Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Litecoin experienced a renewed price uptick following the announcement of a significant institutional custody development. The value of LTC climbed 2.39% over the last 24 hours, reaching $44.61 and maintaining its position above an important support level at $42.62, while approaching a resistance range between $44.61 and $46.00.

Technical rebound faces resistanceAfter recording a peak near $61 in May, Litecoin’s price fell sharply through June, briefly touching lows around $38. Recently, buyers have re-entered the market, pushing the price back to current levels.

The daily chart reflects a period of exhaustion and stabilization. Indicators such as the MACD show the main line at -0.15, the signal line at -0.35, and the histogram at 0.20. The shift from negative to mild positive histogram values hints at easing bearish conditions, yet the trend has not fully turned bullish.

A close above the $44.61–$46.00 resistance zone could reinforce the recovery trend. Conversely, any drop below $42.62 risks another test of June’s lows.

Momentum indicators demonstrate a cautiously optimistic tone, but the technical landscape is still searching for a convincing bullish signal, with continued recovery in progress according to MACD readings.

Clearstream integrates Litecoin custodyLite Strategy disclosed that Clearstream, one of two international central securities depositories and a subsidiary of Deutsche Börse, has incorporated Litecoin into its regulated custody service for institutional clients. Clearstream oversees more than €15 trillion in assets, providing post-trade settlement for global securities markets.

LTC is now settled through CryptoFinance AG, a MiCAR-licensed sub-custodian. This arrangement enables financial institutions to hold Litecoin with their current banking relationships, removing the need for a separate crypto-specific counterparty.

While the announcement quickly drew attention with over 1,900 views within a few hours, market participants view the custody upgrade as a medium-term catalyst rather than a reason for immediate price action.

This move expands institutional access to LTC, offering new infrastructure for regulated digital asset custody rather than serving as a trigger for a single-day rally.

Mini dictionary: Clearstream is one of two global central securities depositories, providing post-trade settlement services for institutional assets and part of the Deutsche Börse Group.

Clearstream’s integration of LTC into its custody platform is regarded as a structural improvement for institutional involvement, although it may not immediately reflect in the price.

Market positioning and network activityOpen interest in Litecoin futures dropped from about $320 million to $100 million in early June, mirroring the price decline. Since then, traders have gradually returned, with open interest now back in the $270 million to $300 million range.

DefiLlama reports that Litecoin’s total value locked (TVL) fell from $3 million to approximately $1.2–$1.5 million by July. Despite this, the number of active addresses has remained stable, fluctuating between 250,000 and 300,000 over the same period.

MetricMay PeakJune LowCurrentLitecoin Price$61$38$44.61Open Interest$320 million$100 million$270–$300 millionTVL$3 million$1.2 million$1.2–$1.5 millionActive Addresses~300,000~250,000250,000–300,000The technical and on-chain data show a market in the process of recovery, but without confirmation of a consistent trend reversal. The evolving custody framework and open interest figures provide reasons for cautious optimism, though market direction remains undecided pending further institutional activity or technical confirmation.

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

XRP has reached a notable step toward broader adoption in traditional finance after the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) categorized it as a cryptocurrency within its Learning Center, drawing renewed institutional interest. DTCC, a critical clearinghouse that processes trillions of dollars in U.S. securities trades daily, discussed XRP’s potential role in collateral and clearing arrangements, increasing the asset’s profile in regulated financial circles.

XRP gains visibility in DTCC guidanceOn-chain analytics provider Archie observed that XRP now appears in DTCC’s educational materials, explaining specifically how it may be considered for collateral management and clearing procedures. While the Learning Center is an informational resource and not a regulatory mandate, XRP’s listing signals that DTCC clients and partners are actively reviewing how cryptocurrencies might be handled in real-world finance operations.

The inclusion is considered significant given DTCC’s central position within the U.S. securities infrastructure, influencing the processes by which institutions manage risk, optimize collateral, and meet regulatory requirements.

DTCC presents XRP alongside its guidance for cryptocurrencies, outlining scenarios in which the digital asset could be designated as collateral and specifying how market volatility may affect its eligibility and capital efficiency in institutional settings.

The development comes as more major financial bodies assess digital assets for integration into existing settlement and risk frameworks, a trend that could help bridge the gap between traditional and crypto markets.

Haircut methodology brings new standardsAs part of its updates, DTCC outlined haircut rules for cryptocurrencies, including XRP. Haircuts refer to the percentage by which the value of an asset is reduced when calculating its collateral value, typically as a buffer against volatility and risk.

Chad Steingraber, a market analyst, noted that DTCC’s educational framework proposes higher haircuts for XRP valued at $5 or below. If XRP’s price exceeds this threshold, it may be subject to a standard 35% haircut or a charge calculated using the Value-at-Risk (VaR) method, with final levels set according to market liquidity and other risk factors. The $5 mark is not presented as a target but rather as a notional reference point for illustrating the rules within the learning resource.

A higher haircut reduces the amount of capital an institution can borrow using the asset as collateral, while a lower haircut increases its capital efficiency and attractiveness for financial operations.

ScenarioXRP Price ($)Haircut AppliedBelow Benchmark$5 or lessHigher haircut (exact figure not specified)Above BenchmarkOver $535% haircut or VaR chargeSteingraber believes that inclusion in DTCC’s guidelines enhances XRP’s credibility as an asset considered for sophisticated institutional operations.

Mini dictionary: Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) is a major financial services company in the United States, responsible for clearing and settling almost all securities transactions in the country’s financial markets.

Institutional integration and future prospectsDTCC’s mention of XRP follows its broader move toward utilizing blockchain and digital asset solutions in live financial infrastructure. The corporation recently shifted from pilot blockchain projects to deploying tokenization infrastructure, enabling regulated digital assets and collateral to move seamlessly across its network.

Ripple, through its platform Ripple Prime, is already working with DTCC’s digital asset ecosystem, offering institutional-grade custody and trading services that support the integration of cryptocurrencies like XRP into major clearing and settlement workflows.

This collaboration brings the potential for digital assets to attain broader acceptance as credible collateral in mainstream finance, expanding their use beyond speculative trading to functions such as capital optimization and liquidity management.

These developments highlight how the evolving treatment of assets like $XRP in clearinghouse policies and integration initiatives can accelerate their adoption across institutional markets and shape the infrastructure governing digital finance’s next era.

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

Bitmine Immersion Technologies is not buying Ethereum in small, cautious increments. The NYSE-listed firm, chaired by Fundstrat co-founder Tom Lee, has purchased an additional 6,000 ETH for roughly $11.18 million, part of a broader accumulation week that added 27,801 ETH to its balance sheet.

That brings total holdings to 5,770,038 ETH as of July 12, 2026, a number that represents 4.8% of Ethereum’s entire circulating supply of approximately 120.7 million tokens.

The scale of what Bitmine is doing here The company has a self-declared goal it calls the “Alchemy of 5%”, targeting ownership of 5% of the total ETH supply by the end of 2026. At 4.8%, it is close enough to smell the finish line.

Bitmine’s total asset base sits at approximately $11.3 billion, which includes 206 BTC and $482 million in cash and marketable securities alongside the ETH stack. The ETH was priced at roughly $1,820 per token at the time of the latest accumulation figures.

Advertisement

The firm closed a $273.8 million Series A Preferred Stock offering on June 10, 2026, which funded a meaningful portion of the accumulation strategy. ARK Invest’s Cathie Wood is among the institutional backers.

Bitmine was also added to the Russell 1000 index on June 26, 2026, a milestone that forces passive index funds to buy the stock and expands the firm’s investor base significantly.

Staking turns the ETH pile into a yield engine Bitmine has fully staked 4,917,189 ETH through its proprietary MAVAN platform, earning annualized yields of approximately 2.70%.

At that rate, the staking operation generates expected annualized revenues of $242 million. The ETH holdings are not just sitting there appreciating or depreciating with market conditions — they are actively producing income.

Why Robinhood Chain matters to this thesis Tom Lee flagged the July 1, 2026 launch of Robinhood Chain, a Layer 2 network built on Arbitrum, as a relevant data point for the firm’s Ethereum conviction.

The network processed over $1 billion in transaction volume using ETH shortly after launch. That matters because every transaction on an Ethereum L2 that uses ETH for fees is a small incremental demand signal for the underlying asset Bitmine has accumulated in enormous quantity.

What this means for the broader market Bitmine’s accumulation pace is large enough to have actual supply implications. Locking 4.9 million ETH in staking contracts removes those tokens from liquid circulation, which tightens the available float for trading.

The $273.8 million capital raise was designed specifically to fund further accumulation. The risks are also not small. A sustained ETH price decline compresses the dollar value of the treasury rapidly, given the size of the position. Staking yields provide a partial cushion, but they do not fully offset a meaningful drawdown in ETH price. Regulatory treatment of large-scale staking operations remains an open question in multiple jurisdictions, and any adverse ruling on whether staking rewards constitute securities income could affect the economics of the MAVAN platform.

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

Chainlink Integrates U.S. Department of Commerce Data For Macro Oracle Feeds is the kind of story that can look simple at first glance, but it carries more weight once you place it inside the week’s broader crypto backdrop. The point is not to dress the headline up into something bigger than it is. The point is to understand why it is being watched now.

For more details, visit the official Chainlink platform.

TL;DR Chainlink Integrates U.S. Department of Commerce Data For Macro Oracle Feeds is the main story for Chainlink today.Chainlink feeding verified U.S. macroeconomic data on-chain assists structured financial contract settlement.The cleaner read is to focus on what Chainlink actually shows, not to overstate what the update proves. What Changed This Week Oracle and interoperability integrations matter because they are the connective tissue behind tokenized assets, cross-chain applications, and institutional settlement. That is the lens I would use here. The update is not valuable because it gives traders a magic answer. It is valuable because it adds another reliable data point to a market that has been moving quickly and, at times, messily.

Explain that this feed supports inflation-linked bonds validation on Arbitrum and Polygon. That detail is important because it gives the story a specific centre of gravity. Without that, it would be too easy to turn this into a generic market move or a recycled headline.

For readers, the useful question is not simply whether Chainlink is getting attention. It is whether the underlying development changes access, liquidity, regulatory clarity, infrastructure reliability, or trader positioning. In this case, the answer is that it does give the market something concrete to evaluate.

The source trail matters here. The article is based on Chainlink, which is a cleaner starting point than relying on second-hand summaries or social chatter.

Where The Story Goes Next The immediate read is also different depending on who is watching. Traders may focus on price and liquidity, while builders or compliance teams may care more about the rule, integration, product, or infrastructure detail. That split is exactly why the story is worth handling as a standalone article rather than burying it in a broader recap.

There is also a timing element. The July 15 update arrives after several sessions where crypto markets have been sensitive to macro headlines, ETF flows, regulatory signals, and exchange-level product changes. Any credible update that touches one of those channels is going to attract attention.

What should be avoided is the temptation to turn one development into a sweeping conclusion. A listing is not the same thing as adoption. A price rebound is not the same thing as a confirmed trend reversal. A new rulemaking step is not the same thing as final legal certainty. The value is in the narrower, more accurate read.

Chainlink-related integrations often matter because they sit beneath the user-facing product. Traders may focus on LINK, but builders care about secure messaging, data feeds, and whether institutions trust the infrastructure enough to use it.

The Bottom Line For now, the story gives the market one more piece of evidence about where Chainlink sits in the current cycle. It may be about regulatory clarity, a product rollout, a price level, or a piece of infrastructure, but the same rule applies: the strongest conclusion is the one that stays closest to the source.

If follow-up data confirms the direction of travel, this could become part of a larger narrative. If not, it still gives readers a useful snapshot of how quickly crypto’s active themes are rotating across policy, infrastructure, payments, exchanges, and market structure.

That is why this deserves coverage now. It is not about forcing a dramatic market call. It is about giving readers a clear, grounded explanation of what happened, why it matters, and what still needs to be watched.

This report is based on information from Chainlink.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

Coinbase is pulling the plug on USDC deposits and withdrawals through the Noble network, giving users until August 17, 2026 to sort out their stablecoin logistics.

Noble is a dedicated appchain in the Cosmos ecosystem built specifically for moving digital assets across the broader Cosmos network. It launched native USDC issuance in partnership with Circle back in September 2023, and currently holds roughly $132 million in USDC.

Advertisement

A broader cleanup, not just a one-off This isn’t an isolated move. Coinbase is also ending support for cbETH, its liquid staking token, on Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon on that same August 17, 2026 date.

What this means for Cosmos users Before Noble, getting USDC into Cosmos-based DeFi protocols meant going through bridging processes that added friction, cost, and risk. Noble offered a cleaner path: Circle-issued USDC that could flow natively through the Inter-Blockchain Communication protocol, connecting Cosmos chains without the usual bridge headaches.

Users who currently rely on Coinbase for Noble-based USDC transactions will need to pivot to alternative supported networks. Ethereum, Base, and Solana remain available options for USDC deposits and withdrawals.

The $132 million in USDC currently on Noble won’t vanish overnight. Circle still issues USDC natively on the chain, and other exchanges or on-ramps may continue supporting it.

For investors holding USDC on Noble through Coinbase, the action item is straightforward: migrate before August 2026. That could mean withdrawing to a supported network like Ethereum or Base, or finding an alternative exchange that maintains Noble support.

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

Aave, which operates one of the largest onchain lending markets, has launched Aave V4 on Avalanche as it looks to accelerate lending for tokenized assets and institutional finance, according to a Wednesday statement.

The move marks Aave V4’s first deployment beyond Ethereum. Avalanche is a high-performance blockchain network designed to support digital finance, including decentralized finance, real-world asset tokenization and institutional blockchain applications.

The launch aims to enable specialized credit markets backed by tokenized real-world assets and extends Aave’s long-standing presence on Avalanche, where its V3 protocol has facilitated billions of dollars in liquidity. It also serves as the blueprint for Aave V4’s multichain expansion strategy, with future deployments tailored to the strengths of individual blockchain ecosystems.

Advertisement

Aave said the deployment leverages Aave V4’s Hub and Spoke architecture to support future tokenized asset markets with dedicated borrowing markets, shared liquidity infrastructure, and tailored collateral and risk frameworks.

According to Aave Labs founder Stani Kulechov, Avalanche’s combination of an established Aave ecosystem and growing tokenization activity makes it the ideal first destination for expansion.

“Aave V4 was designed to enable new credit markets at internet scale. Avalanche is a natural destination for the first expansion of Aave V4 beyond Ethereum because it combines a mature Aave lending market with a rapidly growing ecosystem for tokenized assets,” Kulechov commented on the move.

“That combination creates new opportunities to deepen liquidity, improve capital efficiency, and expand access to borrowing against tokenized assets. That’s exactly why one of the first markets we plan to launch on Avalanche is a dedicated credit market for tokenized assets,” he added.

Ava Labs President John Wu said the integration advances the use of tokenized assets by giving institutions access to borrowing and liquidity infrastructure comparable to traditional financial markets.

“The next phase of tokenization is about putting assets to work, not just bringing them onchain,” Wu stated. “Aave V4 on Avalanche is an important step toward making that a reality and advancing the shift to a more efficient, onchain financial system.”

Aave said the platform is designed to support tokenized real-world assets including US Treasuries, money market funds, private credit, and corporate bonds.

The team added that one of the first planned deployments on Avalanche will be a dedicated market for tokenized assets, allowing institutions to borrow against tokenized collateral while accessing Aave’s shared liquidity network.

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

Do trades fill better on Solana than on Coinbase? JTX's new Good Trade feature puts that to the test on every order.

Listen

0

0:00 0:00

Subscribe to Bankless or sign in

Jito launched JTX yesterday, bringing a new self-custodial trading platform to Solana just as onchain speculation intensifies again. Founder Lucas Bruder (you may know him as buffalu) joined the podcast alongside the launch to explain why the team that spent years building Solana's backend now believes it can build the frontend traders use.

After months of attention tilting toward Hyperliquid, SOL has outperformed every other major, including HYPE, over the past month while ANSEM pulled traders back into the trenches. But Hyperliquid is no longer the only rival. Robinhood Chain is drawing speculative volume of its own, and it arrives with retail distribution neither Solana nor Hyperliquid can match.

Solana's problem was never capability. It has the assets, the liquidity, and the execution. What it lacks is coherence. Trading on Solana still means moving between wallets, aggregators, charting platforms, portfolio trackers, meme terminals, and individual protocols. Useful as those are, they leave the chain without a single professional front door.

Jito wants JTX to be that gateway: one interface that unifies Solana trading and proves it's simply better trading onchain here compared to offchain.

— Bankless (@Bankless) July 15, 2026 What Is JTX?JTX is Jito's new self-custodial trading platform, initially focused on spot markets across majors and established speculative assets (not lowcap memes).

It's not the first platform to try to organize Solana trading. Axiom already serves much of its meme economy, while wallets and aggregators reach many of the same markets.

JTX's pitch rests less on inventing a new interface than on where Jito started.

If Solana were a building, Jito has spent years behind the walls, working on the plumbing and electrical systems that keep activity humming. Its infrastructure already shapes whether trades land quickly and reliably.

JTX turns those years of learning what makes the network tick into a clean consumer product with the execution to match, built for a trader Bruder calls "the prosumer," i.e. someone who wants Solana's speculative breadth with the tools and presentation of a professional exchange.

JTX's wager is that a team that understands Solana from the inside can build a better way to trade on its surface, and pull more users onto it in the process.

Enjoying this article?

Subscribe to Bankless or sign in

— Bankless (@Bankless) July 15, 2026 Who Is JTX Competing With?Bruder does not treat Jupiter, Pump.fun, or the protocols feeding JTX's liquidity as the real competition. Those are pieces of the Solana stack JTX packages. The target he names is grander: centralized exchanges, and eventually Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange.

The whole thesis turns on one conviction: a trade can fill better on Solana than on Coinbase or Kraken. Jito builds that claim straight into the product. Through a feature called "Good Trade," JTX runs your order against the major centralized exchanges at the moment you trade and shows how the onchain fill compared and how much you saved.

— buffalu (@buffalu__) July 13, 2026 Two things make the claim credible. Solana's execution has matured to where onchain prices now rival a centralized exchange's. And Jito knows the network better than anyone routing across it from the outside: where trades get slow, where they get sandwiched, and which routes quietly cost users money. JTX routes around all of it.

None of this edge comes from special access. JTX gets no preferential treatment from Jito's infrastructure. The advantage is knowledge, not privilege, which is why Good Trade matters. It benchmarks every fill against the exchanges in real time, so no one has to take this edge at their word. Bruder says early results already show majors are cheaper to trade on Solana. If the onchain fill isn't better, the feature says so. Jito is grading its own execution in public, one trade at a time.

What Comes Next and Where JTO FitsFor all that ambition, JTX launches with spot alone. Tokenized equities, perpetuals, and prediction markets come later.

Bruder is particularly focused on tokenized equities, JTX's clearest bridge beyond crypto-native trading. Solana already hosts multiple versions of the same stocks across issuers and liquidity pools. JTX hopes to hide that fragmentation behind a cleaner equity-trading experience.

As JTX adds markets, its growth also feeds Jito's token economics. Under JIP-38, a governance proposal put forward alongside the launch, 20% of platform fees would fund continued development while the DAO's 80% share would go toward programmatic JTO buybacks and burns through at least Q4 2027. That's the right mechanism for value accrual, though its impact depends on JTX's fee rate and whether the product attracts meaningful volume.

JTX was built to give users access to the markets that live on winning infrastructure.

The value it creates should flow back to the Network.

JIP-38 proposes directing 100% of the DAO’s share of JTX fees towards buying back and burning $JTO programmatically for 1 year. https://t.co/Eq0kNySNYL

— JTX (@jtx_trade) July 13, 2026 Bruder himself is unbothered by Robinhood. He calls its distribution "incredible," notes Solana's is strong too, and is open to integrating other chains eventually, just not yet. His ambition runs past any single rival: to let users "trade any asset in the world," on Solana first and maybe beyond. The pressure is real, but it is distribution, not any one chain, that JTX has to answer.

Hyperliquid demonstrated what happens when a blockchain and its flagship trading product feel like one integrated system. Robinhood Chain is now testing whether a consumer brand with real distribution can pull the same trick from the outside. JTX is Solana's answer: packaging its much broader speculative economy into a similarly coherent product.

Its first challenge is making that economy feel like one professional market. Its larger one is proving, through the fills displayed inside Good Trade, that Jito's backend expertise can produce a frontend traders choose over existing onchain environments, and eventually the centralized exchanges against which JTX grades itself.

Jito Declares War on Coinbase & Binance | Lucas Bruder on the Launch of JTX on Bankless

Onchain trading infrastructure is reaching a point where it can seriously compete with centralized exchanges.

BanklessBankless

0

WOO X, a leading global centralized digital asset exchange, and Payward Services, the B2B infrastructure platform from Payward, the company behind global crypto platform Kraken, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to bring crypto trading to WOO X’s European users through Payward Services’ trading-as-a-service offering.

Under the agreement, the companies intend to enable spot crypto trading for WOO X’s EU users powered by Payward’s regulated European infrastructure and licensing. WOO X will join a growing roster of financial institutions using Payward Services’ trading-as-a-service offering, including bunq, one of Europe’s leading neobanks.

“We’re excited to bring WOO X the power of fifteen years of Payward’s regulated infrastructure, creating an easy path to meet customer demand with an expanded trading offering and the right licenses to unlock crypto trading across the EU. When partners work with Payward Services, they can launch crypto trading in a few weeks without building complex in-house infrastructure,” said Mark Greenberg, Global Head of Payward Services.

About WOO X WOO X is a leading global centralized digital asset exchange built by traders, for traders. Backed by YZi Labs (formerly Binance Labs) and engineered by a premier team of quantitative traders, engineers, and technologists originating from top-tier Web2 and Web3 projects, WOO X delivers an elite trading environment tailored for both retail and institutional investors. The platform is globally recognized for its superior trade execution, offering deep aggregated liquidity, ultra-tight spreads, and zero-slippage execution.

Prioritizing user trust and platform integrity, WOO X features an industry-first, live-updating Proof of Reserves and Liabilities transparency dashboard. The exchange offers advanced trading architecture, fully customizable workspaces, and professional-grade infrastructure that supports flexible, professional withdrawal standards alongside top-tier asset custody solutions. Driven by a corporate culture of compliance, technical excellence, and relentless innovation, WOO X continues to pioneer transparent, high-performance trading environments for the global digital asset ecosystem.

For more information, visit https://www.wooxpro.com/ ; https://woox.io/ 

Payward Services is the B2B infrastructure platform built on 15 years of operating Kraken, one of the world’s largest crypto platforms. Through a single integration, partners can access crypto and tokenized equity trading, fiat and stablecoin payments, yield, lending, prediction markets and derivatives. Fintechs, banks, brokerages, payment providers, exchanges, consumer tech platforms and asset managers can use Payward Services to offer digital assets to their clients without building the stack themselves.

For more information, visit https://www.payward.com/payward-services .

Risk Disclaimer

The content above is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, solicitation, or offer to buy or sell any product or service.

Cryptocurrencies and related instruments involve significant risks, including extreme volatility. You should carefully consider your investment objectives, experience, and risk tolerance before engaging in any crypto-related activities. We strongly recommend consulting a qualified independent financial advisor before making any decisions.

WOO shall not be liable for any direct or indirect loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on this information.

Nothing in this article creates or implies any partnership, joint venture, agency, or other legal relationship between WOO and its collaborators. Each party remains fully independent and responsible for its own actions and risks. This content does not guarantee any business outcomes, success, or profitability.

Disclaimer: TheNewsCrypto does not endorse any content on this page. The content depicted in this Press Release does not represent any investment advice. TheNewsCrypto recommends our readers to make decisions based on their own research. TheNewsCrypto is not accountable for any damage or loss related to content, products, or services stated in this Press Release.

Arbitrum-based DeFi protocol Ostium has halted trading after a reported exploit in its OLP vault led to an estimated $18 million USDC loss.

Security firm Blockaid, the first to report the incident, said the attacker manipulated oracle data to generate fake trading profits.

Advertisement

🚨 Blockaid detected an @Ostium Vault exploit on Arbitrum.

An attacker used a registered PriceUpKeep forwarder and future-dated authorized oracle reports to create artificial trade profit, triggering a ~$18M USDC payout from the vault.
More details in 🧵

— Blockaid (@blockaid_) July 15, 2026

Blockaid said the attacker used a registered PriceUpKeep forwarder and future-dated authorized oracle reports to fabricate trading profits, allowing them to extract roughly $18 million USDC from the vault.

Ostium said it was aware of the incident. The project has suspended all trading activity, and is actively investigating the issue.

We are aware of the issue with the OLP vault. We have paused all trading. The team is investigating.

— Ostium (@Ostium) July 15, 2026

Ostium provides perpetual trading for tokenized real-world assets, giving users onchain access to markets beyond crypto. The project recently secured $20 million to grow its decentralized platform for trading real-world assets via perpetual futures.

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

LayerZero Addresses Theft Fears Head-OnCross-chain messaging protocol LayerZero (@LayerZero_Core) has moved to quash fears of a security breach, confirming that funds flagged as suspicious were not stolen. According to the protocol's own disclosure, the movements were carried out as part of "standard inventory operations" and do not represent a loss of user assets.

The team was clear on two points: funds are not at risk, and the executor wallet in question was not compromised. The statement came in response to circulating reports that suggested a potential exploit or unauthorised withdrawal had taken place.

What Is a LayerZero Executor and Why Does It Matter?The executor wallet sits at the centre of how LayerZero delivers messages across blockchains. Executors ensure the seamless execution of messages on the destination chain by following instructions set by the application owner on how to automatically deliver omnichain messages. In practical terms, an executor is an off-chain service that executes messages on the destination chain after verification. Because executor wallets handle destination-chain gas and delivery, they hold operational balances that can be moved in the ordinary course of protocol management, making routine withdrawals easy to misread from the outside.

It is also worth noting that, by design, even if all executors go offline, messages remain safe and can be delivered later, while verifiers cannot censor execution. This architectural separation between verification and execution is a core safety feature of LayerZero v2.

LayerZero is one of the more widely used cross-chain infrastructure layers in the market. The protocol is the messaging foundation behind more than 733 omnichain fungible tokens, including Tether's USDT0 and PayPal's PYUSD, that have collectively processed over $166.9 billion in cross-chain transfers.

For now, LayerZero says operations are normal and users have no cause for concern. The episode is a reminder of how quickly on-chain wallet movements can be misread, particularly for infrastructure protocols where operational wallets regularly cycle funds as part of day-to-day management.

Sources:
LayerZero Documentation: Executors
LayerZero Official Website

Hyperliquid has added a pre-IPO perpetual market linked to ChangXin Memory Technologies, or CXMT, giving traders synthetic exposure to the Chinese chipmaker before its Shanghai debut.

Summary

Hyperliquid listed a CXMT pre-IPO perpetual as the chipmaker prepares its July 27 Shanghai debut. CXMT’s contract price near $8 implied a $535 billion valuation, 526% above its IPO price. The market offers synthetic exposure, not ownership of CXMT shares listed on Shanghai’s STAR Market. The contract, listed as xyz, traded near $8 on July 15, according to on-chain market data cited by Hyperinsight. Applied to CXMT’s expected post-IPO share count of 66.881 billion shares, that price implies a valuation near $535 billion, about 6.3 times its official IPO valuation.

Hyperliquid Lists CXMT, Potentially A-Share’s Largest IPO and 4th-Largest DRAM Maker

Following the listing of the “CSI STAR Market 50 ETF”, Hyperliquid has officially added ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT). As A-share listings such as CXMT on the STAR Market require a RMB… pic.twitter.com/eGSQvziPpZ

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) July 15, 2026 Hyperliquid opens a synthetic route to CXMT The CXMT contract operates through Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework, which allows outside deployers to create perpetual markets linked to assets beyond cryptocurrencies. These markets trade as derivatives rather than spot securities, so the CXMT contract does not provide ownership, dividends or voting rights in the Shanghai-listed company.

Individual investors on China’s STAR Market generally face a RMB 500,000 asset threshold and a two-year trading-experience requirement. Hyperliquid offers a separate synthetic market that can give eligible users price exposure without access to the underlying A-share. The distinction also means the contract price can differ sharply from CXMT’s official share price.

CXMT contract trades far above IPO valuation CXMT priced its IPO at RMB 8.66 per share and expects to raise about RMB 57.9 billion, or $8.55 billion, before any over-allotment option. Reuters reported that the deal will be Asia’s largest IPO of 2026 so far and China’s biggest A-share semiconductor offering, surpassing SMIC’s 2020 share sale.

At the offer price, CXMT’s expected post-listing value is about RMB 579.2 billion, or roughly $85.5 billion. A synthetic price near $8 implies about $535 billion, placing the Hyperliquid contract around 526% above the dollar equivalent of the IPO price. The gap reflects pricing in a separate derivatives market and does not set CXMT’s official equity valuation.

China’s largest DRAM maker prepares for listing CXMT is China’s largest DRAM producer and ranks fourth globally, behind Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix and Micron. Recent market estimates place its global DRAM share near 8%. The company has expanded as China invests heavily in domestic semiconductor production and demand for memory chips grows alongside artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Reuters also reported that CXMT secured a long-term memory supply agreement with Tencent worth more than RMB 20 billion, or about $2.94 billion. Investor subscriptions for the STAR Market offering begin on July 16, while the shares are scheduled to start trading in Shanghai on July 27. CXMT plans to use the IPO proceeds for production and technology investment.

Hyperliquid widens its real-world asset markets Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework allows builders to launch perpetual markets linked to stocks, commodities and other real-world assets. A pre-IPO SpaceX contract also traded through the framework, showing how on-chain derivatives can create markets around companies before their public shares become available.

Hyperliquid has also expanded its connection to tokenized securities. As reported by crypto.news, Ondo Finance brought 35 tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs to HyperEVM in June. Those products differ from the CXMT perpetual because tokenized securities can use structures backed by assets held through custodians, while perpetuals provide synthetic price exposure.

The CXMT market gives traders another route to speculate on a major public offering before its debut. Attention will now turn to whether the 526% premium narrows before subscriptions start and after the underlying shares begin trading on the STAR Market.

For five consecutive days, a launchpad that did not exist a month ago collected more protocol fees than Pump.fun. On its best day, NOXA took in $2.33 million while the Solana incumbent, the platform that has minted eleven million tokens and defined an entire market cycle, managed $575,500.

Summary

NOXA briefly out-earned Pump.fun and became Robinhood Chain’s dominant launchpad before its website went offline. CASHCAT’s $226 million market capitalization depends less on token mechanics than on attention, discovery, and launchpad infrastructure. The outage did not stop CASHCAT from trading, but it threatened the interface that drives creator fees, discovery, and momentum. Locked liquidity protects against one kind of rug, but it does not protect a memecoin from losing attention. The real test is whether NOXA’s interface, fee claims, and market share recover before competitors absorb its launchpad flow. NOXA had launched more than 60,000 tokens, captured roughly 75% of all deployments on Robinhood Chain, and pulled 267,642 unique wallets onto a network that went live on July 1. Its flagship asset, a cat themed memecoin named CASHCAT, had run to a market capitalization of $226 million.Then the website went down. It stayed down for two days.Not the chain. Not the pools. Not the tokens. The front end, the thing that made all of it legible, the interface where creators claimed fees and buyers found what was trending and the entire machinery of manufactured urgency lived. It returned an error, and it kept returning an error while the market it had built continued trading without it.

The official explanation is a Cloudflare problem. The team’s account remains active, telling users a new site is in testing and that creator fees will be claimable through the interface once it goes live. Nothing in the public record contradicts that account. Nothing in the public record confirms it either, and in a market where the base rate for launchpad tokens dying is somewhere around 98%, two days of silence from the infrastructure holding a nine figure ecosystem is not a neutral event. It is a live experiment in what a memecoin is actually worth when the machine that made it stops answering.That experiment has a number attached, and the number is $226 million.

Noxa the launchpad on Robinhood casually decided to rug and take down their website after making $10m in a week

They could've just kept it live and disappeared, they would've made more money

People can't even scam properly these days 😭😭😭 https://t.co/zj2gbXDQar

— Jeremy (@Jeremybtc) July 14, 2026 What CASHCAT is, and why it exists Cash Cat was the original name Robinhood’s founders considered for the company, a detail preserved in a decade old tweet from chief executive Vladimir Tenev and in an early mascot the brokerage used before it became a mainstream financial institution. When Robinhood launched its own layer 2 network on July 1, the mascot was sitting there, unclaimed, perfectly formed as a memecoin premise: the discarded name of a company now worth tens of billions, revived on that company’s own chain.

Somebody launched it on NOXA. It worked spectacularly. CASHCAT rose more than 5,530% over seven days and more than 1,400% in a single twenty four hour stretch, hitting an all time high near $0.1418 while bitcoin fell roughly 2% over the same window, which is the clearest possible evidence that nothing macro was driving it. Onchain analysts surfaced the trades that make these markets self sustaining: one wallet turned $838 into $1.05 million over twenty days, another converted $86 into $1.6 million. Tenev himself posted about the chain’s ability to host both memecoins and real world assets, and attention did the rest.

There were no exchange listings. There was no protocol upgrade, no partnership, no treasury, no roadmap, and no team in any conventional sense. There was a joke about a company’s abandoned name, deployed on that company’s chain, at the exact moment the chain became interesting. That is the entire fundamental basis of a $226 million asset, and stating it plainly is not a criticism. It is a description of the category, one that governs the whole meme coins sector and has for years. Attention was the product, and the product sold.

Công nhận chain Robinhood nhà giàu có khác.

Chỉ trong vòng chư đầy 1 tuần lễ con hàng top 1 meme CASHCAT đạt hơn 180M mcap.

Dòng tiền đang đổ dồn về Robinhood Chain volume mỗi ngày đâu đó toàn gần 1B$ trong lúc market đang down sml.

Nếu mà con hàng meme CASHCAT… pic.twitter.com/apGbjqhdXv

— LeDuc (@LeDuc_03) July 14, 2026 The launchpad that ate Robinhood Chain NOXA’s rise is the more revealing half of the story, because it exposes how much of a memecoin ecosystem is infrastructure rather than tokens.NOXA Fun is a hybrid launchpad. Where Pump.fun runs a custom bonding curve and migrates liquidity to an open exchange at graduation, NOXA deploys an ERC-20 and adds single sided liquidity to a Uniswap V3 pool in one transaction, making the token tradable on a public exchange from its first block. The liquidity position is locked permanently in a locker contract that never moves and cannot be pulled, which removes the classic liquidity drain rug and eliminates the migration window that has historically been the riskiest moment in a bonding curve launch. On its own terms the design is more conservative than the model it competes with, and understanding why requires knowing how liquidity pools and automated market makers actually work.

The platform layered on protections as it scaled: anti-vampire measures, anti-bundling detection, multi wallet controls, iterating fast enough that observers noted it week by week. Its native token, deployed on a different chain entirely and pending migration, carried a fully diluted valuation of $11 to $12 million after the team burned about 40% of supply, against $11 million in cumulative fees across four days. Pump.fun’s fully diluted valuation, for comparison, sits near $1.5 billion.

That gap is the valuation paradox the market has been arguing about all week. A platform earning at the rate of the category leader, valued at under 1% of it. There are three readings and they cannot all be right. The bullish one says the market has not repriced yet and NOXA is the most obvious mispricing on any chain. The structural one says fee run rates from a chain in its second week are not a business, they are a spike, and pricing a spike at Pump.fun multiples would be insane. The dark one says the discount is the market’s estimate of how likely the whole thing disappears.

Two days of downtime moved that argument out of theory.It is worth noting how quickly the market found the argument in the first place. Traders were circulating the fee-to-valuation gap within days of NOXA’s rise, framing it as an obvious mispricing against Pump.fun. That enthusiasm is itself information: a discount this visible on an asset this liquid is rarely a gift. Markets price launchpad tokens cheaply for the same reason they price mining stocks cheaply during a boom, because everyone can see that the current rate of extraction has nothing to do with the durable rate.

The mechanics of a two week fee explosion The scale of what NOXA collected deserves unpacking, because the number is doing something other than what it appears to do.Launchpads earn on activity. A creation fee when a token deploys, a share of trading fees on every swap through the pool, and in NOXA’s structure, fees flowing from Uniswap V3 positions at the 1% tier that the platform’s tokens use. None of that revenue depends on any token succeeding. It depends only on churn, and churn is exactly what a brand new chain with a retail audience and 19,000 daily deployments produces in abundance. Across four days the platform booked roughly $11 million against a token valued at $12 million, which reads as an obvious arbitrage until you ask the question underneath: is that four day rate a business or a weather event?

The comparison to Pump.fun cuts both ways here. Pump.fun’s $1.5 billion valuation rests on two years of proven durability across multiple attention cycles, a graduated exchange of its own, a completed billion dollar token sale, and a fee base that survived the collapse of the memecoin mania that created it. NOXA has a fortnight, on a chain with a fortnight, in the single most favorable conditions any launchpad will ever see: a novel network, a mainstream brand halo, no competitors holding entrenched positions, and a flagship token running 5,000% in a week. Annualizing that is not analysis. It is extrapolation from a peak.

Which is why the outage is such an efficient test. If the fee run rate was a business, it survives two days offline and resumes. If it was a weather event, the two days are the whole event, and the rate never returns because the conditions that produced it were never repeatable. The market gets its answer within a week, and it gets it cheaply, which almost never happens in this asset class.

What the outage actually threatens Here is the part that matters for CASHCAT holders, and it is more subtle than it first appears.The tokens are fine. That is not a reassurance; it is a technical fact with sharp edges. CASHCAT is an ERC-20 on Robinhood Chain, trading against a Uniswap V3 pool whose liquidity is locked in a contract that operates whether or not anyone can load a website. Uniswap does not need NOXA. The chain does not need NOXA. Any wallet can interact with the pool directly, and any aggregator can route to it without the launchpad’s involvement or permission. In the strict sense, a launchpad outage cannot touch the assets it launched, and anyone claiming CASHCAT holders are trapped has confused the interface with the market.

What the outage threatens is everything around the token. Creator fees accrue through the platform, and the team’s own statement acknowledges that claiming them requires the interface, meaning revenue owed to thousands of token deployers currently sits behind a domain that does not resolve. Discovery collapses without the front end: new tokens launch elsewhere, existing tokens lose the trending feeds and progress bars that manufacture the urgency these markets run on. And the flywheel reverses. Onchain data already showed new memecoin creation on Robinhood Chain climbing past 19,500 in a day while competing launchpads including flap.sh, trensh.today, and bankr absorbed share that NOXA could not defend from behind an error page.

So the honest framing of the risk is not that CASHCAT stops trading. It is that CASHCAT stops mattering. A memecoin’s value is the attention flowing through it, the attention is manufactured by an interface, and the interface has been offline for the two most valuable days a two week old ecosystem will ever have.

🔥 Cuộc chiến meme trên Robinhood đang cực kì căng thẳng. Đâu sẽ là cái tên thay thế vị trí Noxa để lại ?

Ngay sau khi Noxa tuyên bố shutdown rất nhiều meme đã dump vì user thất vọng với dự án

Rất nhiều Kols đang thi nhau shill con hàng $Marian như là kẻ thay… https://t.co/fmDwc9qbmb pic.twitter.com/EQ6U6vKi6H

— HC Gem Alerts (@HCGemAlerts) July 15, 2026 Is this a rug? The question is being asked openly, and it deserves a rigorous answer rather than a vibe.Take the case for calm first. The team is publicly communicating during the outage, which is close to disqualifying as rug behavior: the defining feature of an exit is silence, deleted accounts, and vanished channels, not status updates about a staging environment. Liquidity is locked by design and cannot be withdrawn, so the single most common rug mechanism is architecturally unavailable here. The platform burned 40% of its own token supply days before going dark, an odd move for anyone planning to sell the rest. Cloudflare outages are real, routine, and have taken down far larger properties than a two week old launchpad. And the underlying economics are absurd for an exit: a platform earning millions in fees per day has vastly more to gain from staying online than from disappearing with whatever sits in a fee contract.

Now the case for concern. Two days is a long outage for an infrastructure problem that the operator attributes to a third party content delivery network, and it is exactly as long as it takes for competitors to take a market. Creator fees being unclaimable during the outage means real money is unreachable for real users, whatever the cause, and the promise to make them claimable “once the new site goes live” converts a technical failure into a trust exposure with no deadline attached. The platform’s own token lives on a different chain pending migration, which is an added moving part at precisely the wrong moment. And the category’s history is unkind: the industry’s canonical rug taxonomy distinguishes hard rugs, where developers vanish, from soft rugs, where involvement gradually decays while the thing quietly dies, and soft rugs look exactly like an infrastructure problem that never quite resolves.

The evidence, weighed honestly, favors the boring explanation. A team executing an exit does not typically burn its own supply, lock its liquidity permanently, post status updates, and abandon a business printing seven figures a day. But the market is not pricing the probability of a rug. It is pricing the probability of irrelevance, which is a different and much higher number, and two days offline in a launchpad war is how irrelevance starts.

There is also a category error worth naming, because it is corrupting the discourse around this. A rug is an act by an identifiable party who takes something they controlled and should not have taken. A collapse is a market outcome in which nobody did anything wrong and the money disappears regardless. Memecoin markets produce collapses at overwhelming rates without any fraud involved, which means most tokens that go to zero were never rugged, they were simply correct valuations of nothing arriving on schedule. Applying the word rug to a launchpad outage flattens that distinction and, more practically, sets holders up to look for the wrong evidence. They watch for a villain when the thing actually killing their position is indifference.

What would settle it is specific and observable. Watch whether the new interface ships and creator fees actually become claimable. Watch whether NOXA’s fee share recovers or whether flap.sh and its peers keep the ground. Watch the team’s wallets. Watch whether Robinhood Chain’s daily token creation stays near Solana’s or reverts once the novelty burns off. None of those require trusting anyone’s statement.

What the numbers actually say about the ecosystem Look past the fees at the composition of the activity, and a less flattering picture emerges.More than 60,000 tokens launched through NOXA. Of those, the platform’s own interface displays a handful with meaningful market capitalizations, headed by CASHCAT, with the rest of the visible field clustering in the hundreds of thousands or low millions and the long tail invisible entirely. Peak single day volume of $252.9 million across the platform, with a single project accounting for $224 million of a comparable day, means the flagship was not one asset among many. It was the market, and everything else was noise around it.

That concentration is the ecosystem’s actual risk profile. A launchpad whose fee base is one token’s trading is not a platform, it is a single asset’s plumbing, and its revenue lives or dies with the attention on that one asset. The 640,000 unique holder addresses and 267,000 wallets NOXA brought onto Robinhood Chain are impressive as a distribution achievement and mostly irrelevant as a durability signal, because holders of a token that ran 5,000% in a week are not users, they are a queue.

None of this is unique to NOXA. It describes Pump.fun’s first year, Four.Meme’s ascendancy, LetsBonk’s arrival, and every launchpad that has ever briefly topped a fee chart. What is unique here is the timing: a platform reached that concentration and then lost its interface, in the same fortnight, on a chain that had no proven alternative for anyone to fall back to. The stress test arrived before the structure was finished.

The dependency nobody priced Strip the specifics away and the CASHCAT situation exposes a structural feature of this entire market that the fair launch ideology obscures.

The pitch for permissionless launchpads is that they remove intermediaries. No gatekeepers, no vetting, no company standing between a creator and a market. Bonding curves and locked liquidity mean the platform cannot rug you, which the industry has treated as the end of the argument about platform risk.

It is not. The platform cannot take your tokens, and it does not have to. It can simply stop generating the attention that gives them value, and the tokens will die exactly as thoroughly as if it had drained the pool. Locked liquidity protects the mechanism and does nothing for the market. A permanently locked Uniswap position holding a token nobody is looking at is a monument, not an asset. The lock guarantees you can always sell. It guarantees nothing about whether anyone will be there to buy, and those are the only two facts that matter, in that order.

This is the same lesson that keeps arriving in different costumes. When a DAO’s treasury drained through a governance process working exactly as designed, the failure was not in the code, a dynamic crypto.news traced in detail in its account of how BonkDAO lost $20 million in a single vote. When BNB Chain’s Four.Meme briefly flipped Pump.fun on daily revenue, the lesson was that launchpad dominance is a function of where attention currently lives and nothing more durable than that. Infrastructure risk in crypto is rarely custodial. It is attentional, and no audit measures it.

CASHCAT holders own an asset with permanently locked liquidity on a chain backed by a publicly traded brokerage, launched through a platform with better rug protections than the category leader, and every one of those facts is true and none of them answers the only question that determines their outcome, which is whether anyone is still looking in a month.

Robinhood’s problem, arriving on schedule There is a second party to this that has said nothing, and its position gets more uncomfortable by the day.Robinhood Chain launched as infrastructure for onchain finance and real world asset tokenization. What it got in its first fortnight was a memecoin casino, more than $3 billion in decentralized exchange volume, honeypot tokens proliferating fast enough that cross chain provider Relay Protocol began publicly blocking them, and a scam token that used the hijacked accounts of SpaceX and Starlink to rob buyers on its rails, an episode that arrived within weeks of SpaceX joining the Nasdaq-100 with its trade already running on crypto rails. NOXA, the largest single application on the chain, states plainly in its own interface that it is an independent project not affiliated with Robinhood Markets.

That disclaimer is doing an enormous amount of work. It is legally accurate and commercially irrelevant. A retail brokerage’s brand is on the chain, retail users are the audience, and the flagship asset of the ecosystem is literally named after the company’s original name and modeled on its own former mascot. Robinhood did not build CASHCAT, did not endorse it, and under the architecture it chose, cannot remove it. It will nonetheless own every consequence in the public reading, and its silence through both the SCATMAN affair and the NOXA outage suggests a company that has not decided what it wants to say, or has decided that saying anything invites the responsibility it structured the chain to avoid.

The permissionless design that made the chain’s launch explosive is the same design that makes the next fortnight unmanageable. That is not a contradiction anyone has solved, on any chain, including the ones without a brokerage’s name on them.

Where this lands Three outcomes are live, and the market is currently paying for the middle one.NOXA returns, ships the new interface, unlocks creator fees, and reclaims its share. The outage becomes a footnote, the valuation paradox resolves upward, and CASHCAT trades on whatever attention Robinhood Chain retains once its novelty is priced. This is the likeliest single outcome and the least interesting.

NOXA returns and the market has moved. The fees flowed to flap.sh and the rest during the blackout, the trending feeds rebuilt themselves elsewhere, and NOXA is a large historical fee number attached to a platform nobody defaults to anymore. CASHCAT survives as an artifact of a moment, drifting on whatever residual community persists. This is the outcome that history most often delivers, because attention is the least loyal asset in this market and switching costs between launchpads are effectively zero. A creator chooses a platform in seconds and abandons it just as fast.

NOXA does not return in a form anyone trusts. The creator fees stay unclaimed, the explanation stays thin, and a two week old chain learns that its dominant application was a single point of failure with a status page. CASHCAT’s locked liquidity keeps a market technically alive at a price that reflects nobody caring.

The tokens survive all three scenarios. That is precisely the point that the fair launch pitch never quite says out loud: survival of the contract and survival of the value are unrelated propositions, and the second one depends entirely on infrastructure that owes its users nothing and can go dark for two days without breaking a single promise it ever made.The $226 million question is not whether CASHCAT can still be traded. It is whether $226 million was ever a fact about the token, or a fact about the launchpad, briefly measured through it.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Figures on protocol fees, token counts, market capitalizations, and wallet activity derive from third party sources including DefiLlama, Dune, Lookonchain, and platform interfaces, not from audited disclosures. No rug pull has been confirmed and the platform attributes its outage to a third party service failure. Details reflect information current as of July 14, 2026, and are subject to change. Always do your own research.

Galaxy Digital Head of Research Alex Thorn stated that between 2024 and 2025, a significant volume of long-dormant Bitcoin (BTC) was reactivated and transferred on-chain, with the activity’s scale second only to 2017. He noted that the "Great Distribution" phase driven by this wave of old BTC reactivation has now largely concluded, and it is projected that the number of BTC reactivated in 2026 will be less than half of the 2025 figure.

Relevant content

Bank of America: Fund managers’ bullishness on US stocks hits highest level since December 2024.

Bank of America’s Global Fund Manager Survey shows that fund managers’ bullishness toward U.S. stocks has reached its highest level since December 2024. A net 24% of respondents expect U.S. equities to outperform other regions, marking the third-highest allocation weight to U.S. stocks over the past five years. In contrast, investors have cut their allocations to British stocks, with fund managers’ confidence in London-listed shares falling to its lowest point since August 2020. Compared to other regions, the UK stock market has underperformed so far this year: London’s FTSE 100 has risen 5.7% year-to-date, while the S&P 500 has gained more than 10%.

6 minutes ago

SK Hynix's US-listed ADR premium over its Korean shares narrowed to 30.7%.

According to market data from BIT (bit.com), SK Hynix (SKHY) is down 5.8% in U.S. pre-market trading, with its current share price at $182.6. Bitget market data shows that SK Hynix’s closing price on the South Korean stock market today is 2,082,000 won, equivalent to roughly $1,397. Given each SK Hynix ADR represents one-tenth of an ordinary share, the $182.6 price is 30.7% higher than $139.7 (one-tenth of $1,397), a sharp narrowing of the premium from the 51.5% recorded at this morning’s U.S. stock close.

6 minutes ago

Warren Buffett: Not investing in Google back then was a mistake, and it is "more likely to be a winner" now.

Warren Buffett just stated that failing to invest in Google back then was a mistake, noting that based on its current performance, the company is now "more likely to be a winner". He also reaffirmed his optimism about Berkshire Hathaway's investment in Apple. Greg Abel is the current "decision-maker", but neither side will take any action that the other does not endorse. According to market data from BIT (bit.com), Google's US-listed stock is down 0.5% in pre-market trading, while Berkshire Hathaway currently holds approximately $310 billion worth of shares in Alphabet, Google's parent company.

6 minutes ago

Trump’s permanent daylight saving time bill passes the US House of Representatives review.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Sunshine Protection Act in a bipartisan vote of 308 in favor and 117 against. The bill aims to make daylight saving time permanent, adopting the current March-to-November schedule year-round. This would permanently set the U.S. stock market opening time to 9:30 PM (UTC+8), instead of switching to 10:30 PM (UTC+8) during standard time periods. States may opt out before the bill takes effect. The legislation has now been sent to the Senate for consideration and has not yet passed the upper chamber. Donald Trump publicly supports the bill, noting that the biannual clock adjustments impose huge economic costs, and he will work to push it into law. Some Republicans oppose the measure, arguing that later winter sunrises will harm student safety on their way to school, possibly leading to students commuting in darkness or delayed class start times. Supporters contend that eliminating clock changes can improve sleep, reduce accidents, and boost economic activity.

6 minutes ago

BNB has completed its 36th quarterly token burn, totaling approximately 1.6158 million BNB, valued at around $913.7 million.

BNB Chain completed its 36th quarterly BNB burn today, with a total of 1,615,827.795 BNB destroyed, valued at approximately $931.7 million at the time. The burn was executed via BSC’s on-chain Auto-Burn mechanism, and the transaction hash has been made public. The remaining total BNB supply stands at around 133.17 million. BNB’s ongoing goal of reducing its total supply to 100 million is aimed at boosting its deflationary properties and supporting the growth of the BNB Chain ecosystem.

6 minutes ago

Stable announces the launch of StablePay, a global USDT-based daily payment application.

Stable, a USDT blockchain platform focused on stablecoin payments, has announced the launch of StablePay, a global daily USDT payment application that integrates everyday USDT payment and yield-earning features into a single mobile app, with no delays, no fees, and frictionless transactions.

6 minutes ago

In June 2025, a week before the XRP Ledger’s EVM sidechain went live, the team building it published the arithmetic of what was coming. Polygon had contributed somewhere between $2 billion and $6 billion in total value locked to Ethereum, up to a tenth of the whole.

Summary

The XRPL EVM sidechain promised a $600 million to $12 billion TVL uplift but holds only $25,741 after one year. The chain is technically live, audited, and maintained, but almost no users or capital have arrived. Moai Finance has recorded just $95,008 in cumulative spot volume across the sidechain’s entire existence. XRPL’s institutional mainnet activity grew while permissionless EVM DeFi failed to gain traction. The result suggests EVM compatibility alone does not create demand without users already waiting for cheaper or better execution. If the XRPL EVM sidechain matched that trajectory, the post argued, the uplift to the XRP Ledger would run from $600 million to $12 billion, and it would fundamentally change the demand curve for XRP. Ninety entities were already building. Sixty days of testnet had pulled in developers who had never touched the XRP ecosystem. The technology was ready. The builders were here.The sidechain launched on June 30, 2025. The anniversary passed two weeks ago.

As of July 14, 2026, total value locked on the XRPL EVM sidechain is $25,741, according to DefiLlama. Chain fees over the past 24 hours: zero. Chain revenue: zero. Decentralized exchange volume over 24 hours: zero. Over seven days: also zero. The largest protocol on the chain, a decentralized exchange called XRiSE33 Network, holds $11,909. The second largest, a launchpad named Riddle, holds $8,831. Moai Finance, the only protocol on the chain that has ever recorded meaningful trading, has done $95,008 in cumulative spot volume across its entire existence and currently holds $1,117.

The low end of the projection was $600 million. The delivery is $25,741. That is not a shortfall. It is a rounding error against a rounding error, and it is the most instructive number in the XRP ecosystem right now, because of what else the same ledger accomplished during the same twelve months.

What was actually built The technical work was not the problem, and it is worth stating that clearly before the autopsy.The XRPL EVM sidechain is a Cosmos SDK chain running Ethereum Virtual Machine compatibility, connected to the XRP Ledger mainnet through the Axelar bridge, which links more than eighty networks. XRP is the native gas token. Bridged XRP locks on mainnet and mints a synthetic version on the sidechain, so the design preserves mainnet supply integrity while freeing the asset for smart contract use. Consensus is proof of authority, targeting up to 1,000 transactions per second at fees far below Ethereum’s. Squid handles cross-chain transfers as the official interface. Band Protocol supplies oracles, Grove supplies public RPC endpoints. Wormhole integration was slated to follow, extending reach to more than 200 applications across 35 ecosystems.

Ripple built it with Peersyst and contributors from the Cosmos community. crypto.news covered the mainnet launch on June 30, 2025, where Ripple’s David Schwartz framed the sidechain as extending the ecosystem without altering what makes the XRP Ledger reliable. The launch roster included Strobe, a money market for lending and overcollateralized borrowing; Securd, a lending protocol for financing collateralized leverage; Vertex, a derivatives venue; plus Moai, Elys, XRise, and Hammy. The infrastructure was audited end to end. Subsequent releases hardened it further, with a v11 upgrade focused on economic security, IBC transfer hardening, and proof of authority validator management, and an upgrade to Cosmos EVM v0.4.1 adding ERC-20 mint and burn plus current Ethereum improvement proposals.

None of that is vaporware. Every component works. Someone can bridge XRP to the sidechain right now, deploy a Solidity contract, and trade on a decentralized exchange. The chain is live, secure, and functionally complete.It is also empty.That is the part worth sitting with, because it inverts the usual crypto post-mortem. The standard failure story is a project that promised more than it could build: the whitepaper outran the engineers, the deadlines slipped, the product never shipped or shipped broken. XRPL EVM shipped, on schedule, working, audited, and maintained through multiple upgrades over the following year. Every promise about the technology was kept. The only promise that failed was the one about people.

The decline, measured The most damning fact is not the small number. It is the direction.In August 2025, roughly six weeks after launch, DefiLlama showed the sidechain hosting three decentralized exchanges and a single launchpad, with combined total value locked of $100,818. Twenty four hour volume across the entire chain was $3,238, every dollar of it from Moai Finance. Riddle, XRiSE33 Network, and SurgeDefi recorded no trading activity whatsoever. Developer data at the time counted 168 developers on XRPL EVM against 8,448 on Ethereum, a gap of roughly 98%.

That was the bad news at six weeks. Today, eleven months later, total value locked is $25,741. The chain lost roughly three quarters of the little it had. The protocol count is nominally higher, with Midas RWA, Hyperithm, Portal, Axelar, and an NFT marketplace called Mintiq now listed, but every one of those additions reports zero total value locked on this chain. They are multi-chain protocols that support XRPL EVM the way a restaurant supports a dietary restriction: the option exists on the menu and nobody orders it.

The volume figures are what turn an underperformance into something stranger. Zero over 24 hours. Zero over seven days. Moai Finance, the chain’s only functioning exchange by any historical measure, shows $95,008 in cumulative volume since inception. Not per day. Total, across a year of operation, on the flagship DeFi venue of a chain built for a token with a market capitalization near $68 billion.

A chain with $25,741 of capital and no trading is not a slow start. It is a chain nobody is using, and the trend line says that fewer people are using it every month.For scale, the entire TVL of the sidechain is currently less than the value of roughly 24,000 XRP. Ripple releases a billion tokens from escrow on the first of every month. The whole DeFi economy built on top of the XRP Ledger, through the official sidechain, could be funded out of forty thousandths of a single monthly escrow tranche.

Who was supposed to show up Reading the launch roster a year later is the clearest way to see what went wrong, because the roster was not thin. It was specific.Strobe was announced as a money market for lending and overcollateralized borrowing on XRPL. Securd was to provide passive income by financing collateralized leverage across DeFi positions. Vertex was a derivatives platform optimizing capital efficiency. Between them, those three cover the load-bearing categories of any DeFi economy: lending, leverage, and derivatives. Add a decentralized exchange for spot, an oracle from Band, RPC infrastructure from Grove, and a cross-chain interface from Squid, and the stack on paper was complete. Nothing essential was missing.

Today none of those three names appears among the protocols holding capital on the chain. The entire TVL sits in two decentralized exchanges and a launchpad. The lending market that would have made bridged XRP productive, the derivatives venue that would have given traders a reason to keep collateral there, the leverage layer that generates the recursive deposits which inflate every chain’s TVL figure: none of it materialized in a form anyone funded.

That absence explains the volume better than any macro argument. A chain with only spot DEXs and no credit has no reason to hold capital between trades. Money arrives, swaps, and leaves. On chains where TVL compounds, it compounds because deposits are collateral, collateral is borrowed against, and the borrowings are redeposited. Without a lending market, TVL is just the float sitting in a few pools, and $25,741 is what that float looks like when almost nobody is swapping.

The irony is precise. The lending layer the sidechain needed and never got is now being built on the mainnet instead, in a permissioned, institutionally underwritten form that has nothing to do with the EVM. The sidechain was the place DeFi was supposed to happen. Credit went somewhere else, and the sidechain was left holding the part of DeFi that cannot sustain itself alone.

Why the projection was never plausible The Polygon comparison that produced the $600 million to $12 billion range deserves scrutiny, because in retrospect it was comparing two things that share almost no structural features.

Polygon captured Ethereum overflow. It existed because Ethereum’s fees became unbearable during periods of intense demand, and there was a vast population of users and developers already transacting on Ethereum who wanted the same applications for less money. The demand preceded the chain. Polygon did not create appetite for DeFi; it captured appetite that already existed and had nowhere cheaper to go. Add hundreds of millions of dollars in liquidity incentives and a mature Ethereum tooling ecosystem that ported over with a config change, and the TVL followed the demand.

XRPL EVM inverted every one of those conditions. There was no congestion to relieve, because the XRP Ledger has never been congested. There was no population of XRPL DeFi users seeking cheaper execution, because XRPL DeFi barely existed: the ledger’s total value locked has run under 0.05% of its market capitalization, against roughly 20% for Ethereum and 10% for Solana. That statistic was cited in the launch material as the size of the opportunity. It is more accurately read as the size of the demand problem.

Six million XRPL wallet holders were presented as a distribution advantage, but they were six million holders of a payments asset who had spent a decade not asking for smart contracts. The sidechain did not remove a barrier between XRP holders and DeFi. It tested whether the barrier was the reason, and the answer came back no.The Peersyst material was explicit that testnet momentum arrived organically, without incentives or paid marketing, and treated that as evidence of underlying pull. Ninety logos on a testnet is a real signal of developer curiosity. It is not a signal of user demand, and the distinction is the whole story: developers show up to explore new chains constantly, at near zero cost, and the tourism ends when nobody trades.

The comparison that hurts Here is why this matters beyond a dead sidechain: the XRP Ledger had an extraordinary year, on the mainnet, at exactly the same time.

Tokenized real-world assets on the XRP Ledger grew from under a billion dollars at the start of 2026 to roughly $3.5 billion, and the ledger has led the market on 90-day RWA inflows, adding $1.9 billion. In May 2026, Ondo Finance executed the first cross-border, cross-bank redemption of tokenized United States Treasuries on the XRPL, clearing in seconds, with JPMorgan and Mastercard involved in the surrounding work. RLUSD grew past a $1.5 billion market capitalization. The native automated market maker and multi-purpose token amendments both passed validator votes. The XLS-65 and XLS-66 lending amendments are in validator voting now, an effort crypto.news examined in its analysis of what on-chain credit would mean for XRP.

The mainnet, in other words, went and built exactly the thing the sidechain was supposed to enable, using its own native primitives, aimed at institutions instead of Solidity developers, and it worked. Institutional tokenization found the XRP Ledger without an EVM. Permissionless DeFi did not find it with one.

That contrast reframes the sidechain from a failed product into a resolved question. The bet was that XRPL’s problem was programmability, and that giving Ethereum developers a familiar environment on top of XRP liquidity would unlock a DeFi economy. Twelve months of data says the problem was never programmability. It was that the XRP ecosystem’s actual demand is institutional settlement, and institutional settlement does not want an EVM sidechain with proof of authority consensus and a bridge. It wants permissioned pools, credentialed counterparties, and off-chain underwriting, which is precisely what the mainnet amendments deliver.

Notice also where XRP-adjacent DeFi capital actually went. VivoPower allocated $100 million through Flare, a separate network built specifically to give XRP holders DeFi access, rather than through Ripple’s own sidechain. When money did move toward XRP DeFi, it routed around the official product.

The case that this is unfair The bearish read above deserves an honest counterweight, and there is a real one.Timing first. The sidechain launched on June 30, 2025, roughly three weeks before XRP’s cycle high near $3.65, and spent its entire first year inside the worst crypto drawdown since 2022. Bitcoin fell more than 40% from its October peak. Digital asset funds ran multi-billion dollar outflow streaks. Three consecutive losing quarters, the longest streak since the last bear market, with institutional capital rotating into artificial intelligence equities. TVL across the market compressed. Judging a new chain’s ecosystem formation against a projection written in a bull market, and measured entirely inside a bear market, stacks the comparison. Polygon’s $2 billion to $6 billion was built during a mania.

Second, no incentives. Polygon’s TVL was purchased. Hundreds of millions in liquidity mining subsidies pulled capital that largely left when the subsidies stopped. XRPL EVM launched with none, which is defensible as a matter of discipline and fatal as a matter of cold-start economics. Liquidity begets liquidity, and a chain with $25,741 cannot attract a trader who needs to move $50,000 without moving the price against themselves. Every DeFi ecosystem that reached scale bought its first users. Refusing to do so is a choice with predictable consequences, not evidence that the underlying idea is wrong.

Third, sequencing. The credit layer was always the point. RippleX’s own framing describes a deliberate progression: represent value, move value, trade value, finance value. The lending amendments now in voting are the fourth step, and they are being built on the mainnet with institutional design constraints, not on the sidechain. If the strategy is institutional DeFi rather than retail DeFi, then the sidechain was never the main line. It was an option that Ripple bought cheaply, and options that expire worthless are still rational to have purchased.

Fourth, the infrastructure persists. A chain is not a startup that folds. It runs, it gets upgraded, and it costs almost nothing to leave running. If the market turns, if incentives arrive, if a single application finds product-market fit, the environment is there, audited and connected to eighty networks. Twelve months is a short window for infrastructure that took years to build.

Fifth, and least comfortable for the bears: the metric itself is contested. Total value locked measures deposited capital, not usefulness, and it is trivially gamed by recursive lending and mercenary liquidity on chains that do buy their numbers. A chain with honest, unincentivized TVL of $25,741 and a chain with subsidized TVL of $500 million are not obviously ranked the way the figures suggest. That argument does not rescue XRPL EVM, because zero volume is not a metrics artifact, but it is a fair caution against treating one number as a verdict on an entire architecture.

The case that it is worse than it looks Now the harder reading, which the numbers support more directly.The bear market explains compression. It does not explain zero. Solana’s memecoin economy generated tens of billions of dollars of volume through the same drawdown. Robinhood Chain launched on July 1, 2026 into the identical macro and did more than $3 billion in decentralized exchange volume in two weeks, with 19,586 tokens created on a single day. Hyperliquid, Base, and BNB Chain all sustained real activity. Capital did not stop moving in 2026. It moved somewhere else. The absence of incentives explains a smaller number; it does not explain a chain where the flagship exchange has done $95,000 in trading across its entire existence while a two-week-old competitor chain did $3 billion.The declining trend is the tell. $100,818 in August 2025 to $25,741 in July 2026 is not a chain waiting for conditions to improve. It is a chain being abandoned by the little capital that tried it. Bear markets thin the field; they do not usually take three quarters of the liquidity from a chain that started with almost none.

And the developer number from August was the leading indicator everyone skipped: 168 developers against Ethereum’s 8,448. Chains are not built by logos on a testnet. They are built by people shipping applications that someone wants to use, and the ratio said, six weeks in, that the ninety entities had not converted into an ecosystem. The launch roster is the proof. Strobe, Securd, Vertex: named as launch partners, and today the chain’s entire TVL sits in two DEXs and a launchpad nobody trades on. The applications that were supposed to give the chain a reason to exist either never shipped at scale or shipped and found nobody.

The strategic cost is subtler than the wasted engineering. For a year, “XRPfi” and the EVM sidechain functioned as an answer to the hardest question about XRP, which is how any of Ripple’s progress reaches the token. The sidechain made XRP the gas asset of a DeFi economy, which would have generated real, recurring token demand. That answer is now empirically closed, and it closes at the same moment as the structural finding that most of Ripple’s bank partners never touch XRP at all. Two of the three main value-accrual arguments for the token have now been tested against data in the same quarter. Both came back thin.

What the $25,741 is actually evidence of Step back from XRP entirely, because the finding generalizes.The industry has spent five years treating EVM compatibility as a growth strategy. The reasoning is seductive: Ethereum has the developers, the tooling, the mental models, and the applications, so any chain that speaks Solidity inherits access to all of it at the cost of an engineering project. Dozens of chains have run this play. A few worked. Most produced exactly what XRPL EVM produced, which is a technically excellent environment with nobody in it.

The reason is that EVM compatibility removes a supply-side constraint and does nothing to the demand side. It makes building easier. It does not make anyone want the thing built. When a chain has organic demand and a technical barrier, removing the barrier unlocks enormous value, which is the Polygon story and the Arbitrum story. When a chain has a technical option and no demand, removing the barrier produces an empty room with excellent acoustics.

The diagnostic question is therefore simple and almost never asked before a chain commits to the work: is there a queue? Not a waiting list of developers, who are cheap to attract and cost nothing to lose, but users currently doing the thing somewhere worse and paying for the privilege. Polygon had a queue. Arbitrum had a queue. XRPL EVM had a hypothesis that six million payment-asset holders would become DeFi users once the tooling arrived, and hypotheses are not queues.

XRPL had the cleanest possible version of the test. Six million wallets. A top-ten asset. Twelve years of uptime. Deep liquidity. Real regulatory standing. A functioning native DEX. Every input the thesis requires, and a year later the DeFi economy built on top of it holds less capital than a used car. If EVM compatibility were the unlock, it would have worked here. The mechanics of liquidity pools and automated market makers are identical on XRPL EVM to what they are on Ethereum. The pools are simply empty, because pools are filled by people who want something, and nobody wanted this.

The lesson costs Ripple very little and should cost the next chain a great deal. The company retained an option, learned that its DeFi demand is institutional rather than permissionless, and redirected to native amendments aimed at exactly that. That is a reasonable outcome from a cheap experiment. The problem belongs to everyone still pitching an EVM layer as a demand strategy, because the most rigorous public test of that thesis just returned $25,741 and no volume, and the DeFi industry has not noticed.

The number to remember The projection was $600 million to $12 billion. The delivery is $25,741 and zero trading volume, twelve months later, on a chain that works perfectly.That gap is not a failure of engineering, marketing, timing, or macro, though each contributed at the margin. It is a measurement. Somebody asked, with real money and real code and a well-built product, whether the XRP ecosystem wanted permissionless DeFi. The ecosystem answered. The answer was no, and it took a year and a nine-figure projection to hear a number that fits on a single line of a spreadsheet.

XRPL’s institutional story is doing better than it has ever done. Its DeFi story is a chain with $25,741 on it and nobody trading. Both of those things are true at once, and anyone building a thesis on XRP needs to hold both, because the second one used to be an argument and is now just a data point.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Total value locked, volume, and protocol figures are drawn from DefiLlama as of July 14, 2026, and change continuously; TVL is a contested metric and methodologies differ between trackers. Historical figures are attributed to the sources that reported them at the time. Projections cited were published by the sidechain’s development team and are not forecasts by crypto.news. Details reflect information current as of July 14, 2026. Always do your own research.

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has defended XRP advertising in college sports after critics called for tighter restrictions on crypto promotion. 

Summary

David Schwartz argues truthful XRP advertising receives First Amendment protection against broad government restrictions nationwide. His argument cites Supreme Court rulings that struck restrictions on lawful alcohol and gambling advertising. Commercial speech remains regulable, meaning the Constitution does not automatically block every potential advertising restriction. The debate followed the University of Kansas athletics program’s decision to place XRP branding on team uniforms under a multi-year partnership with Ripple.

In a July 15 post on X, Schwartz argued that governments cannot broadly suppress truthful advertising for lawful products simply because officials believe consumers may make poor decisions. His position centers on First Amendment protections for commercial speech.

The United States has the First Amendment. If you want to restrict or can speech, you need to find some exception it fits into. I don't think there is one here. See the cases I cited including one involving liquor and one involving gambling.

— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) July 14, 2026 Schwartz turns XRP advertising debate into constitutional question The discussion began after critics compared crypto promotion in college sports with advertising for gambling, tobacco and alcohol. They argued that universities should not expose students and younger sports fans to digital asset marketing.

Schwartz responded with a legal argument rather than a defense of XRP as an investment. He wrote that the government cannot suppress truthful commercial speech merely to prevent people from making “bad, but lawful, decisions.” His argument draws a distinction between regulating an activity and banning truthful speech about that activity.

Supreme Court cases support protection for lawful advertising Schwartz cited 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, a 1996 Supreme Court case that struck down restrictions on advertising liquor prices. The Court found that Rhode Island could not broadly block truthful price information simply because the state wanted to reduce alcohol consumption.

He also pointed to Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association v. United States. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal restriction could not block advertisements for lawful private casino gambling under the circumstances before the Court.

However, those rulings do not make every restriction on XRP advertising automatically unconstitutional. Under the Supreme Court’s Central Hudson framework, commercial speech receives protection when it concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. Governments may still impose properly tailored restrictions that directly serve a substantial public interest.

Kansas deal puts XRP logo across college sports Kansas Athletics announced the Ripple partnership on July 8. The XRP logo will appear on uniforms across the university’s athletic programs, making it the first cryptocurrency jersey patch used across a major college athletics program, according to Kansas.

The agreement also covers branding at athletic venues, digital properties and events. Ripple will fund financial and technology education programs for student-athletes and the wider campus community. The partnership also expands an existing recruitment link between Ripple and Kansas graduates.

As previously reported, the agreement runs for five years and has personal ties to Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, a University of Kansas alumnus. The sponsorship has since drawn wider attention to how universities should handle digital asset advertising.

XRP legal history adds context to advertising dispute The debate comes three years after a federal court issued its split ruling in the SEC’s case against Ripple. The court found that Ripple’s programmatic XRP sales did not qualify as securities transactions under the circumstances examined, while certain institutional sales violated securities laws. The case formally ended in 2025 with a $125 million penalty and an injunction remaining in place.

That history makes broad claims about XRP’s legal status more complex than simply calling the asset universally exempt from financial regulation. Schwartz’s First Amendment argument instead rests on a narrower point: truthful commercial speech concerning lawful activity receives constitutional protection.

A government attempt to impose a blanket ban on XRP advertising could therefore face a serious First Amendment challenge. But existing Supreme Court doctrine still allows some commercial advertising rules when regulators can satisfy the required constitutional test.

Japan’s House of Councillors passed an amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, which officially recognizes cryptocurrencies as financial products rather than payment tools.

With this, the country is now planning to cut crypto taxes from 55% to 20% and open the door to Bitcoin ETFs.

Japan Moves Crypto Under Financial Product RulesJapan’s parliament has officially passed a landmark law amendment reclassifying cryptocurrencies as “financial assets.” Until now, cryptocurrencies have been mainly regulated under the Payment Services Act as a payment method. 

Under the new law, Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and other cryptocurrencies will be classified as financial products under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA), bringing them closer to stocks and other investment assets.

The new law also clears the way for spot crypto ETFs in Japan. 

Regulators are aiming to launch them on the Tokyo Stock Exchange by 2027 or 2028, while major firms like Nomura Holdings and SBI Holdings are already preparing crypto ETF products.

List of Changes Under the New LawThe new framework introduces several rules that already apply to traditional financial markets. These include,

Insider trading ban: Trading using non-public information will be strictly prohibited.Annual disclosures: Token issuers must publish annual operational and financial disclosures.Strict penalties: Violators face up to 10 years in prison or 10 million Japanese yen fines.Retail investment cap: High-risk tokens will have a 2 million Japanese yen retail investment limitBigger Fines and Lower Crypto TaxesThe new law also brings stricter rules for the crypto industry. However, the maximum jail term for running an illegal crypto business will increase from three years to 10 years.

And the maximum fine will also increase from 3 million yen to 10 million yen, approximately $18,500 to $61,600. The government says these changes will help make the crypto market safer and protect investors.

Along with the bill, lawmakers are planning to cut the tax on crypto profits from the current maximum of 55% to a flat 20%, the same tax rate used for stock investments.

Another planned change is a three-year loss carryforward. This means investors will be able to use their past trading losses to reduce taxes on future crypto profits. If approved, these tax changes are expected to start in 2028.

Story Ends Here

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

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

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

Read the Next News

The ADA community has reacted strongly after Intersect confirmed that responsibility for delivering Cardano’s presence at TOKEN2049 Singapore will shift from EMURGO to the Cardano Foundation.

The decision has sparked a governance debate across the Cardano ecosystem, with several community members arguing that the transfer bypasses the treasury governance process approved by Delegated Representatives (DReps). 

Intersect Explains Why the Cardano Foundation Will Lead TOKEN2049 In a recent announcement, Intersect revealed that EMURGO has been focusing its resources on managing the aftermath of the SecondFi incident. Consequently, the company informed Intersect that it could no longer allocate the personnel required to organize and execute Cardano’s participation at TOKEN2049.

Following discussions among EMURGO, the Cardano Foundation, and Intersect, the three parties agreed to transfer delivery responsibility for the event to the Cardano Foundation.

As the administrator of the treasury process, Intersect emphasized that its priority is to ensure approved governance actions are successfully delivered. Therefore, it described the change in the executing entity as the most practical solution, citing the limited time before the October conference and the need to avoid uncertainty surrounding Cardano’s participation.

The controversy traces back to an earlier governance decision. Cardano’s DReps previously approved EMURGO’s standalone treasury proposal requesting 3.3 million ADA to fund an official Cardano presence at TOKEN2049 Singapore. 

Now, Intersect confirmed that the Cardano Foundation would receive the approved funds and execute the project instead.

Community Questions Governance Process Meanwhile, Intersect’s announcement immediately drew criticism from several community members, who argued that the approved proposal specifically authorized EMURGO, not the Cardano Foundation, to execute the project.

Popular DRep Chris O described the decision as a breach of Cardano’s governance framework. According to him, DReps approved a proposal that explicitly assigned execution to EMURGO. Therefore, if EMURGO could no longer fulfill its obligations, the treasury funds should have been returned rather than reassigned to another entity.

Chris also argued that the Cardano Foundation should submit its own treasury proposal if it intends to organize the event. He also criticized what he viewed as Intersect and the Foundation unilaterally changing the terms of an approved governance action without seeking another DRep vote.

Additionally, community member Dramz called for the funds to be returned entirely, expressing frustration with EMURGO’s role in the situation. 

Similarly, another community member questioned why Intersect decided on behalf of the broader Cardano ecosystem. He urged the organization to return the funds to the treasury and allow a fresh governance proposal rather than modify the existing one. 

Just one quick problem with this. The DReps didn’t vote to fund CF to do Token2049. They voted Emurgo. I think it’d’ve been proper to at least seek DReps’ opinions on the swap before it happened rather than telling us about it after the event.

— Kit Willow 𖤍 (@willow_kit) July 14, 2026

Despite the criticism, not everyone opposed the decision. Some Cardano supporters argued that maintaining an official presence at TOKEN2049 outweighs the need to restart the treasury process.

They contend that requiring a new proposal could delay preparations and potentially jeopardize Cardano’s participation in one of the cryptocurrency industry’s largest conferences. From their perspective, transferring execution to the Cardano Foundation ensures the original objective of the approved proposal is achieved despite EMURGO’s operational constraints. 

DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.

Mizuho has downgraded Circle Internet Group from Neutral to Underperform and cut its price target from $85 to $50, citing competition from Open USD.

Summary

Mizuho cut Circle’s price target to $50, warning Open USD could further squeeze stablecoin margins. Open USD shares reserve earnings with partners, challenging Circle’s existing distribution economics around USDC globally. Circle also faces margin pressure from Hyperliquid revenue-sharing terms despite recent federal banking approval milestone. The Japanese investment bank said the stablecoin model could pressure the economics behind Circle’s USDC business.

According to a CoinDesk report, analysts led by Dan Dolev said Open USD “could fundamentally alter CRCL’s business model” by changing how reserve income flows to distributors. Circle shares traded at $62.63 when the report was published.

Mizuho cuts Circle’s 2027 earnings outlook Mizuho raised its estimate for Circle’s distribution and transaction expense ratio in 2027 from 64% to 73%. The bank also lowered its adjusted EBITDA forecast from $1.09 billion to $699 million, about 25% below the analyst consensus cited in the report.

The bank said higher interest rates could support reserve income but may not fully offset pressure from changing stablecoin economics. Its concern centers on how much yield Circle can retain after paying distribution partners, including companies that help USDC reach users and financial platforms.

Open USD challenges the existing stablecoin model Open USD was announced on June 30 by Open Standard, with more than 140 companies participating in its ecosystem. Partners include Coinbase, Mastercard, Stripe and BlackRock. The project says businesses will be able to mint and redeem the stablecoin without fees or artificial volume limits.

Under the model, partners receive reserve earnings after a small management fee covers operating costs. That differs from Circle’s structure, where reserve income is generated before revenue-sharing payments to major distribution partners. As previously reported, Open USD’s announcement raised questions over whether Circle’s own partners could support a rival while continuing to distribute USDC.

Coinbase relationship adds another pressure point Mizuho also pointed to Circle’s revenue-sharing relationship with Coinbase. The bank said the agreement is expected to come up for renegotiation in August, and Coinbase’s participation in Open USD could give it more leverage in future talks.

A separate warning came from JPMorgan. As reported by crypto.news, the bank cut earnings forecasts for Circle and Coinbase after a new USDC revenue-sharing arrangement with Hyperliquid. JPMorgan said the deal could reduce reserve income retained by both companies even if USDC usage grows.

Circle continues to expand USDC infrastructure The downgrade comes as Circle expands its regulatory and payments footprint.Circle data showed USDC circulation at about $73 billion as of July 13, down from $77 billion at the end of the first quarter.

Circle also recently received final approval to establish Circle National Trust. The federally regulated entity will initially focus on digital asset custody for Circle and its affiliates, with possible future services for selected institutional clients.

The company is also expanding USDC use in Asia. JCB and Circle announced a pilot covering cross-border treasury transfers and possible merchant payments in Japan. The project will start with JCB’s internal transfers before the companies assess wider retail payment uses.

Mizuho’s downgrade focuses on Circle’s ability to protect margins as stablecoin competition changes how reserve income is shared. Open USD has not proved it can match USDC’s distribution or liquidity, but its partner-led model creates a new pricing benchmark. Circle’s earnings path will depend partly on USDC supply, interest rates and future revenue-sharing agreements.

Japan's First Onchain Equity StrategySBI Global Asset Management and DigiFT have launched the JX Token on Solana, creating what both firms describe as a first for Japan's asset management industry. The product, formally named the SBI Japan High Dividend Equity Strategy Token, is designed to give accredited and institutional investors onchain access to a Japanese high-dividend equity fund strategy managed by SBI Asset Management, a subsidiary of SBI Global Asset Management.

The launch marks the first time a Japanese asset manager's listed-equity strategy has been brought onchain through DigiFT's regulated tokenization and distribution infrastructure. Ecosystem participants in the launch include Solana Company, Huma Finance and Plume.

DigiFT holds Capital Markets Services and Recognised Market Operator licences from MAS, as well as Type 1 and Type 4 licences from the Hong Kong SFC, a dual regulatory standing that has made it a tokenization and distribution partner for global and regional asset managers including UBS Asset Management, Invesco, BNY and Franklin Templeton. Its roster now extends into Japan through SBI GAM's participation, adding a Japanese listed-equity strategy to that lineup for the first time.

SBI's Broader Tokenization Push and the Growing RWA MarketThe launch comes as investor attention returns to Japanese equities, supported by the Tokyo Stock Exchange's continued push for listed companies to improve capital efficiency and demonstrate greater awareness of share-price performance. SBI Holdings itself brings considerable onchain credentials to the partnership. The group has taken direct stakes across the region's tokenization infrastructure, including leading a $50 million investment in Startale Group to build a blockchain purpose-built for tokenized securities, and holding a majority stake in Osaka Digital Exchange, operator of a secondary market for security tokens in Japan.

The JX Token's structure is also designed with the regulatory direction of travel in mind. Regulators are increasingly distinguishing tokenized securities developed with issuer or manager alignment from products that offer only indirect economic exposure. In a joint staff statement issued January 28, 2026, U.S. SEC staff drew a formal line between issuer-sponsored tokenized securities, which can represent true ownership, and third-party products that typically offer only synthetic exposure.

The launch also reflects a broader evolution in tokenization: the value of tokenized RWAs distributed on public blockchains grew from $5.9 billion to $21.9 billion globally in 2025, moving the category beyond cash-like instruments and into actively managed public-market strategies. According to a report by RedStone, Gauntlet and RWA(.)xyz cited by CoinDesk, the RWA tokenization market reached $24 billion having grown 380% in three years.

For $SOL, the deal adds another institutional use case. SBI Holdings recently announced that the Solana Foundation will take an equity stake in SBI R3 Japan, the joint venture it shares with Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, with the entity to be renamed SBI Solana Global. The JX Token launch now gives that broader strategic relationship its first live regulated product on the Solana network.

Sources:
The Manila Times: SBI Global Asset Management and DigiFT Launch JX
CoinDesk: SBI Holdings' Blockchain Initiative Pivots to Solana
CoinDesk: RWA Tokenization Market Has Grown Almost Fivefold to $24B in 3 Years

Prediction markets are crypto’s quiet killer app. Polymarket proved that during the 2024 US election cycle. Now Hyperliquid wants a piece of the action, and Outcome.xyz is the team trying to blow the doors open.

The push is simple: let anyone deploy a prediction market on Hyperliquid’s infrastructure without needing permission from validators or anyone else. It hasn’t happened yet. And the community is making noise about it.

What HIP-4 built, and what it’s missing Hyperliquid launched its HIP-4 outcome markets on mainnet back on May 2. These are binary contracts that settle to either 0 or 1, essentially yes-or-no bets baked directly into Hyperliquid’s core trading engine, HyperCore. Shared order books, shared margining, shared data feeds.

Outcome.xyz was the team that deployed the first wave of these markets. They started with recurring daily BTC price binaries, the kind of straightforward contract that lets you stress-test plumbing without getting too creative. Early trading volumes hit several million dollars in notional value on the first days alone.

But here’s the thing: every single market that exists right now had to go through Hyperliquid’s validators. There’s no self-serve option. As of mid-July, permissionless deployment still hasn’t gone live.

Advertisement

Why permissionless matters Hyperliquid’s current model relies on validators to both approve and settle markets. Instead of trusting some external oracle service to report outcomes, Hyperliquid’s own validator set handles settlement. It reduces a major attack surface that has plagued prediction markets for years.

But validator gating for market creation means the menu of available markets is limited to whatever gets approved through that process. Community feedback on July 14 made the frustration clear, with calls for permissionless rollout “asap.”

Outcome.xyz appears to be the team most actively pushing this forward. As the primary frontend developer for HIP-4 markets, they have both the technical proximity and the incentive to see the gates come down.

The competitive chess match Hyperliquid isn’t entering an empty room. Polymarket remains the dominant on-chain prediction platform, and Kalshi has carved out a regulated niche in the US market. Both have significant head starts in liquidity, user base, and market variety.

What Hyperliquid brings to the table is integration. Hyperliquid’s pitch is that prediction markets live inside the same trading engine as perpetuals, spot markets, and everything else on the platform. A trader doesn’t need to move capital to a separate protocol to place a prediction bet. If you’re already running a strategy on Hyperliquid’s perpetuals, you can allocate margin to prediction markets without fragmenting your capital across platforms.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup represents exactly the kind of global event that drives massive prediction market volume, and a permissionless rollout before or during the event could serve as a significant catalyst for adoption.

Volumes on HIP-4 markets remain modest compared to dedicated prediction platforms. Several million dollars on launch days is encouraging infrastructure validation, not market dominance.

What investors should watch The permissionless deployment timeline is the single most important variable here. Until third-party builders can create markets freely, HIP-4 remains a proof of concept rather than a competitive product.

The validator-as-oracle settlement model eliminates oracle risk, which is a real problem that has caused costly misresolutions on other platforms. But it also means every market outcome depends on validator consensus, and as market variety expands into subjective or ambiguous territory, that consensus mechanism will be tested in ways that simple BTC price binaries never will.

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

Pump.fun, the Solana-based memecoin launchpad that became a cash machine in 2024, just started writing checks. On July 14, the platform’s team wallet began distributing unlocked $PUMP tokens, moving over $6 million worth in the first hour alone. By the time the dust settled, total distributions had blown past $19 million.

The transfers are part of a broader unlock event that hit on July 12, two days prior, when approximately 82.5 billion $PUMP tokens were released from their vesting schedule. That release, roughly 29% of the token’s circulating supply at the time, marked the first major cliff unlock since Pump.fun’s initial coin offering a year ago.

Advertisement

Where the tokens went Here’s the breakdown. Of the 82.5 billion tokens unlocked, about 50 billion were earmarked for the team and 32.5 billion for early investors. In total, around 52 billion $PUMP tokens, valued at approximately $76 million, were distributed from the team wallet.

That still leaves roughly $60 million worth of tokens sitting in the treasury.

The $PUMP token has a total supply of 1 trillion tokens. The tokenomics split looks like this: 20% allocated to the team, 13% to existing investors, 24% to the community and ecosystem, with smaller tranches going to the foundation, liquidity provisions, and an ecosystem fund. The remaining 33% was sold during the 2025 ICO, which raised roughly $1.32 billion.

The platform behind the token Pump.fun generated hundreds of millions in platform fees since its launch, with daily revenue peaking above $7 million during the memecoin frenzy.

The $PUMP token itself launched via ICO in mid-2025, and the vesting schedule was designed with a one-year cliff followed by linear unlocks. The July 12 event was that cliff coming due.

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

Maelstrom, the family office run by BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes, just handed its sixth Bitcoin Grant Program award to one of the network’s most quietly important builders. Tadge Dryja, best known as a co-creator of the Lightning Network, will use the funding to research how to harden Bitcoin against the looming threat of quantum computers.

What Dryja is actually working on The grant supports Dryja’s research into post-quantum cryptographic defenses for Bitcoin. Bitcoin’s current security relies on elliptic-curve cryptography, which works brilliantly against today’s computers. The concern, shared by a growing number of researchers, is that sufficiently powerful quantum machines could eventually break those protections.

Dryja has already been working on solutions. He’s developed a commit/reveal scheme he calls “Lifeboat,” designed to protect transactions from quantum attacks. He’s also proposed a mechanism called OP_CIV for post-quantum signature aggregation, which would let Bitcoin verify quantum-resistant signatures more efficiently.

Advertisement

Dryja’s broader body of work includes Utreexo, a data structure that could dramatically reduce the storage requirements for running a Bitcoin full node.

Inside the Maelstrom Bitcoin Grant Program Maelstrom launched its Bitcoin Grant Program on July 17, 2024. The program offers grants between $50,000 and $150,000 for a 12-month period, paid out monthly in BTC, USDC, or USDT. The focus areas are resilience, scalability, censorship resistance, and privacy.

Dryja is the sixth recipient. A June 2026 annual report detailed the accomplishments of four prior grantees, whose work has spanned privacy-enhancing tools like Payjoin and Silent Payments, along with scalability improvements to Bitcoin Core.

Payjoin is a transaction method that makes blockchain analysis significantly harder by blending sender and receiver inputs. Silent Payments let users receive Bitcoin without reusing addresses, which is a privacy upgrade that sounds boring until you realize address reuse is one of the easiest ways to deanonymize someone on-chain.

The specific dollar amount of Dryja’s grant hasn’t been disclosed. But given the program’s stated range, we’re looking at something in the $50,000 to $150,000 neighborhood.

The quantum clock is ticking, kind of No quantum computer today can break Bitcoin’s cryptography. Current machines don’t have nearly enough stable qubits to run Shor’s algorithm against the elliptic curves Bitcoin uses. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has already standardized several post-quantum cryptographic algorithms for broader use, which creates a foundation that Bitcoin researchers can build on.

Dryja’s Lifeboat proposal doesn’t require Bitcoin to adopt entirely new signature schemes overnight. Instead, it creates an emergency mechanism that users could activate to protect their funds if quantum capabilities suddenly leapt forward.

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

Bitmine Immersion Technologies reported $45.7 million in revenue from Ether staking and validator operations for the most recent quarter, reflecting a major shift in the company’s business model following the introduction of its institutional-grade Ethereum staking platform in March.

Staking dominates revenue streamsFor the three months ending May 31, staking activities contributed approximately 98% of Bitmine’s total revenue, according to the company’s latest 10-Q filing. In contrast, self-mined Bitcoin operations generated $624,000, while consulting services added $168,000.

Bitmine disclosed that it has allocated 85% of its Ether holdings—about 4.9 million ETH—into staking. Chairman Tom Lee stated that this is the largest amount of ETH staked by any single entity worldwide.

Bitmine’s projected annual ETH staking reward reaches $284 million at full scale, when both the company’s and its partners’ Ether are fully staked through MAVAN and affiliated staking operations.

A year ago, Bitmine’s quarterly revenue totaled $2 million, driven mainly by equipment leasing, highlighting how the company’s focus on Ethereum staking has transformed its income structure.

Launch and expansion of MAVAN platformThe launch of MAVAN in March marked a new phase for Bitmine. MAVAN, an institutional-grade Ethereum staking service, manages validator infrastructure on behalf of Bitmine and external customers. The platform emerged after Bitmine’s acquisition of Pier Two Holdings, an Australian operator specializing in non-custodial validator services.

Originally developed to support Bitmine’s own Ethereum treasury, MAVAN has grown to serve institutional investors, custodians, and partners within the Ethereum ecosystem.

Mini dictionary: MAVAN (Made in America VAlidator Network) is a staking and validator infrastructure platform focused on institutional-grade Ethereum staking, supporting both Bitmine’s assets and third-party clients.

Robinhood Chain drives Ethereum growthBitmine’s chairman Tom Lee also pointed to the rapid success of Robinhood Chain, a new decentralized trading platform that launched on July 1. He reported that dollar trading volumes on Robinhood Chain have already surpassed $1 billion.

According to Lee, Robinhood Chain now handles more trading volume than any other decentralized exchange, underscoring both its significance and the utility of Ethereum as the underlying blockchain.

Robinhood Chain, utilizing ETH as its native gas token, has introduced millions of users to Ethereum-based transactions, with all network fees and settlement processes occurring directly on the Ethereum blockchain.

Lee emphasized that Robinhood’s 27 million users are now paying transaction fees in ETH, signaling a shift toward mainstream viewing of ETH as a form of money within the platform’s ecosystem.

Quarter EndedTotal RevenueStaking RevenueBTC MiningConsultingMay 31, 2026$45.7 million$44.8 million$624,000$168,000May 31, 2025$2 millionNot disclosedMajority of revenueMinimalDisclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

0x Protocol has facilitated over $200 billion in cumulative trading volume since its 2016 launch, with more than 500 teams integrating its Swap API across 20 or more blockchains. The protocol’s core innovation uses off-chain order relay with on-chain settlement, reducing gas costs by keeping order matching off the blockchain while settling trades on-chain securely. In June 2026, 0x launched a Cross-Chain API with 12 bridge partners, enabling asset transfers between different blockchain networks through a single developer integration point. ZRX’s market capitalization sits between $85 million and $100 million as of April 2026, despite powering infrastructure used by Coinbase, MetaMask, Robinhood, and Phantom wallet. A January 2026 SwapNet exploit drained $13.4 million from Matcha Meta users through a third-party routing contract, though 0x’s core protocol contracts remained uncompromised throughout. 0x Protocol is open-source infrastructure that enables decentralized token trading across multiple blockchains. It does not operate as a single exchange. Instead, it provides a standardized set of smart contracts and developer tools that allow applications to embed swap functionality without building their own order matching systems. 

CoinMarketCap’s overview describes it as a universal liquidity layer that aggregates pricing from automated market makers and order books across 16 or more blockchains. The protocol matters because fragmented liquidity is the central problem in decentralized finance. Hundreds of exchanges and liquidity pools exist across different blockchains, each with different pricing and depth. 

0x aggregates these sources through its Swap API, allowing wallets like MetaMask and Phantom, exchanges like Coinbase and Robinhood, and portfolio trackers to offer best-price execution without connecting to each liquidity source individually. Over 500 teams have integrated the API, according to Bitget’s analysis.

Analysis: The gap between 0x’s infrastructure usage and its token valuation is the protocol’s defining tension. The platform has facilitated over $200 billion in volume, yet ZRX trades at a market cap of approximately $85 million to $100 million as of April 2026. That is roughly what a mid-sized restaurant chain might be worth.

How Off-Chain Relay and On-Chain Settlement Work 0x’s foundational innovation from 2017 separated order management from trade execution. Older decentralized exchanges put every step on the blockchain. 

Order placement, cancellation, matching, and settlement all consume gas fees. 0x moved the first three steps off-chain, recording only the final trade on the blockchain. That hybrid approach reduced costs while preserving decentralized settlement security, as Gate Learn explained.

The system operates through three participants: Makers supply liquidity and set pricing by signing orders off-chain. Relayers host and distribute these order books. Takers accept trade offers, and when a taker agrees to a maker’s price, 0x’s smart contracts settle the swap on-chain, ensuring both sides complete simultaneously. 

The v4 Settler contract suite handles the final atomic settlement. In 2024, 0x v2 introduced a new pricing engine designed specifically for on-chain applications, optimizing trade execution and expanding liquidity source access. 

As of 2026, the protocol supports over 20 chains: Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BSC, Avalanche, Scroll, Linea, Blast, Mode, Mantle, Unichain, Berachain, Ink, Plasma, Sonic, and Monad, according to Bitget’s pricing analysis. In March 2026, the team announced that HyperEVM, a high-performance Ethereum Layer 2, went live via the 0x Swap API.

The ZRX Token and Its Governance Role ZRX is the ERC-20 governance and utility token powering the 0x Protocol. Holders vote on protocol upgrade proposals known as ZEIPs, treasury allocation decisions, and expansion to new blockchains through the community DAO. 

Staking is built into the system: liquidity providers stake ZRX to earn a share of trading fees from market-making activity. Delegators can assign their ZRX to high-performing market makers and earn rewards, as described in Bitget’s 2026 protocol guide.

Whether governance plus staking creates sufficient economic demand to support ZRX at scale remains the token’s central question. The protocol generated the same fee structure whether ZRX was priced at $0.08 or $2.53, its all-time high from January 2018. 

In late 2025 and early 2026, ZRX faced reduced exchange accessibility, with margin and spot trading pairs delisted from Binance and a full delisting from Bitfinex, as CoinMarketCap’s analysis noted. In March 2026, Dune Analytics launched Dune Enterprise in partnership with 0x, providing enterprise-grade on-chain analytics to monitor trader behavior and liquidity routing. 

The most significant product launch was Matcha Meta, a meta-aggregator that routes trades to whichever DEX aggregator offers the best execution at any moment, sitting on top of all major aggregators, including 0x itself.

The SwapNet Exploit and Protocol Security In January 2026, a $13.4 million exploit affected Matcha Meta users through a third-party routing contract called SwapNet. The contract was closed-source and lacked sufficient validation of user-supplied parameters, allowing an attacker to redirect funds that users had approved for trading. 

The 0x team confirmed that its core protocol contracts were not compromised, and the affected contract was disabled, according to Bitget’s chronology. The incident underscored persistent DeFi security risks but did not affect the core protocol’s integrity. 0x continues to operate a bug bounty program to detect vulnerabilities before exploitation. 

The broader question for DeFi protocol security is whether aggregator architectures that route through third-party contracts can adequately vet every integration partner.

Regulatory Implications 0x Protocol operates as a permissionless infrastructure with no centralized controlling entity. Treasury’s March 2026 report to Congress acknowledged that the BSA/AML framework does not fully account for DeFi protocols with distributed governance. 

The SEC’s Crypto Task Force has discussed balancing financial privacy with national security transparency. Whether infrastructure protocols like 0x face direct regulatory obligations depends on pending congressional clarification.

What’s Next? The Cross-Chain API, launched in June 2026 with 12 bridge partners, represents 0x’s push beyond single-chain liquidity aggregation. Solana ecosystem integration and continued HyperEVM support expand the protocol’s addressable market. A long-standing community debate about implementing sustainable protocol fees remains unresolved. 

If fees are introduced, they could create direct token-level value capture but risk making 0x less competitive against rivals like Uniswap and 1inch. Token performance projections are speculative and should not be treated as financial guidance. Digital assets carry a significant risk of loss.

FAQs What is 0x Protocol?
0x Protocol is an open-source infrastructure providing smart contracts and APIs that enable decentralized token trading across 20 or more blockchains without requiring a centralized exchange intermediary.

How does 0x reduce trading costs?
0x uses off-chain order relay with on-chain settlement, keeping order matching and management off the blockchain to avoid gas fees while settling only the final trade on-chain securely.

What is ZRX used for?
ZRX is the governance and utility token that allows holders to vote on protocol upgrades, stake for trading fee rewards, and participate in treasury decisions through the 0x DAO.

Which apps use the 0x Protocol?
Over 500 teams integrate 0x, including major products like Coinbase, MetaMask, Robinhood, and Phantom Wallet, using its Swap API to offer best-price decentralized token trading.

Is 0x Protocol the same as a DEX?
0x Protocol is not an exchange for end users but rather a trading protocol layer that provides liquidity aggregation and order routing infrastructure for wallets and DEX platforms.

What blockchains does 0x support?
0x supports over 20 blockchains as of 2026, including Ethereum, Solana, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BSC, Avalanche, Monad, Scroll, Linea, and several additional networks.

Was the 0x Protocol hacked in 2026?
In January 2026, a $13.4 million exploit affected Matcha Meta users through a third-party SwapNet contract, but 0x’s core protocol smart contracts remained uncompromised throughout.

References What Is 0x Protocol (ZRX) And How Does It Work (CoinMarketCap, 2026) 0x Protocol (ZRX) Price Prediction and Analysis (Bitget, April 2026) 0x Protocol Complete Guide (Gate Learn, April 2026) 0x Protocol 2026: Cross-Chain DeFi Guide (Bitget Academy, March 2026)

Chainlink Posts $43.3B TVS and $32.18T in Cumulative Transaction Value@chainlink is reporting $43.3 billion in Total Value Secured (TVS) and $32.18 trillion in cumulative Transaction Value Enabled (TVE), along with 19.59 billion onchain verified data outputs. The numbers, shared by the project, reflect the scale of infrastructure quietly sitting beneath much of decentralized finance today.

TVS and TVE measure two distinct things. TVS represents the aggregate dollar value of assets currently dependent on Chainlink's oracles across DeFi protocols. TVE is the all-time sum of transaction value that Chainlink's services have helped facilitate since inception. As Chainlink's own metrics page notes, TVE is calculated by taking the sum of the USD value associated with each transaction utilizing a Chainlink oracle.

To put the TVS figure in context: it is not the same as total value locked, the metric most DeFi observers focus on. TVS measures the value of assets that depend on a network's data services, whether that is price feeds for lending protocols or cross-chain token transfers. A single price feed can underpin value across dozens of protocols on multiple networks simultaneously.

Institutional Adoption and Expanding Network ReachThe figures sit within a broader growth story for the network. Chainlink's Q1 2026 quarterly review showed its Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) processed over $18 billion in transfer volume during the quarter, a 319% year-over-year increase. The same period saw Amundi, Europe's largest asset manager, launch a tokenized mutual fund powered by Chainlink that reached $400 million in assets under management within three weeks. Robinhood also named Chainlink as the oracle platform for Robinhood Chain, and the Bank of England selected the network to participate in its Synchronisation Lab for synchronized settlement between central bank money and onchain securities.

On the institutional side, data tracked by CoinLaw shows Chainlink holds roughly 59% of the tracked oracle market by TVS, with its CCIP now certified to SOC 2 Type 2, SOC 2 Type 1, and ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standards. Major financial institutions including Swift, Euroclear, Fidelity International, UBS, and J.P. Morgan's Kinexys have adopted Chainlink's infrastructure.

The $LINK token has not kept pace with network growth in this cycle, but the protocol's operational metrics continue to move in one direction. For a piece of infrastructure that most users never directly interact with, Chainlink's reach across DeFi and traditional finance is difficult to ignore.

Sources
Chainlink Official Metrics, chain.link
Chainlink Q1 2026 Quarterly Review, chain.link
Chainlink Statistics 2026: TVS, CCIP and Market Share, CoinLaw