biodistribution of LNP-based therapies.

Metis and Lilly aim to discover and optimise novel LNP architectures that could improve tissue specificity and therapeutic performance, with potential applications across multiple disease areas.

(Reporting by Nikita Maria Jino and Kumar Tanishk in Bengaluru; Editing by Joyjeet Das)

Chainspect data shows Polkadot (DOT) is the costliest Layer-1 for 100,000 transactions over seven days, while Sui (SUI) is the cheapest at $0.27.

Polkadot ($DOT) ranks as the most expensive Layer-1 blockchain to use, according to a fee comparison from analytics platform @chainspect_app. The data indicates that processing 100,000 transactions on @Polkadot cost more than $1,000 over the past seven days.

That puts the network at the top of the Layer-1 cost ranking. Other high-performance blockchains and rollup systems clear similar transaction volumes for a fraction of a cent per transaction. Sui (@SuiNetwork, $SUI) is the cheapest Layer 1 in the comparison, with 100,000 transactions costing $0.27.

Why Polkadot's Costs Look DifferentPolkadot's fee model helps explain how the figures can diverge from the network's usual reputation. According to the project's developer documentation, transaction fees on Polkadot are built from a base fee, a length fee and a weight fee, with an optional tip to prioritise inclusion. The weight fee reflects computational complexity, while the length fee scales with transaction size.

The architecture is also different from most Layer-1 networks. CoinShares describes Polkadot as a layer-0 network that connects multiple blockchains (parachains) under a shared security umbrella. Developers can use the Polkadot SDK to build their own chains and choose the fee model that suits them. That means costs on the relay chain are not necessarily representative of costs across the wider ecosystem.

Usage on the relay chain is also light. Chainspect's Polkadot page shows just 63 transactions in a one-hour window and an average transaction fee of about $0.0096. With so little activity, per-transaction cost comparisons can swing sharply depending on the period measured and the fee methodology used.

What It Means for DOTA high cost per 100,000 transactions does not by itself show that Polkadot is expensive for typical users, and the result depends on how Chainspect calculates fees over the seven-day window. Still, the ranking highlights a gap between Polkadot's interoperability-focused design and chains built for low-cost, high-volume activity such as Sui. Investors tracking $DOT and developers choosing a base layer may want to compare fee data across several time periods before drawing conclusions.

Sources:

Chainspect: Polkadot TPS, finality, fees and block timePolkadot Docs: Calculate Transaction FeesCoinShares: Polkadot (DOT) guide

Charles Hoskinson, Cardano founder, has teased a special gesture if RealFi’s USD stablecoin, sUSDrf, reaches a milestone of $1 million in deposits.

Hoskinson made the remark after Cardano-based DeFi platform Strike Finance disclosed that $70,000 had flowed into its liquidity vault through sUSDrf. Subsequently, RealFi reported that the vault held around $200,000, raising expectations that it could eventually reach the $1 million milestone. 

Something Special Incoming?  In response to the development, Hoskinson promised to do something special if the vault hits the $1 million target. However, he left the decision open to the community, asking users to suggest what the gesture should be. 

If we reach a million, I have to do something special. What should I do? https://t.co/7mI3Y0Lrl7

— Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK_Charles) October 18, 2026

The comment followed an earlier post in which Hoskinson asked whether users would like to create a prediction market on Bodega Market to forecast when the vault would reach $1 million in deposits. Although the timeline remains uncertain, his remarks have sparked interest in what he might do if the vault achieves the target.

RealFi Integration Boosts Strike Finance Liquidity The development comes after Strike Finance integrated RealFi’s yield opportunities into its platform. At the time, Hoskinson announced that RealFi was open for business.

The integration enables users to earn RealFi yields alongside existing Strike Finance vault rewards. Additionally, with eligible collateral, users can borrow USD without interest, while deploying the funds into vaults linked to Strike Liquidity Provider. 

Meanwhile, Strike Finance reported that its liquidity vault had surpassed $1 million, with $200,000 flowing into it over the preceding 72 hours through RealFi’s USD stablecoin. 

RealFi Could Support Cardano’s Liquidity Growth Hoskinson has positioned RealFi as a project that could attract additional capital to Cardano’s ecosystem and increase its total value locked (TVL). Through its integration with Strike Finance, the project could broaden access to yield opportunities and encourage more users to deploy capital across Cardano-based decentralized finance (DeFi) applications.

However, growth in a single liquidity vault does not necessarily translate into an equivalent increase in Cardano’s overall TVL. The broader impact depends on where the assets are deployed and how the respective platforms account for them.

At press time, Cardano’s TVL stood at $62.77 million, representing a 0.21% decline over the previous 24 hours. Nevertheless, the reported growth in Strike Finance’s vault offers an encouraging sign for the ecosystem. Whether it leads to sustained growth in Cardano’s DeFi liquidity will depend on the platform’s ability to attract and retain capital. 

Cardano TVL

TLDR

Mt. Gox has moved its creditor repayment deadline from Oct. 31, 2026, to Oct. 31, 2027, after receiving court approval.
Trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi said many creditors remain unpaid due to incomplete procedures or problems during processing.
Base, Early Lump-Sum and Intermediate Repayments are largely complete for creditors who met all requirements.
The notice did not share how many creditors are unpaid or how much Bitcoin is left to distribute.
Mt. Gox held more than 34,500 BTC in June 2026, after moving 10,422 BTC worth about $739 million.

Mt. Gox has moved its creditor repayment deadline back by one year. The new deadline is Oct. 31, 2027, after a court approved the change.

The deadline had been set for Oct. 31, 2026. The extension gives creditors more time to finish the steps needed to receive their funds.

The change was announced in an Oct. 16 notice from rehabilitation trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi. He said many creditors still have not been paid.

Why Mt. Gox Extended the Bitcoin Repayment Deadline
Kobayashi said some creditors have not completed the required procedures. Others finished the steps but ran into problems while their payments were being processed.

According to the trustee, Base Repayment, Early Lump-Sum Repayment and Intermediate Repayment are largely complete. This applies to creditors who submitted the right information and had no issues.

The court-approved extension gives the trustee 12 more months to keep making payments. Distributions will continue where repayment remains reasonably practicable.

The notice did not add a new repayment category. It also did not change the amounts creditors are entitled to receive.

The announcement did not give an updated count of unpaid creditors. It also did not say how much Bitcoin or other assets are left, or give a timetable for individual payments.

A Long History of Delays
The original repayment target was October 2023. Since then, the deadline has been pushed back several times.

In October 2024, the trustee moved the deadline to October 2025. In October 2025, it was moved again to Oct. 31, 2026. At that time, about 19,500 creditors had received payments.

Mt. Gox was a Tokyo-based exchange that once handled about 70% of global Bitcoin trading. It filed for bankruptcy in 2014 after losing about 850,000 BTC.

The exchange later entered civil rehabilitation. Repayments in Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash began in July 2024 through exchanges including Kraken and Bitstamp. Custodian BitGo also received Bitcoin as part of the process.

Kraken confirmed it received creditor funds on July 16, 2024. It then began crediting eligible users, some of whom had waited more than a decade.

Mt. Gox still held large Bitcoin reserves this year. On June 2, it moved 10,422 BTC worth about $739 million, according to blockchain data cited by Arkham Intelligence.

At the time of that June report, Mt. Gox held more than 34,500 BTC. Those figures are historical and do not show the current balance.

The Oct. 16 notice did not disclose a new wallet balance or confirm further transfers. It also did not name any exchange set to receive another distribution.

Creditors can also use a separate inquiry form without logging in. However, the trustee said identity verification may be harder in those cases.

Creditors can send questions through the online rehabilitation claims system. The trustee warned that responses may be delayed because of the high volume of inquiries.

David Schwartz, the CTO Emeritus of Ripple, who helped develop the XRP Ledger (XRPL) from scratch, has teased some big changes coming to the decentralized finance (DeFi) space, as it appears that a retail-friendly breakthrough is just around the corner.

David is excited about what retail DeFi is going to look like in 2027 and we're "really close" to finding out. 1) I believe retail DeFi on the XRP Ledger will be very exciting in 2027. We have a lot of tailwind building up. It's the year institutions and retail meet on the DEX. This will be no doubt the most interesting catalyst not many have on their radar imo. 2) Ripple's acquisition and customers coming on chain is a flip of the switch moment. We have heard from Monica in Korea about goals to drive more Ripple customer activity on the XRP Ledger. Think of the groundwork done so far with crucial XRPL amendments for on chain compliance (PDEX/PDomain) and soon privacy, as well stablecoin issuers and regulated trading venues. Great interview Tony, as per usual :)

— Vet (@Vet_X0) October 18, 2026 During his recent interview, Schwartz expressed his optimism regarding DeFi's future in 2027.

HOT Stories

"But generally, in the industry, tokenization is really kicking off, and the regulatory hurdles are really starting to fall," noted Schwartz.

The Ripple veteran then also talked about how a whole new market can be formed around blockchain finance applications.

"What does the, like, blockchain user, like, look like? What is the product that…" Schwartz asked, noting that the potential formation of the market was akin to the enormous user base that app developers have for Android or iOS.

You Might Also Like

"That's the world that's gonna be super exciting. And we're really close," he emphasized.

Schwartz appeared to imply that the next chapter in blockchain adoption could potentially bring decentralized finance products to the general masses and not just crypto enthusiasts.

However, he refrained from mentioning any product or announcing any definitive date.

AI agents could reshape DeFiDuring the conversation, Schwartz also touched upon his idea of using AI agents for handling finance-related work for the general masses.

"And so you can imagine the world where, like, everyone's money is managed by agents. Which solves all those problems for them," he said.

The Ripple veteran then went on to wonder how DeFi would adapt to this change.

"What are you going to want from DeFi in that world? I think that's the problem that we're coming up with," noted Schwartz.

Bitwise's spot XRP ETF holds more than $541 million in net assets, with cumulative net inflows of $684.73 million, according to SoSoValue data.

Bitwise's (@Bitwise) spot XRP exchange-traded fund has passed the half-billion-dollar mark in net assets. The fund, which tracks $XRP, held $541.12 million as of October 17, according to figures from the SoSoValue fund tracker reported by COINOTAG.

The same dataset puts cumulative net inflows at $684.73 million. The product gives investors a way to gain exposure to XRP price moves without buying or storing the token directly.

Largest fund in the XRP ETF sectorSoSoValue's XRP ETF dashboard lists the Bitwise fund with a 0.34% fee, according to the data provider. It trades on NYSE under the ticker XRP.

The fund is the largest of the US spot XRP products by cumulative inflows. Data cited by Coinpaper shows Franklin Templeton's fund with roughly $509 million and Canary Capital's with nearly $487 million. Those products began launching in November 2025, and total net inflows across the category reached about $1.8 billion by mid-October.

Steady inflows since launch point to continued demand for regulated XRP exposure. U.Today noted that the trend looks more like accumulated demand than a short-term event, as Digital Today reported.

What the numbers do and do not showNet assets and net inflows are different measures. Inflows reflect subscriptions minus redemptions, while net assets track the current market value of holdings, according to Coinpaper. That is why Bitwise's net assets of $541.12 million sit below its $684.73 million in cumulative inflows: changes in the XRP price affect the value of what the fund holds.

Neither figure translates directly into a set amount of XRP bought by the fund. The same caveat appears in U.Today's report on the milestone.

Daily flows across the sector have also been uneven. XRP spot ETFs recorded a $2.47 million net outflow on October 16, entirely from the Canary XRP ETF, according to SoSoValue data relayed by KuCoin News. On October 14, Bitwise was the only issuer to attract new capital, though the inflow was small at about $740,400.

For now, Bitwise's fund remains the clearest gauge of how much money is flowing into XRP through traditional markets, even as the token's price and daily flows fluctuate.

SourcesCOINOTAG: Bitwise XRP ETF net assets top $541 million
U.Today: Bitwise holds over half a billion XRP
Digital Today: Bitwise leads XRP ETF market with net assets over $500 million

JPMorgan takes JPM Coin to Ethereum for institutional clients: ReportJPMorgan is reportedly expanding its JPM Coin deposit token to Ethereum, allowing institutional clients to make payments and settle tokenized asset transactions.

JPMorgan Chase, the world’s biggest bank by market capitalization, is expanding its JPM Coin deposit token to Ethereum, Bloomberg reported on Monday.

JPM Coin represents US dollar deposits held at JPMorgan and lets eligible clients transfer funds within seconds, around the clock.

Emma Landriault, global head of Kinexys Labs, said crypto companies could use the token for blockchain payments, while financial institutions could use it to settle trades and post collateral.

Landriault said JPMorgan chose Ethereum for its liquidity and existing use among clients. While the tokens are issued on public networks, JPM Coin will remain restricted to approved institutional participants.

The expansion follows JPMorgan’s November 2025 rollout of JPM Coin on Base, an Ethereum layer-2 network built by cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase. At the time, JPMorgan said it planned to support additional public blockchains. In January, JPMorgan announced plans to bring JPM Coin to the Canton Network. 

Cointelegraph contacted JPMorgan for additional details but did not receive an immediate response.

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

On 23 September, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce stood up at SIFMA’s Digital Assets Conference in New York and described the current approach to customer checks as building “ever bigger data haystacks” in the hope of finding a needle or two. Her speech, Looking for Change in Haystacks, argued that know-your-customer rules risk turning financial rails into a panopticon, and that regulators should move toward verifying specific facts instead of collecting raw personal data. She was clear that the views were her own and not the Commission’s, and no rule has changed. Even so, it is the plainest statement yet from a sitting US regulator of the model behind zero-knowledge KYC, and it is the model Ontology has been building infrastructure for since 2018.

The case against the haystack The argument in the speech is about cost and effectiveness. Every exchange, broker and bank collects the same passport, the same proof of address and the same tax number, and holds its own copy. Peirce’s point is that the costs of this system dwarf what it catches, and that each extra copy is one more place where sensitive data can be mishandled or stolen. The same identity documents end up, in her words, put at risk across dozens of institutions.

We made the same argument from the security side in May, in the honeypot piece from the Privacy Hour series: concentrated stores of personal data are the prize in every breach, and the answer is a different shape of system rather than a bigger vault. The UK regulator says it in a regulator’s terms. The ICO’s data minimisation guidance tells organisations they should not hold more personal data than their purpose needs. A securities regulator arriving at the same place from the cost and effectiveness side is new.

Four proposals, and the infrastructure each one needs The speech makes four concrete proposals. Each maps onto a piece of infrastructure that already exists on Ontology.

Verify facts, not files. Peirce describes credentials that attest to specific facts, such as age, citizenship, accredited investor status or absence from a sanctions list, without revealing the data underneath. On Ontology that is a W3C verifiable credential: a signed, scoped statement issued once and held by the person it describes. When a service needs to know one thing, the holder presents that one thing. This is the starting point for zero-knowledge KYC.

Rely on checks that have already been done. She proposes making it easier for firms to rely on a trustworthy third party’s identity verification, so that a customer verified once does not have to be verified from scratch everywhere. That only works if a later firm can check the earlier verification without phoning the firm that did it. ONT ID anchors identifiers and their keys on a public chain, following the W3C Decentralized Identifiers model, so a verifier can confirm who issued a credential and that it is still valid without routing a request through the issuer. The issuer is never told who asked.

Fewer copies of the same data. If the credential travels and the document stays with the person, the number of databases holding a given passport scan falls toward one. On Ontology the chain holds only what is needed to check a claim: the identifier, its keys and the credential’s status. No documents and no profile.

Ask whether each field is needed. Her test for regulators is a single question: do we need this specific piece of information, or only a fact that it proves? A credential system lets a firm act on the answer, because the fact can be requested on its own.

Underneath all four sits one more requirement the speech implies without naming: permission and validity have to be withdrawable. A status list lets an issuer revoke a credential so that every later verification fails, which is what turns a one-off check into something a firm can rely on over time.

Where zero-knowledge KYC fits Zero-knowledge KYC is the strongest form of this model. With an ordinary credential, the holder can choose which signed statements to show. With a zero-knowledge proof, the holder can show something derived from a statement, such as “over 18” from a date of birth, and the verifier learns that the condition is met and nothing more. Peirce’s own example is a proof that tells a counterparty yes, this person meets your requirement.

The standards work here is moving. The W3C’s Data Integrity BBS Cryptosuites, a Candidate Recommendation Draft, let a holder reveal only chosen parts of a signed credential, with proofs that cannot be linked back to each other. That unlinkability matters for KYC in particular: a person who proves their age to five services should not leave five matching records that can be joined up into a profile.

Zero-knowledge KYC is a layer on top of the identity infrastructure, and it depends on that infrastructure being in place. A proof is only as useful as the trust in the issuer behind it and the ability to check that the credential has not been revoked. That is the part Ontology runs: decentralised identifiers, verifiable credentials and status, on a public chain that any verifier can read.

The missing piece is regulatory The most useful line in the speech may be the one about what is holding this back. Peirce says the technology exists and that what is missing is the regulatory framework that would allow and encourage its adoption. That is a fair description from where Ontology sits. The identity layer has been live for years. What changes adoption is a regulated firm being allowed to accept a scoped, verifiable claim in place of a stored document. Zero-knowledge KYC becomes routine when a regulator says that claim is enough.

ONTO Wallet is built for that world. It holds a person’s verified identity alongside the social, gaming and health data they choose to connect, with the holder deciding, item by item, what each counterparty sees. KYC becomes one more thing a person can prove without handing over.

Peirce gave this speech in her penultimate week at the Commission, so it should be read as an argument rather than a forecast. But the direction it sets out, from collecting data to verifying facts, is one Ontology has been working toward since before the products existed. If you are building something that needs to know a fact about its users and would rather not hold their documents, the infrastructure for zero-knowledge KYC is ready to use.

Further reading from Ontology: our Korea Blockchain Week recap, Beyond Data Ownership: Consent, Audit, Revocation, AI Chatbot Privacy: Public versus Private and the Privacy Hour recap that opened the series.

TRON’s third-quarter figures show $2.21 trillion in stablecoin settlement alongside $701.4 million in network fees. The two totals measure different things, and neither is a payment to TRON DAO.

Summary

TRON recorded $2.2126 trillion in stablecoin settlement during Q3, up 5.1% from the preceding quarter. Network fees totaled $701.4 million across July, August and September, according to TRON DAO Research. Approximately 1.10 billion transactions went through the chain in Q3, broadly unchanged from Q2. TRON generated 360.2 million TRX and burned 234.5 million TRX in Q3, leaving net issuance of 125.8 million. The network’s $93.88 billion USDT and USDD balance at quarter-end measures outstanding tokens, not fee income. TRON settled more stablecoin value in the third quarter even as the number of transactions barely changed. TRON DAO Research’s quarterly report recorded $2.2126 trillion in stablecoin settlement, up from $2.106 trillion in Q2. It put fees at $701.4 million, or about $7.62 million a day using its reported daily series. The latest figures raise a straightforward question behind a large transfer headline: who paid to move the dollars, and who received the economic benefit?

No single company took a $701.4 million check. TRON is a blockchain where accounts pay for computation and transaction data through a resource system. Users may obtain those resources by staking TRX, receive them from another account, or burn TRX when their allocation falls short. Service providers can charge their own customers separately. Stablecoin issuers operate a different business again. Untangling those flows is necessary before treating quarterly transfers as earnings for the chain, its validators or holders of its native token.

JUST IN: TRON adds $4.8 billion to its stablecoin supply in 90 days

The network’s stablecoin market cap growth nearly doubled the combined $2.59 billion added by the other nine chains in the top 10 over the same period. pic.twitter.com/AAlUklr9Yg

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 21, 2026 What the $2.21 trillion actually counts A settlement figure is the dollar value of stablecoin movements over a period. It is not the amount of new money deposited into TRON, the number of customers served, or a balance held by a payment company. One stablecoin can move between accounts more than once. A transfer from an exchange to a merchant and a later transfer from that merchant to another exchange can enter the aggregate separately even when the same token funds both.

TRON DAO’s report says the daily average reached $24.05 billion, compared with $23.14 billion in Q2. Growth in the average daily amount was 3.9%, while the full-quarter total rose 5.1%. Both numbers can be true because Q3 has 92 days and Q2 has 91. Time periods matter when comparing a running total to a daily average. Neither number describes final retail purchases or cross-border payments exclusively; the underlying transfer category includes movements between addresses without assigning an economic purpose to every transfer.

At quarter-end, the report counted $93.88 billion in combined USDT and USDD supply on TRON, up $4.88 billion from Q2. Supply is a stock measured at a date; settlement is the sum of movements during a period. Dividing $2.2126 trillion by the closing balance yields about 23.6, a rough turnover comparison, but it cannot identify how often a particular coin changed hands. Supply changed during the quarter and the mix of wallets, exchanges and businesses is not fixed.

JUST IN: TRON averages 4.41M daily active accounts

The $TRX network has maintained an average of 4.41 million daily active accounts over the past 30 days. pic.twitter.com/uuwJxB3XtS

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 4, 2026 The network processed roughly 1.10 billion transactions in Q3, about flat with Q2. More value moved while the total count barely shifted, which is consistent with a larger average value per transfer, a different mix of transactions, or both. The total transaction count covers activity outside stablecoins, so dividing the entire settlement value by 1.10 billion would not produce a measured average stablecoin transfer size. TRON has not supplied a matched count of stablecoin transfer events alongside that settlement total in the cited report.

TRON’s prior quarter helps put the shift in context. Crypto.news’s account of Q2 USDT transfers reported $2.1 trillion in USDT transfers and $699.4 million in network fees, using Messari’s figures. The Q3 report describes combined stablecoin settlement, so the two transfer totals should not be labeled as identical series without checking their definitions. The Q2 fee figure and Q3 fee total are close in nominal dollars. On those two published totals alone, quarterly fees rose approximately $2 million, or 0.3%, rather than climbing in line with the reported 5.1% growth in Q3 stablecoin settlement.

Fees, burns and the recipient are different questions A person sending USDT does not pay a percentage of the dollars transferred to the chain. TRON meters bandwidth, broadly linked to the bytes recorded, and Energy, which covers smart contract execution. Sending $10 or $10,000 of USDT through the same kind of contract call can require similar resources. The payment amount alone is not the fee basis. A wallet’s available resources, the contract’s execution path and current chain parameters can change the cost.

The TRON developer guide to Bandwidth and Energy says both resources can be obtained by staking TRX or through a delegation from another account. Bandwidth includes a free allowance for qualifying accounts, while Energy has no free tier. Both resource quotas recover over a rolling 24 hours after use. Staking creates access to a recurring allowance; spending that allowance is not the same event as burning a token on each transfer.

Where an account lacks the required resources, the network can burn TRX to cover the shortfall. TRON’s resource payment documentation lists current mainnet rates of 0.001 TRX per Bandwidth unit and 0.0001 TRX per Energy unit, with chain parameters subject to change. Bandwidth rules normally use one source that covers the whole transaction: staked or delegated capacity, then free capacity if available, then a TRX burn. For Energy, an account can use its allocation and burn TRX for the remaining caller-side cost.

The $701.4 million fee series is therefore a report of network-level charges under the provider’s methodology. It should not be described as corporate sales, a cash distribution to validators, or a direct dividend to TRX holders. The report says 234.5 million TRX was burned in Q3, but a dollar valuation for network fees and the token quantity destroyed need their respective definitions and prices to be reconciled. Multiplying every transfer dollar by an assumed fee rate would manufacture an amount that nobody reported.

TRON elects 27 Super Representatives to produce blocks. Newly issued TRX rewards support producers and voters, while resource burns destroy tokens rather than handing the burned amount to a representative as cash. Staked TRX can confer voting power and recurring resources, but holding TRX without staking does not automatically entitle a holder to a share of reported fee dollars. Businesses that rent resources can receive payment under their own arrangements; such payments are distinct from an additional onchain burn on the same transaction.

A visible fee on a wallet screen may likewise be a bundled service price. A wallet can quote USDT to the sender, sponsor the underlying Energy, rent Energy, or supply it from TRX the operator has staked. The customer’s unit of payment does not tell us which underlying resource source settled the transaction. Crypto.news described Binance Wallet’s USDT fee option as a wallet-level way to fund network costs rather than a change in the chain’s native fee rules. A promotion covering a customer’s cost still leaves a provider bearing it.

The arithmetic behind a busy quarter A direct comparison reveals why the scale of transfers is visually misleading. Divide $701.4 million of reported Q3 network fees by $2.2126 trillion of reported stablecoin settlement and the result is about 0.0317%, equivalent to approximately 3.17 basis points. That is an arithmetic ratio between two published totals, not the price paid by each USDT sender. The numerator covers network activity beyond stablecoins, and the denominator omits non-stablecoin activity. A large customer may acquire resources more cheaply than a casual wallet user; some users burn TRX and others consume previously obtained capacity.

Another rough comparison divides $701.4 million by 1.10 billion transactions, producing roughly $0.638 per reported transaction. TRON DAO separately reports an average daily transaction fee of $0.643. The approximated ratio depends on the rounded 1.10 billion count and need not equal the mean of daily fee observations. Both figures are useful as scale checks, but neither is the fee for a standard USDT transfer. Contract execution and account conditions differ substantially among transactions.

TRON DAO breaks the $701.4 million total into $234.6 million in July, $231.3 million in August and $235.5 million in September. September exceeded August by $4.2 million while stablecoin settlement and transaction mix could vary day to day. The quarterly sum makes a consistent source series more useful than picking one unusually expensive transaction or a promotional wallet quote as the representative cost of all payments.

There is a discrepancy worth carrying into the reporting rather than smoothing away. TRON DAO says Q3 average daily fees of $7.62 million were down 4% from $7.94 million in Q2. Messari’s Q2 report summary, however, states $699.4 million in total Q2 fees. Across 91 calendar days, that published Q2 total implies approximately $7.69 million per day, not $7.94 million. Q3’s $701.4 million over 92 days likewise gives approximately $7.62 million. The Q3 daily figure matches its total; the Q2 daily comparison does not reconcile with Messari’s reported Q2 total under simple calendar-day division. Different data windows or methodologies may explain it, but neither report establishes that explanation in the figures cited here. A claim of a 4% quarter-over-quarter fall in daily fees should consequently be attributed to TRON DAO’s series rather than inferred from Messari’s published Q2 total.

A $2 million increase in nominal quarterly fees alongside more transfer value does not prove that users received a cheaper service per transfer. It indicates that those aggregates did not rise at the same pace. Fee prices, token price, resource staking, the share of transfers requiring contract execution and composition of non-stablecoin transactions can move independently. The matched, transaction-level data needed to isolate each contributor are not supplied by a single quarterly settlement headline.

JUST IN: Tron Inc. adds 148,175 $TRX to its treasury

The Nasdaq-listed company bought the tokens at an average $0.3374 each, lifting its total $TRX holdings above 719.3 million as it continues expanding its Tron treasury. pic.twitter.com/nnkC0mqTu0

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 18, 2026 Who pays when a wallet says a transfer is free? A zero-fee checkout does not necessarily mean the network performed work without a resource cost. A company may stake TRX to obtain Energy, then delegate capacity to customer addresses. An exchange can sponsor withdrawals, a wallet can pay in another currency and procure the underlying resource, and a business can rent Energy from a provider. The visible sender pays nothing at the point of transfer in some of these setups, while a different party finances the service.

The resource guide says exchanges and application operators commonly delegate capacity from a central staking pool. The network does not need each receiving customer to own TRX for every transaction under that arrangement. Energy recovers over 24 hours, so a pool sized to normal daily demand can support recurring operations without consuming the underlying staked tokens on every use. A usage surge beyond the allowance may change the calculation: the business may rent more capacity, hold more TRX, or burn tokens for a shortfall.

Crypto.news’s report on a gasless USDT wallet illustrates the consumer side of this separation. Removing the need for a customer to keep a second token balance simplifies a transfer, but the provider still must settle network resource costs. Reporting should ask the operator whether it pays from staked capacity, rentals, a quoted USDT charge or a temporary subsidy. Without that disclosure, the phrase “gasless” establishes a user experience rather than an independently audited network cost.

Contract deployers can sometimes cover part of a user’s Energy under TRON’s documented sharing mechanism. The contract configuration sets a caller share and a deployer contribution subject to the deployer’s resource budget. Sponsorship can run out. A transfer that appeared free under one set of limits can require the caller to contribute under another. Bandwidth is accounted for separately. Operators can still set terms outside the network, including withdrawal fees or currency conversion charges, that do not appear in the network-fee series.

Cost comparisons between two wallets should therefore specify the same transfer type and recipient conditions. A USDT transfer to an address holding the token can take a different execution path from a transfer to an address whose token balance has to be initialized. A quoted wallet charge may cover exchange service, insurance, or a routing step as well as network resources. The chain’s reported fee total cannot reveal the final consumer price without information from the service provider.

Why more stablecoins may bring less fee income per dollar Stablecoin transfers are measured in dollars; resource use is tied to network operations. An institutional account sending one large payment may contribute the same number of contract calls as a small account sending a modest payment. A market in which average transfer size rises can therefore increase dollar settlement without proportionally increasing network fee activity. That is one plausible interpretation of Q3’s higher settlement and nearly flat transaction count, though the combined transaction figure cannot isolate it as the cause.

Staking and delegation offer another explanation for the weak mechanical link. If more exchanges obtain enough Energy to cover their usual flows, the same count of transactions can generate fewer direct TRX burns than if their wallets had been paying the burn fallback. The operators’ capital commitment and any fee paid to a resource supplier still matter economically, even if they do not resemble a conventional per-transfer gas payment. A change in how much capacity is staked may affect an operator’s effective cost without a corresponding change in the value of USDT moving across the chain.

Chain governance sets the underlying resource parameters. A fee cut can reduce the burn required for a shortage even when usage does not fall. Messari said Q2’s rebound in fees was the first quarterly rise since an August 2025 cut to TRON’s Energy unit price. Comparing transactions across the cut without recording the parameter change would confuse a change in tariff with a change in demand. Current TRON documentation explicitly advises querying chain parameters because the resource pools and prices are adjustable.

Heavy use of a particular contract adds a further complication. TRON’s dynamic Energy model raises the effective Energy requirement for frequently called contracts when thresholds are met. The model can alter the cost of invoking a popular stablecoin contract independently of the number of dollars sent. Its penalty factor can change between maintenance periods and decay when usage eases. A flat posted rate per Energy unit is only one input to a wallet’s expected outlay.

Competition may shape which fee changes governance accepts. A chain can seek more affordable transfers to preserve stablecoin demand, while the reduction in token burns changes the economics for TRX holders. A higher resource price may lift burns in the short term but cause payment businesses to rent resources, stake more, batch activity differently or use another chain. The reports do not establish a single price that maximizes both usage and fee generation. Readers should resist treating higher transfer volume as a guaranteed higher revenue line.

TRX holders receive an indirect exposure The clearest token-level effect of a resource shortfall is the burn of TRX. The clearest counterweight is newly created TRX paid under the network’s reward schedule. TRON DAO says 360.2 million TRX was generated and 234.5 million burned during Q3. Subtracting one from the other gives net issuance of approximately 125.7 million, rounded to the report’s 125.8 million. Burns covered 65.1% of generated tokens. Supply expanded despite substantial fee activity.

A quarter of positive net issuance does not by itself predict a falling TRX price. Token demand, circulating supply, exchange liquidity and market expectations all matter. It does, however, invalidate a simple claim that every dollar of stablecoin settlement makes the asset scarcer. The $2.21 trillion transfer figure is not a buy order for TRX, and the $701.4 million fee valuation is not an equivalent distribution to all existing holders.

The staked side of the ledger is material. TRON DAO put staked TRX at 45.71 billion, or 48.16% of circulating supply at quarter-end. Its report assigned 18.87 billion staked tokens to Energy and 26.84 billion to Bandwidth. People who stake can obtain resource allocation and voting power; participants who vote for Super Representatives can receive protocol rewards under the network’s rules. An investor buying unstaked TRX on an exchange has a different immediate claim than a business using staked resources to process transfers.

The report’s validator voting snapshot showed the five highest-ranked Super Representatives held 37.1% of votes. Representatives participate in governance that can change chain parameters affecting resource prices. Fee economics consequently depend on political choices inside the protocol as well as the technical workload. Users, resource suppliers and TRX holders may prefer different combinations of cheap payments, reward issuance and burn rates.

An exchange-traded product can provide another form of TRX exposure. Crypto.news covered the staked TRX fund’s launch, including the fund’s stated plan to reflect staking rewards in net asset value. Its trading price, expenses and fund flows belong to a separate product. They should not be presented as a way for every TRX holder to collect a fraction of the network’s quoted fee dollars.

The case for low fees The strongest argument against maximizing immediate network fees is that cheaper transfers can be a core part of the service. Exchanges, payroll providers and people sending money across borders compare their actual all-in costs. Businesses can choose a route that works reliably at scale and automate the resource management behind it. If a fee reduction brings enough additional sustained transfers, the network’s usefulness can grow even if the fee earned per dollar of settlement falls.

October’s Polygon Open Money Stack integration with TRON points to that distribution question. The announced first phase connects TRON USDT activity with bank funding, wallet services and payouts for businesses. It does not provide a count of live customer payments or a forecast of incremental TRON fees. A commercially successful rollout could add transactions, but it could also route larger transfers through a small number of well-resourced accounts. Those outcomes produce different network-fee and token-burn profiles.

Low visible fees can be financed through staking rather than cash burn. Large operators may rationally tie up TRX to lower repeated costs, creating demand for resources without creating proportional burns. Smaller customers may prefer a USDT-denominated wallet charge rather than buying TRX to maintain a resource pool. A transfer service can succeed commercially while the protocol captures less revenue from each dollar moved. Protocol fees, resource rental payments, issuer income and the wallet’s own markup should be reported on separate lines.

Evidence that would weaken the low-fee case is equally concrete. If quarterly transfer value rises but transaction counts, unique active users and economic payments stagnate, the apparent growth may be recycled liquidity rather than a wider payments business. If a resource subsidy expires and customers leave, the underlying service may be less competitive than its advertised checkout price suggested. If heavy use creates costs for operators that they cannot pass through, fee compression would not demonstrate durable demand. Current aggregate data cannot settle those questions.

What to watch Q4 settlement and transaction count: Compare stablecoin dollars moved with the number of onchain transactions and, if available, matched stablecoin transfer counts. Monthly fees in one consistent series: Follow October, November and December network fees using the same provider and definitions before asserting an acceleration. Resource parameters: Check Energy prices, Bandwidth rules and governance votes, especially if a proposed fee change alters the cost of USDT contract calls. Stake, burns and issuance: Track the TRX committed to resources and the amount burned against newly generated rewards to separate usage from supply effects. Business adoption disclosures: Seek actual payment counts, subsidy terms and resource funding arrangements from new wallet and payment integrations. FAQ Does TRON earn $2.21 trillion from stablecoins? No. The figure sums stablecoin value transferred across the network in Q3. It is not revenue and does not represent unique dollars paid to an operator. A token can contribute to the total more than once when it moves again.

How much were TRON’s network fees in Q3 2026? TRON DAO Research reports $701.4 million in network fees for the quarter, split among $234.6 million in July, $231.3 million in August and $235.5 million in September. That measure should be named as network fees, not profit for TRON DAO.

Does a USDT sender always need to own TRX? No. A sender can receive delegated resources or use a wallet or service that sponsors the underlying cost and charges in another currency. The network still accounts for Bandwidth and Energy. The sender’s visible payment method does not change those resource rules.

Who receives the TRX paid as network fees? When a transaction uses the TRX burn fallback for insufficient resources, the charged tokens are burned. That is different from newly issued rewards for block producers and voters or a private payment to an Energy supplier.

Why did fees not rise in step with stablecoin settlement? The stablecoin figure measures dollars sent; network charges reflect resource use and the fee methodology. Larger transfer amounts, different transaction types, resource staking, delegated Energy and parameter changes can all break a proportional relationship. The quarterly totals alone cannot identify the precise contribution of each factor.

Did TRX become deflationary during Q3? No. TRON DAO reports 360.2 million TRX generated and 234.5 million burned, leaving roughly 125.8 million in net issuance. Burns reduced but did not exceed issuance during that reporting period.

Is the fee figure the same as Tether’s revenue? No. Tether issues USDT and operates its own business. A TRON network fee is associated with the blockchain’s resource model; an issuer’s reserve income, redemption arrangements and other business lines are distinct from that network metric.

Can the Q3 figures predict TRX’s price? No. They describe past activity, token issuance and resource use, not future buying or selling. Price depends on market conditions and demand beyond the network’s fee statistics. 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.

Table of contents

A $10,000 position in Chainlink’s LINK at its 2021 peak would be worth roughly $2,300 today. The token trades near $12.16, about 77% below its record, even as the network’s own treasury keeps converting revenue into the asset. Chainlink’s reserve — a strategic LINK treasury launched in August 2025 — has grown past 6.2 million LINK, worth roughly $78 million, according to Chainlink’s official reserve documentation. The buying is a structural bid on LINK’s supply, but the market has not yet priced it.

Across the majors, October 19 opened with modest gains. Bitcoin traded near $82,761, up 1.1% over 24 hours, while Ethereum held $2,433 and Solana $105.51, according to CoinGecko data at roughly 09:05 UTC. LINK rose about 1.5% to $12.16 with a market capitalization near $9.32 billion. The token’s underperformance relative to its record — not its daily move — is the reason the reserve’s accumulation matters to holders.

How the Chainlink Reserve Converts Revenue Into LINK
The reserve is not a buyback. Chainlink funds it through a mechanism called Payment Abstraction, which lets enterprise customers and network users pay for services in their preferred asset — gas tokens, stablecoins, or fiat rails — and then programmatically converts those payments into LINK through Chainlink’s own services and decentralized-exchange infrastructure. That conversion is what places LINK in the reserve contract, an Ethereum smart contract that carries a multi-day timelock on withdrawals.

Chainlink has said it does not expect to withdraw from the reserve for multiple years. That commitment distinguishes the reserve from a corporate treasury that may sell into strength: the LINK accumulated here is intended to stay locked, which slowly removes tokens from circulating supply. The network first documented the reserve in August 2025, when it launched the program as part of its Economics 2.0 upgrade.

The Supply Math: 6.29 Million LINK Against a $9.3 Billion Market Cap
On-chain data shows the reserve added 89,200 LINK — about $1.11 million — on October 15, and roughly 431,900 LINK, or $5.41 million, over the prior 30 days. Cumulative purchases stand near 6.29 million LINK at a cost of about $70.76 million, against a current value near $78.3 million. The live balance is visible on the reserve’s public dashboard.

The share-of-supply math is small but not trivial. LINK has a circulating supply near 766.85 million tokens against a 1 billion maximum. At 6.29 million LINK, the reserve holds roughly 0.82% of circulating supply. A return to LINK’s 2021 high of about $52.88 would require a 4.35x move from $12.16 — turning a $10,000 position into roughly $43,500 and lifting the market cap from about $9.3 billion toward $40.5 billion. A simple double to $24.32 would value the network near $18.6 billion. Those are the levels a buyer is implicitly underwriting when the reserve’s own accumulation is the thesis.

Why LINK Is Still 77% Below Its Record
The countercase is straightforward: the reserve has been buying for more than a year, and LINK has still not recovered. The reserve added about 431,900 LINK over 30 days — roughly $5.4 million of buy-side flow spread across weeks — against a token with a $9.3 billion market cap and materially larger daily turnover. The reserve is a slow, steady bid, not a price catalyst; on its own it has not been enough to offset the broader repricing of altcoins through 2026.

There is also no floor. Chainlink has never committed to a purchase price or a schedule, and the reserve’s mandate is network sustainability rather than price support. A holder should read the accumulation as a signal of where revenue flows are going, not as a guarantee that the token will re-rate on any particular timetable.

What Could Change the Setup
The trajectory supports the thesis that accumulation accelerates with adoption. The reserve crossed one million LINK in its first months and has since grown roughly sixfold; at launch, Chainlink co-founder Sergey Nazarov said demand for the Chainlink standard had already produced hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, substantially from large enterprises. If that revenue keeps converting into LINK through Payment Abstraction, the reserve’s share of supply compounds even without any price appreciation.

The more consequential variable is enterprise adoption, because that is what feeds the reserve in the first place. Chainlink’s September launch of CCIP 2.0 for institutional cross-chain settlement and recent proof-of-reserve deployments point to where additional revenue could come from. If enterprise revenue converts into LINK at a faster clip, the reserve’s accumulation accelerates with it — a feedback loop that a daily price chart will not capture until the supply effect compounds.

The immediate signals to watch are the reserve dashboard’s rate of accumulation and whether LINK can hold above its recent range while broader altcoin sentiment improves. The reserve program itself was first covered when Chainlink introduced the strategic reserve in August 2025, and the accumulation has been the quiet constant since.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Chainlink Reserve?
The Chainlink Reserve is a strategic on-chain treasury of LINK tokens funded through Payment Abstraction, which converts enterprise revenue and on-chain service fees into LINK. Chainlink launched it in August 2025 and does not expect to withdraw from it for multiple years.

How many LINK tokens are in the reserve?
On-chain data shows the reserve holds roughly 6.29 million LINK, worth about $78 million as of mid-October 2026, equal to about 0.82% of the roughly 766.85 million LINK in circulation.

Is the reserve a buyback?
No. It is not a price-support program and Chainlink has not committed to a purchase price or schedule. It is a treasury funded by converting service revenue into LINK, and the accumulated tokens are time-locked with no withdrawals expected for multiple years.

Why is LINK still down if the reserve keeps buying?
The reserve’s buying — about $5.4 million over 30 days — is small relative to LINK’s $9.3 billion market cap and daily turnover. It is a steady structural bid, not a price catalyst, and it has not offset the broader altcoin repricing through 2026.

AUTHOR

Jide Idowu is a skilled freelance writer with expertise in blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, and digital finance. Known for his ability to break down complex topics into clear, engaging content, Jide crafts articles, blog posts, and analyses that resonate with both beginners and seasoned professionals. His work spans a wide range of subjects, from emerging crypto trends to in-depth explorations of blockchain innovations. With a keen eye for detail and a passion for educating readers, Jide is a reliable voice in the rapidly evolving world of digital assets.

Zakura has launched P2Pv2, an experimental networking layer for Zcash (ZEC) built on QUIC. It runs on Testnet by default, with Mainnet support planned later.

Zakura (@ZakuraZcash) has launched P2Pv2, an experimental networking layer designed to improve block propagation on Zcash (@Zcash) $ZEC. The upgrade is aimed at one of the main constraints on scaling the privacy-focused network: how quickly full nodes can exchange block data.

P2Pv2 runs alongside the existing peer-to-peer network layer. Mainnet support is planned for a later stage.

What P2Pv2 changes

The design also adds more control over resources.

The Visa-scale targetThe longer-term goal is to help Zcash scale toward 50,000 transactions per second.

Zakura is a full node implementation that launched earlier this year.

Risks and statusThe upgrade is still early.

For now, the testing phase on Testnet will show whether the new networking layer can deliver on those goals before any move to Mainnet.

Sources

ChainCatcher: Zakura releases experimental P2Pv2
Zakura Core GitHub repository
TechFlow: Zcash Q3 Report on Zakura

Cover image via U.Today

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

The NEAR Protocol ecosystem has reached peak operational efficiency metrics. Over the last 24 hours, transaction volume through the NEAR Intents cross-chain swap protocol hit $130.7 million. The current surge keeps the platform's 30-day turnover at $4.59 billion, and cumulative trading volume since launch has exceeded $35 billion.

$130.7M traded through NEAR Intents in the last 24h.
7-day run rate $859.9M; $4.59B over 30 days. https://t.co/hyoDSJsoZw

— NearStats (@nearstatsorg) October 19, 2026

You Might Also Like

HOT Stories

At the same time, the native NEAR token has settled in the $4.97–$5.10 range, quickly buying back the short-term market dip to $4.62. Large capital is clearly entering the network for specific practical purposes rather than for speculation.

Institutions, Zcash, and Paranoid Security: How This Growth WorksDaily activity was driven by a sharp surge in demand for protected transactions, which now generate almost a tenth (9.4%) of NEAR Intents' total monthly volume. In monetary terms, this hidden liquidity flow amounted to $91.9 million. The main direction of capital movement was direct cross-chain transfers between Zcash (ZEC) and Bitcoin (BTC). 

Over the course of the day, on-chain radars recorded a series of large transactions by institutional players (whales), who converted hundreds of thousands of dollars from shielded ZEC pools directly into BTC in one click. 

As a result, the ecosystem's confidential TVL (total value locked) settled in the $151–$152 million range, turning the platform into one of the key legal hubs for protected operations.

You Might Also Like

In parallel, NEAR's technological focus has shifted toward long-term protection against fundamental risks. Co-founder Illia Polosukhin confirmed that users can migrate the keys of their NEAR accounts to the post-quantum ML-DSA standard right now. NEAR's architecture allows security standards to be updated within the wallet seamlessly, without affecting the funds themselves and removing the need to use third-party bridges.

Bitwise NEAR ETF (NRR) daily net inflows and net assets chart as of October 2026, Source: SoSoValueThe network's technical resilience is also supported by Wall Street money. The spot Bitwise NEAR ETF (NRR) recorded a daily net inflow of $2.61 million, raising cumulative inflows to $83.05 million. The fund's net assets under management reached $82.36 million (1.26% of NEAR's total market capitalization), which is a strong protective buffer for the market. 

The network itself is digesting these volumes without delays. The decentralized MPC computation system has expanded to 17 independent operators, which has stabilized block generation time. Meanwhile, the recent liquidation of short positions on exchanges has noticeably eased selling pressure, clearing the way for a test of local resistance levels.

Anthropic / Wikimedia Commons (Public domain)

Anthropic, a prominent AI company, has seen its tokenized pre-IPO asset become available on CoinGecko, despite lacking a public stock ticker. The asset, issued as a tokenized proxy by PreStocks, is now available for exchange on the Solana blockchain. This token offers a speculative glimpse into Anthropic’s valuation ahead of its confidential IPO filing with Nasdaq. Priced around $984.87, the token reflects a market capitalization of approximately $7.56 million, with a 24-hour exchange volume reaching $274,000 on October 19, 2026.

Key Takeaways Market activity suggests increased interest in Anthropic’s pre-IPO valuation, consistent with increased market cap predictions. Current market pricing implies a moderate likelihood of Anthropic’s market cap exceeding certain thresholds at IPO close. Exchange activity around the tokenized asset could indicate market confidence in Anthropic’s future public valuation. What to Watch Observers should monitor any updates regarding Anthropic’s official IPO filing with the SEC and potential Nasdaq listing details. The token’s pricing trends may provide further insights into market sentiment and anticipated valuation at the time of public offering. Market participants will likely pay attention to any new disclosures from Anthropic that could affect its perceived valuation and influence market outcomes.

Anthropic Ipo Closing Market Cap Higher Strikes

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 2026 5.6% — — View market → December 31 2026 8.2% — — View market → December 31 2026 18.8% — — View market → December 31 2026 25.5% — — View market → December 31 2026 19.1% — — View market → December 31 2026 9.5% — — View market → December 31 2026 3.6% — — View market → December 31 2026 3.9% — — View market → December 31 2026 5.9% — — View market → December 31 2026 1.9% — — View market → Anthropic Ipo

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31, 2026 75.5% — — View market → July 1 2027 0.2% — — View market → July 1 2027 62% — — View market → July 1 2027 74.5% — — View market → July 1 2027 13.4% — — View market →

Zug, Switzerland, October 19th, 2026, Chainwire

StakerX’s AI Agent Surpasses Passes $40M Staked Assets on Solana Within Three Months of Launch

StakerGPT trades crypto markets around the clock and publishes every trade it makes, as more than 8,200 users join the platform

StakerX.ai, an agentic trading platform built by Switzerland-based StakerX Strategies AG, has passed $40 million in assets staked on Solana less than three months after its public launch on July 13, 2026. Users fund their stakes with more than 40 cryptocurrencies from most major blockchains, and StakerGPT, the platform’s agentic trading agent, puts that capital to work in crypto perpetual futures markets every day.

An AI agent that shows its work

An agentic system is AI software that carries out a multi-step task on its own. StakerGPT is built on rare-access Claude Mythos: it monitors crypto markets around the clock, reasons over potential trade setups, filters them through risk controls and routes the approved trades for execution, without a human placing each order.

Every trade is public. StakerX publishes the full record daily at stakerx.ai/trades, with the market, direction, entry and exit prices and return of each position, including both live-executed and signal-derived trades. As of October 18, 2026, the record holds 804 trades across 139 trading days since June 1, 2026, so anyone can check what the agent did on any given day instead of relying on summary figures.

Fund it with almost any coin

Users can deposit USDC, USDT, BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, TRX and more than 30 other cryptocurrencies from Solana, Ethereum, Bitcoin, BNB Chain, Base, Arbitrum, Polygon, Tron and other networks. Each deposit is converted and credited as USDC, a dollar-backed stablecoin, on Solana, so users do not need to bridge or swap anything themselves. Stakes start at $10 and run for 30 days.

Three months of growth

As of October 18, 2026, StakerX.ai reports:

$40 million currently staked on the platform
More than 8,200 registered users, of whom more than 3,000 have funded an account
804 trades published across 139 trading days
More than 27,700 completed withdrawals, totalling $10+ million
Nearly $12 million in yield credited to users since launch

Coming to the App Store and Google Play

StakerX is preparing native mobile apps for iOS and Android, expected in December 2026, which will bring the dashboard, deposits and the live StakerGPT trade record to the Apple App Store and Google Play. The platform is available today on the web at stakerx.ai.

About StakerX

StakerX is an agentic trading platform built and operated by StakerX Strategies AG, a quantitative trading and investment firm based in Switzerland. Its AI trading agent, StakerGPT, is built on rare-access Claude Mythos and evaluates crypto markets, applies risk filters and routes trades, and the platform publishes every trade in its record daily. Its goal is to make agentic trading accessible to anyone who holds crypto, from any chain, with every trade on the record. StakerX launched publicly on July 13, 2026. More information is available at stakerx.ai.

Media contact

Rimma S. – StakerX Strategies AG | Media Relations

[email protected]