Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

@NEARProtocol says its token buyback program is accelerating, with Intents fees increasingly outpacing new issuance. The mechanism is straightforward: 100% of fees generated through NEAR Intents are used to purchase $NEAR directly on the open market, creating buy pressure that scales with transaction volume. Cumulative Intents volume has now passed $22 billion, and the capture rate has climbed from roughly 12% over its lifetime to near 30% in the past week alone.

Two Structural Changes Set the Stage Two protocol upgrades have made the deflation thesis credible. On October 30, 2025, NEAR's inflation rate was permanently reduced from 5% to 2.5%, cutting annual issuance roughly in half and compressing the volume required to reach net deflation by the same amount. Then on February 23, 2026, the fee conversion mechanism activated for the first time, routing all NEAR Intents fees into $NEAR purchases.

NEAR issues approximately 32.2 million tokens annually. Two mechanisms work against that issuance: base-layer gas fees follow a 70/30 split, with 70% permanently burned by the protocol, while Intents fees go entirely toward open-market buybacks. Halved inflation plus active buybacks via the Intents fee switch create a structurally different supply-demand dynamic than what existed a year ago.

The Threshold Is Real, but Not Yet Crossed At current prices and the 2026 channel-mix-weighted fee rate, the deflationary threshold sits at approximately $177 million in daily Intents volume. The current 90-day average sits at $77 million per day, meaning volume needs to roughly double to cross the deflationary threshold.

The math is not static. As NEAR's price rises, each token purchased via the Intents fee mechanism absorbs more dollar-denominated issuance, meaning price appreciation actively lowers the barrier to deflation in token terms. On an Intents-adjusted basis, NEAR's price-to-sales ratio is approximately 28x, versus Ethereum at 194x and Solana at 40x. That gap has drawn attention from analysts who argue the token is structurally underpriced relative to its fee generation.

The trajectory is real. Whether daily Intents volume can double from here, and hold there, is the question that will determine whether the deflation story moves from thesis to fact.

Sources:
Crypto Briefing: NEAR Protocol targets AI-driven commerce with new products and tokenomics improvements
NEAR Foundation: Supporting Community Proposals to Upgrade NEAR Tokenomics
SVRN: NEAR Protocol 2026: Investment Case, Tokenomics and Deflation Threshold

Altcoins

15 July 2026 | 00:18 Morgan Stanley Investment Management filed a third round of amendments with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14 for proposed exchange-traded funds holding ether and solana.

The Morgan Stanley Ethereum Trust and Morgan Stanley Solana Trust are designed to give investors spot exposure through ordinary brokerage accounts without requiring them to buy tokens or manage private keys. If the registration statements become effective, the shares are expected to trade on NYSE Arca under the tickers MSSE and MSOL.

The amended filings expand a crypto product line that already includes the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust, which trades on NYSE Arca with the same 0.14% annual sponsor fee, and the Stablecoin Reserves Portfolio, launched in April to hold assets that meet the GENIUS Act’s reserve requirements. Unlike the passive Bitcoin fund, the proposed Ether and Solana trusts would also generate staking rewards, combining regulated brokerage access with potential onchain income. Together, the products show Morgan Stanley building a broader digital-asset strategy spanning token exposure, stablecoin reserve management and staking rather than treating Bitcoin as a standalone offering.

What the Funds Would Hold Both products are passive trusts that would track CoinDesk’s 4PM New York settlement benchmarks for ether and solana. They would not use leverage, derivatives or active trading strategies, so returns would primarily reflect movements in the underlying tokens, less expenses, together with any net staking income.

BNY and Coinbase Custody are named as custodians, while Morgan Stanley Investment Management would serve as delegated sponsor.

Under normal market conditions, the Ethereum trust intends to stake between 50% and 80% of its ETH, while the Solana vehicle may stake up to 100% of its SOL. Both would periodically keep assets unstaked to cover redemptions, expenses and distributions. The shared 0.14% sponsor fee therefore sits alongside different return mechanics: a larger portion of MSOL’s holdings could earn network rewards, but its liquidity management becomes more important when unstaking is delayed.

Figment, Galaxy Blockchain Infrastructure and Coinbase Canada are listed as staking providers for both products. The providers and custodians would collectively receive 5% of gross staking rewards, leaving 95% for the trusts. Net rewards would initially increase net asset value before being converted into cash for distributions expected monthly, but no less frequently than quarterly.

The prospectuses do not promise a fixed yield. Returns would depend on network conditions and the proportion of assets staked, while validator failures, penalties and unstaking delays could reduce income or complicate redemptions. Morgan Stanley may also suspend staking if it creates material legal, regulatory or tax risks. Retail investors would not be able to exchange shares directly for ETH or SOL. Only authorized participants could create or redeem 10,000-share baskets, meaning the products would remain regulated brokerage wrappers rather than substitutes for holding transferable tokens.

A 0.14% Sponsor Fee Each trust carries a proposed annual sponsor fee of 0.14% of net asset value, accrued daily and paid monthly in arrears. Morgan Stanley would cover ordinary operating costs from that fee, while litigation and other extraordinary expenses could still be charged to the trust. Investors may separately incur brokerage commissions when trading shares.

The July 14 submissions are Amendment No. 3 to the registration statements, not approvals. The SEC must declare the filings effective before shares can be sold, and the documents remain subject to further changes. The trusts would also not be registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, meaning shareholders would not receive the protections attached to conventional registered investment companies.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. 

Author

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

Table of contents

QuickSwap, one of the oldest names in decentralized exchange trading, has officially rolled out Orbs’ Perpetual Hub Ultra 2.0 as the default engine powering perpetual futures across every chain it operates on. The decision wasn’t made behind closed doors. It came after a community vote, “Full Shift of Decentralized Perpetuals to Orbs Network,” which cleared with a decisive 81.8% approval from QUICK token holders.

The shift effectively retires the Orderly-based Falkor setup that had been running on Polygon PoS, replacing it with the same Orbs-driven architecture that QuickSwap already introduced on Base back in the fourth quarter of 2025. It’s not a cold start, either. QuickSwap and Orbs have been working together for years at this point, with tools like dTWAP, dLIMIT, and Liquidity Hub already live in production on both Polygon PoS and Base.

Ran Hammer, VP of Business Development at Orbs, framed the announcement as something bigger than a routine infrastructure swap. “This is what the next phase of DeFi looks like: a top-tier DEX running a complete perps stack natively on Layer-3, with liquidity from day one and execution quality that rivals centralized venues,” he said. He also pointed to the vote itself as a signal of where the industry is heading, adding, “An 81.8% community vote says it all – decentralized markets are ready to compete with traditional finance on its own terms.”

Full-Service Perpetual Trading Stack  What QuickSwap gets out of the deal, in practical terms, is a full-service perpetual trading stack that doesn’t lean on outside providers. Execution, settlement, hedging, liquidation, pricing, and the trading interface itself are all handled natively through Orbs’ Layer-3 infrastructure. There’s no bootstrapping period to worry about, either; liquidity is pulled in from day one through Orbs’ integrated system, which taps into several deep liquidity sources at once rather than relying on a single pool building up over time.

Under the hood, the platform runs on a TEE-secured execution environment, meaning trades are processed inside a trusted, hardware-isolated setting rather than out in the open. Price feeds come in cryptographically signed, and the resulting state is periodically committed on-chain through rollup settlement, giving traders a verifiable record without sacrificing speed.

On the trading side, users get access to the usual order types, market, limit, stop-loss, take-profit, along with more advanced bracket orders. Convenience features like one-click trading, account abstraction, and gasless transactions are also part of the package, lowering the friction that’s historically kept some traders away from on-chain platforms.

QuickSwap itself needs little introduction to anyone who’s spent time in DeFi. It’s been running since 2020 and remains the top exchange within the Polygon ecosystem, expanding over the years from Polygon PoS into Polygon zkEVM and Base while holding onto its reputation as Polygon’s flagship DEX.

Like much of its infrastructure, the exchange is steered by its community through QUICK token governance, which is exactly the mechanism that greenlit this latest move. Orbs, for its part, operates as a decentralized Layer-3 network built specifically to handle the kind of complex trading logic that standard smart contracts struggle with.

Its validator network runs on delegated Proof-of-Stake, backed by more than 1.12 billion ORBS tokens staked across the system. Both teams are pitching this integration as a step toward closing the gap between decentralized and centralized trading venues, not just in terms of speed and cost, but in the overall experience, while still keeping self-custody and on-chain transparency intact for users.

AUTHOR

Mushumir Butt is a seasoned crypto journalist with over three years of experience reporting on the world of blockchain and cryptocurrency. At Blockchain Reporter, he delivers insightful news, in‐depth project reviews, and precise price analysis and predictions. With a strong background in SEO and digital marketing, Mushumir excels at breaking down complex trends into clear, accessible content, ensuring readers stay ahead in the fast‐paced crypto space.

Spark Savings on Arbitrum now supports the three largest stablecoins by market capitalization: USDC, USDS and, from today, USDT via USDT0.  For wallets, treasury platforms and other builders, that means users can access Spark Savings while staying in the stablecoin they already hold, through a single savings infrastructure. Here’s why this is important for the programmable economy future we’re building towards. 

Why this isn't "just another USDT deployment"

Arbitrum has bridged USDT for years. What's new is USDT0, Tether's omnichain implementation of USDT built on LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard. Instead of yet another wrapped, fragmented representation of USDT moving around different bridges, USDT0 is a single, 1:1-backed unit of Tether liquidity that can move natively between Ethereum, Arbitrum, and a growing number of supported chains without fragmenting liquidity or introducing additional trust assumptions.

For integrators, that means supporting Spark Savings for USDT without asking users to bridge back to Ethereum, swap into another stablecoin or navigate multiple versions of USDT. Users can stay in the asset they already hold while accessing the same Spark Savings infrastructure available across supported stablecoins.

spUSDT is Spark's ERC-4626 USDT savings vault. Deposit USDT0, receive spUSDT, a transferable savings token that represents your position in the vault while continuing to accrue yield.
Like Spark's existing USDC and USDS savings vaults on Arbitrum, spUSDT follows the same ERC-4626 design, giving integrators a consistent way to support savings across multiple stablecoins.

USDT0 (spUSDT) is designed to be simple to integrate and simple to use:

No lockups, deposit and withdraw at any time

Transferable and composable with other DeFi applications through the ERC-4626 standard

Access to Spark's programmatic allocation framework, which coordinates capital across vetted DeFi venues.

Earn sustainable yield without relying on temporary incentives

With USDT0 now supported, users can access Spark Savings directly from one of Arbitrum's most widely used stablecoins without changing assets first.

With USDC, USDS, and now USDT0 supported, Spark Savings on Arbitrum now provides savings infrastructure representing over 90% of the network's stablecoin supply, according to defillama. That gives builders access to savings infrastructure across the stablecoins their users are most likely to already hold.

For users, that means staying in the stablecoin they already hold without bridging back to Ethereum or swapping into another asset just to access savings. For wallets, treasury platforms and DeFi applications, it means broader stablecoin coverage through a consistent integration model.

That matters because USDT remains the world’s largest stablecoin by supply, while Arbitrum has become one of the deepest ecosystems for stablecoin trading, derivatives, and on-chain payments. Bringing Spark Savings to USDT0 expands that coverage, making it easier for builders to offer sustainable savings across the stablecoins their users already hold.

Whatever stablecoin you're already holding or trading with on Arbitrum, there's now a Spark vault for it.

Building on Arbitrum?

Whether you're building a wallet, treasury platform or DeFi application, Spark Savings can help make your business programmable by making it easy to offer savings across the three largest stablecoins on Arbitrum.

Talk to the Spark team to learn how Spark Savings can fit into your product. [email protected]

Celo has enhanced its collaboration with Ledger by integrating a key network feature into the hardware wallet provider’s platform, offering more flexible transaction fee options to users worldwide.

Ledger supports Celo’s CIP-64 fee abstractionLedger has implemented support for Celo’s fee abstraction, made possible through the network’s CIP-64 upgrade. This change allows users to pay transaction fees using a variety of Celo-native assets, rather than being restricted to the CELO token.

The new functionality builds on Ledger Live’s December 2025 update, where users gained the ability to transact and exchange CELO and Celo stablecoins through Ledger’s interface.

With this latest expansion, Ledger’s user base of more than 8 million people in over 200 countries can now settle gas fees in any of 18 supported tokens. These payment options include Tether USD₮, USDC, Wrapped Ether (WETH), and multiple fiat-referenced stablecoins developed by Mento Labs.

Accepted fiat-backed tokens span a range of global currencies such as the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Canadian dollar, Australian dollar, Nigerian naira, Kenyan shilling, and South African rand, offering considerably broader payment flexibility.

Mini dictionary: CIP-64, or Celo Improvement Proposal 64, is an upgrade that enables transaction fees to be paid with approved ERC-20 tokens on the Celo network, rather than requiring users to exclusively use the CELO token for gas payments.

Stablecoins overtake CELO for transactionsLaunched in July 2023 during the network’s Gingerbread hard fork, CIP-64 has allowed users to pay transaction fees with selected stablecoins and other ERC-20 tokens. This approach, now widely adopted across the Celo network, has led to a significant shift in transaction behavior.

Celo reports that nearly half of all transaction volume on the network now uses stablecoins denominated in US dollars, instead of the network’s native CELO token.

By allowing users to handle transaction fees with familiar currencies, Celo aims to lower barriers to entry and streamline the experience of using money across blockchain payments and decentralized finance applications.

The integration with Ledger is expected to further simplify onboarding, particularly for users interested in exploring Celo payments and DeFi solutions.

Celo leads in tokenized gold adoptionBeyond network transactions, Celo highlighted its leading position in the market for tokenized gold. According to network figures, 107,622 users on Celo own Tether Gold (XAUT), positioning the network as the dominant platform for tokenized gold holders.

Blockchain data estimates a total of 118,500 XAUT holders across seven blockchain networks. Of these, Celo accounts for 90.8%, followed by Solana at 4.5%. Other platforms with measurable XAUT user bases include HyperEVM (1.9%), Arbitrum One (1.8%), Plasma (0.6%), Monad (0.3%), and Ink (0.1%).

Blockchain NetworkXAUT Holders (%)Celo90.8%Solana4.5%HyperEVM1.9%Arbitrum One1.8%Plasma0.6%Monad0.3%Ink0.1%Celo attributes its dominance to a growing ecosystem, including applications such as MiniPay, Squid Router, Uniswap, Featherlend, Morpho, and TheoriqAI, that together drive adoption of real-world asset tokenization.

Celo, a mobile-first blockchain that aims to make decentralized financial services accessible to anyone with a smartphone, is now advancing into sectors beyond digital-only payments. By making stablecoin-based gas payments easier and leading the charge on tokenized gold, Celo is seeking new use cases for blockchain technology in mainstream finance.

Celo’s expanding ecosystem and diverse payment options underscore its strategy to position itself as a leading platform for accessible and practical financial instruments on the blockchain.

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.

The most instructive XRP trade of 2026 was an exit. When it emerged this month that Goldman Sachs, once the largest XRP holder among Wall Street institutions, had sold down its position, the reaction split along familiar lines: bears read it as the smartest money leaving a stalled asset, bulls read it as a bank taking profits on ETF seeding and creation-desk inventory it never intended to hold.

Both camps then arrived at the same, more interesting question, and it is the one that will define XRP’s next year. The first $1.5 billion of ETF money is in. Goldman’s chapter is closed. Standard Chartered says the next tranche is worth $4 billion to $8 billion. So who, exactly, buys it, what has to happen first, and what does XRP look like if they do?

Summary

XRP ETFs have attracted about $1.5 billion in net inflows, with Standard Chartered estimating another $4 billion to $8 billion could follow if the CLARITY Act becomes law. Registered investment advisors, model portfolios, wirehouses, corporate treasuries, and sovereign investors are expected to drive the next wave of institutional XRP ETF demand over time. ETF inflows have continued despite weak price action as long term accumulation, lower exchange balances, and regulatory progress compete with macro pressure and ongoing supply.  The question matters because XRP has spent 2026 as the market’s cleanest natural experiment in whether flows alone can move a price. The token trades near $1.08 inside a range that has compressed to roughly $1.00 to $1.13, down around 40 percent on the year, while nearly every input a flow analyst would track has pointed the other way: sustained ETF creations, whale accumulation running at multiples of last year’s pace, exchange balances at multi-year lows, and a parent company stacking regulatory wins across three continents. The demand arrived. The price did not respond. Resolving that contradiction requires taking the flow machine apart piece by piece.

What the first $1.5 billion proved Five spot XRP exchange-traded funds launched in the United States between November and December 2025, arriving in the window after the SEC’s posture shifted and before any statute confirmed it. Through mid-2026 the products have gathered roughly $1.5 billion in net inflows, a figure that deserves more context than it usually gets. That total accumulated during the worst crypto tape since 2022, with Bitcoin falling from the $90,000s toward $60,000, the Federal Reserve pivoting from expected cuts toward a possible hike, and the Fear and Greed Index pinned in the twenties. Gathering $1.5 billion into a falling altcoin during a fear regime is not failure. It is evidence of a persistent bid that did not exist in any prior cycle, because the wrapper that carries it did not exist.

The composition of that bid matters as much as its size. ETF flows in the launch phase come disproportionately from three sources: self-directed retail moving out of exchange custody and into brokerage accounts, hedge funds running basis and arbitrage strategies, and early-adopter advisors making small allocations for aggressive clients. What launch-phase flows conspicuously exclude is the slow money: the wirehouse model portfolios, the pension consultants, the bank trust departments, and the insurance general accounts. Those channels move on compliance calendars, not conviction, and their compliance calendars all point at the same gate.

Benchmarking the figure against the category sharpens the point. The five XRP products collectively rank behind only the Bitcoin and Ethereum complexes among American crypto ETFs by assets gathered, ahead of the Solana products that launched into the same window with a stronger price narrative. Monthly net flows have oscillated with the tape, including redemption stretches during the worst weeks of the drawdown, but the cumulative line has kept its upward slope through eight months that destroyed weaker products across the fund industry. Whatever the price chart says, the wrapper found a durable audience on its first attempt, and product durability is the precondition every larger channel checks before it checks anything else.

The gate: statute, not classification That gate is legal permanence. The SEC and CFTC jointly classified XRP as a digital commodity in March 2026, an interpretive release that ended, in practical terms, the five-year war that began with the SEC’s 2020 lawsuit against Ripple. But an interpretive release binds nobody past the current commissions, and the institutional legal departments that gatekeep the largest pools of American wealth have been explicit about the distinction. Their memos approve products backed by law and defer products backed by guidance. The CLARITY Act, the market structure bill now sitting on the Senate calendar, is the instrument that converts one into the other, which is why Standard Chartered’s $4 billion to $8 billion projection is written as conditional: those flows unlock if the bill becomes law.

The mechanics of the projection are worth spelling out, because the number is not a guess about sentiment. Analysts build it from allocation math: take the advised wealth channels that currently exclude crypto ETFs, apply the small percentage allocations their model portfolios assign to alternatives when products clear compliance, weight by XRP’s likely share of a multi-asset crypto sleeve alongside Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana products, and discount for adoption lag. Run that arithmetic across several trillion dollars of advised assets and single-digit billions fall out quickly. The projection’s fragility is equally visible in its assumptions: it requires the law to pass, the wirehouses to act on it within quarters instead of years, and XRP to hold its place in the standard institutional basket. As crypto.news examined in its analysis of the bill’s falling odds, the first assumption alone now carries roughly 43 percent probability for 2026, which means the headline flow number should be probability-weighted by anyone using it seriously.

The buyers, ranked by likelihood Ranking the candidate buyers of the next $4 billion produces a clearer picture than the generic institutional label. The most probable early source is the registered investment advisor channel, roughly $8 trillion of American wealth where individual firms make their own compliance decisions and where crypto allocations have already normalized at the aggressive end. RIA flows into Bitcoin ETFs led every other channel in that product’s first year, and the pattern would likely repeat down the risk curve.

Second come the model portfolio and turnkey asset management platforms, which matter less for their size than for their automation: once an XRP product enters a model, flows recur monthly with rebalancing, indifferent to headlines. Third, the wirehouses, the largest and slowest pool, where solicited recommendations require the statutory green light and where internal approval processes run quarters after that. Fourth, corporate treasuries, a wildcard channel that Bitcoin normalized and that a handful of firms have already extended to XRP; permanence in law plus an accounting framework would widen that experiment. Fifth and most speculative, sovereign and quasi-sovereign buyers in jurisdictions where Ripple’s payment infrastructure is operationally embedded, a category that generates headlines out of proportion to its realistic near-term size.

The timing across these channels is sequential, not simultaneous, and the sequence is the part most projections flatten. RIA adoption can begin within weeks of a statutory trigger because the decision sits with thousands of small compliance committees rather than a handful of large ones. Model platforms follow within one to two quarters, on their scheduled review cycles. Wirehouse approval historically lags by two to four quarters even after the stated objection is removed, because internal product committees, training requirements, and suitability frameworks each add their own clock. Stacking those lags against Standard Chartered’s range suggests the honest shape of the projection: a thin front edge arriving within months of passage, and the bulk arriving across 2027, which is a materially different trade than the headline number implies.

Against these stand the sellers. Launch-phase arbitrageurs exit as basis compresses. Early holders use ETF liquidity as an exit ramp, which is partly what the Goldman episode illustrated. And Ripple itself remains a structural source of supply through its escrow releases, a flow bulls prefer not to model and bears never stop modeling. Net flow, not gross inflow, is what moves price, and the first eight months of ETF trading have shown the net figure can stay positive while the price goes nowhere if enough legacy supply uses the new demand as liquidity.

The demand stack beneath the ETFs The ETF story sits on top of an on-chain demand picture that has quietly strengthened all year. Whale accumulation, measured by large-wallet inflows and exchange outflows, has run at roughly triple last year’s pace during the 2026 drawdown, the classic accumulation-into-weakness pattern that preceded prior cycle turns. Exchange balances have fallen toward multi-year lows, shrinking the tradable float. XRP Ledger activity has grown across payments, tokenized real-world assets, and the RLUSD stablecoin, which has become the settlement asset for an expanding share of Ripple’s enterprise volume.

The corporate side reads the same direction. Ripple holds more than 75 regulatory licenses and registrations worldwide. It secured full authorization under the European Union’s MiCA framework in Luxembourg this month, opening the entire European Economic Area under a single passport. Mastercard named Ripple a settlement partner in its AI payments network. SWIFT-connected banks have begun routing blockchain settlement pilots through Ripple-linked institutions. And the company stages its largest event of the year, Swell, alongside the XRPL developer summit in New York in late October, a traditional venue for partnership announcements. On any fundamental checklist an equity analyst would recognize, the boxes are ticked. That is precisely what makes the price action so uncomfortable.

The RLUSD complication One development the flow models handle awkwardly is that Ripple’s fastest-growing product is no longer XRP. RLUSD, the company’s regulated stablecoin, has become the settlement asset for a rising share of enterprise volume, the collateral base for Ripple Prime’s institutional services, and the instrument through which many of the bank partnerships actually clear. Every corporate win that routes through RLUSD strengthens Ripple the company while contributing nothing direct to XRP the asset, and the divergence has become a live debate among holders: whether the stablecoin is the wedge that eventually drives ledger activity and XRP demand for bridging and fees, or the quiet replacement of the token’s original use case with a product institutions find easier to hold.

For the ETF flow question, the debate cuts a specific way. Allocators buying an XRP product are buying the token’s monetary premium and its role in the ledger economy, not Ripple’s equity story. If the company’s growth increasingly expresses itself through RLUSD and through services revenue, the fundamental narrative that supports a dedicated single-token allocation weakens at the margin, even as the company itself strengthens. Bulls answer that stablecoin settlement and tokenized asset growth raise ledger throughput, and throughput ultimately prices the native asset. The honest status of that argument is unresolved, and it is the fundamental question hiding inside the flow question: $4 billion buys exposure to XRP, and the market is still deciding what XRP is exposure to.

Why ETF demand behaves differently from spot demand The distinction between a billion dollars of exchange buying and a billion dollars of ETF creations is mechanical, and it decides how the next tranche would express itself in price. Spot demand on exchanges is discretionary and reflexive: it arrives with momentum, leaves with drawdowns, and concentrates in the leveraged venues where liquidations amplify both directions. ETF demand routes through authorized participants who create and redeem shares against the net of each day’s orders. The flow that survives that netting is disproportionately allocation flow: advisors rebalancing models, platforms deploying scheduled contributions, funds equitizing mandates. It arrives on calendars, ignores intraday narrative, and, critically, keeps arriving through drawdowns because rebalancing into weakness is what model portfolios are built to do.

That character difference explains an apparent paradox in the 2026 data: steady net creations against a falling price. The creations were real, but they were met by discretionary sellers using the wrapper’s liquidity as an exit, including, evidently, the largest bank holder on the street. The bull interpretation is that this is exactly what accumulation phases look like when a new demand channel opens into an old holder base: impatient supply migrates to patient hands, the float thins, and the price stays flat until the migration completes. The bear interpretation is that the patient hands are simply early, and patience is not a catalyst. The data cannot distinguish the two until a demand shock tests the thinner book. What the data does show is that the pipe works: shares get created, spreads stay tight, and the products tracked their net asset values through the year’s worst volatility, which is the operational track record the slower channels required before even beginning their reviews.

The Bitcoin ETF playbook, one asset down the curve There is a map for how the channels open, because Bitcoin walked it in 2024 and 2025. The Bitcoin spot ETFs launched into self-directed and hedge fund demand, spent roughly two quarters dominated by basis trades, then inflected when the RIA channel cleared the products for solicited use and the first wirehouses followed. Each gate that opened produced a step change in cumulative flows, and the price responded with a lag measured in weeks, not days, because allocation flow does not chase. By the time the largest platforms had fully opened, the products held a meaningful share of circulating supply and the asset’s volatility profile had visibly compressed.

XRP’s products are one asset class rung below on the institutional risk ladder and roughly three quarters into the equivalent timeline, still waiting on the gate that Bitcoin never needed: statutory classification. Bitcoin entered its ETF era with a commodity status nobody seriously disputed. XRP entered with a court ruling, an interpretive release, and a pending bill, which is why its channel-opening sequence stalled at the compliance stage that Bitcoin’s cleared automatically. The playbook’s lesson is not that XRP repeats Bitcoin’s flow curve at smaller scale, though the analog is tempting. The lesson is that the curve is gated by legal events, and the gates open in order. The March release opened the first. The Senate holds the second.

The supply side of the ledger Flow analysis that counts only buyers is half an analysis, and XRP’s supply side has features Bitcoin’s does not. Ripple’s escrow releases up to one billion XRP monthly, with unused portions returning to new escrow contracts. The net escrow contribution to circulating supply has trended well below the headline figure, and the company has leaned on programmatic sales less as institutional revenue lines have grown, but the overhang is structural: the market prices the possibility of supply even in months when little arrives. Layer on the launch-era holders for whom regulated products finally offered institutional-grade exit liquidity, and the absorption burden on the first $1.5 billion becomes clearer. New demand did not meet a fixed float. It met a float with a scheduled faucet and a queue at the exit.

The counterweight is the on-chain float data. Exchange balances at multi-year lows mean the discretionary sell-side has thinned even as the escrow schedule persists, and RLUSD settlement growth gives a share of monthly releases an internal destination that did not previously exist. The supply picture, like everything else in this asset, resolves into a timing question: whether the faucet or the gate moves first.

Why the price has not followed The bear explanation for the standoff is the simplest and has been the best trade of the year: XRP is a high-beta risk asset in a market being repriced by the Federal Reserve, and no token-specific story survives a regime where inflation prints at three-year highs and rate expectations invert. XRP’s correlation with Bitcoin has remained high through the drawdown, and Bitcoin itself has ignored its own bullish supply dynamics for months. In this reading, the flows are real but small against the macro tide, the $1.5 billion of ETF demand was absorbed by sellers grateful for the liquidity, and the next $4 billion, if it comes, arrives only after the Fed turns, at which point every risk asset rallies and XRP’s story adds beta instead of alpha.

The structural bear adds a colder point: XRP’s investment case has become a regulatory derivative. Strip out the CLARITY Act and the token trades on cross-border payment adoption that, while real, has never been priced by the market as sufficient on its own. If the bill slips to 2027, the one catalyst distinguishing XRP from the general altcoin complex slips with it, ETF inflows could reverse the way they briefly did earlier this year, and analysts have flagged the zone below $1.00 as thin support down to materially lower levels. The Goldman exit, in this telling, was not noise. It was a sophisticated holder concluding that the probability-weighted return of waiting had fallen below its hurdle.

The bull rebuttal: coiled, not broken The bull case does not dispute the macro pressure; it disputes the conclusion. Prices that refuse to fall on bad tape while accumulation triples are compressing, not failing, and the float shrinkage means any demand shock hits a thinner order book than at any point in XRP’s modern history. Seasonality offers a minor tailwind with a major caveat: July has historically been XRP’s strongest month, averaging roughly 10 percent gains, though this July opened deep in a fear regime that blunts seasonal patterns. The levels are unusually clean. The $1.00 floor has been defended repeatedly, resistance sits at $1.13 and then the $1.18 to $1.20 zone, and a legislative surprise into light positioning would find little supply between the breakout level and the low $1.40s where the year’s earlier ranges sat, as crypto.news mapped in its July price prediction.

The deeper bull argument is about market structure rather than price. Every prior XRP cycle ran on retail exchanges and offshore leverage. This one is the first where a regulated wrapper connects the token to the advised wealth system, and wrappers change the character of demand: slower to arrive, slower to leave, price-insensitive on schedule. The first $1.5 billion built the pipe. The debate over the next $4 billion is really a debate over timing, because the channels themselves, once compliance-cleared, allocate mechanically. Bulls can be wrong about 2026 and right about the asset, which is an argument for position sizing instead of abstinence.

What would invalidate the flow thesis Intellectual honesty requires listing the ways the $4 billion never arrives even if the bill passes. The first is product cannibalization. The next generation of crypto ETFs is multi-asset: index products holding baskets weighted by market capitalization, which institutional buyers often prefer to single-token bets. If the advised channels open and allocate through baskets, XRP captures only its index weight of the flows, a fraction of the headline projection built on dedicated products. The second is fee and liquidity concentration. ETF flows historically consolidate into one or two winners per category, and a fragmented five-issuer field splits liquidity in ways that keep the largest allocators waiting for a dominant product to emerge.

The third invalidator is reputational path dependence. A single adverse event, an issuer failure, a custody incident, an escrow controversy, would reset the compliance clocks that took years to run, and crypto’s history suggests assigning that tail a nonzero weight. The fourth is simple opportunity cost: if the gate opens during a macro regime where advisors are cutting risk, the mechanical allocations shrink with the risk budgets they draw from. None of these kills the asset. Each of them turns the projection’s midpoint into its ceiling, and collectively they are why serious flow forecasts carry ranges wide enough to drive a truck through.

What Ripple controls and what it does not It is worth separating the variables by who holds them. Ripple controls its licensing map, its product velocity, RLUSD’s growth, escrow release policy, and the October event calendar. It controls none of the three variables that will actually decide the flow question: the Senate schedule, the Federal Reserve, and the oil price. That asymmetry explains the company’s visible strategy of building the institutional rails before the demand arrives, so that when the gate opens, adoption is an integration task rather than a construction project. It also explains why company news has stopped moving the token: the market has correctly identified which variables bind.

For regulation watchers, the checklist between now and the August recess is short. A scheduled Senate floor vote is the unlock signal. The reconciliation of the two committee texts is its precondition. Public declarations from additional Democratic senators are the vote-count tell. And ETF net flows themselves are the real-time referendum: sustained creations through a stalled news cycle would show the slow money starting to front-run the statute, while accelerating redemptions would show the hope premium leaking out.

The scoreboard to watch through August Condensing the analysis into a watchlist: Senate floor scheduling is the master variable, and everything else is downstream. Weekly ETF net flows are the highest-frequency tell, with sustained creations through stalled news indicating front-running and accelerating redemptions indicating the hope premium unwinding. Exchange balance trends and large-wallet accumulation show whether the patient-hands migration continues. RLUSD supply growth versus XRP ledger fee volume tracks the internal debate about what the token captures. And the $1.00 and $1.13 levels frame the range until one of the above breaks it.

The next $4 billion is neither a fantasy nor a schedule. It is a documented pipeline behind a legal gate, with a probability attached that the market itself now prices below even odds for this year. If the gate opens, the buyer list is specific, the mechanics are boring, and boring is what durable repricings are made of. If it does not, XRP spends the midterm season as a range asset defending $1.00 with strong hands accumulating and weak hands gone, which is not the worst setup an asset has entered a year with.

Goldman answered the question of who sells. The Senate, not the market, holds the answer to who buys.

Disclaimer: This article is information, not investment advice. Prices, flow figures, analyst projections, and legislative timelines reflect reporting available as of July 14, 2026, and can change quickly. ETF flow projections are conditional estimates, not commitments. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP or any other asset. Verify current developments from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

As XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) is battling to stay above $1, pro-crypto attorney John Deaton said XRP holders played a meaningful role in Ripple’s landmark legal victory against the SEC.

‘Happy XRP is not a security day’In an X post on July 14, Deaton said the court cited his amicus brief, nearly 4,000 affidavits submitted by XRP holders, and an oral argument he made in the LBRY case regarding secondary-market sales of digital assets.

He also noted that his brief argued that the token is merely digital code regardless of how it may have been marketed.

Judge Torres ultimately ruled that XRP itself is not a security, a conclusion Deaton said aligned with that argument.

Ripple chief legal officer Stuart Alderoty also celebrated on X stating, "Happy XRP IS NOT A SECURITY DAY!"

Vet, an XRP Ledger validator, also noted that the legal win led to a more crypto friendly administration and it was the "beginning of the end of the previous SEC war on crypto."

Japan remains one of XRP’s strongest markets, supported by regulatory clarity, significant institutional participation and one of the world’s largest XRP holder communities.

Doppler Finance announced a strategic partnership with SBI Digital Finance to expand institutional XRP finance in Japan. The main goal is to develop compliant XRP-based financial solutions for institutional investors.

Potential Capitulation BottomIn a podcast on July 13, crypto analyst Cryptoinsightuk highlighted elevated open interest, positive funding rates and geopolitical uncertainty as possible triggers for XRP to briefly fall below $1, targeting the $0.925-$0.95 range.

However, the analyst views such a move as a potential capitulation bottom rather than the beginning of a deeper downtrend.

Strong support around $0.95 and relatively limited liquidity below that level could pave the way for a rebound toward $1.70-$1.80.

While a decline to $0.63 remains possible, the analyst considers it a lower-probability scenario.

Image: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

Ripple-backed Evernorth has unveiled a $44 million CEO equity package in a fresh SEC filing while advancing its merger to create a Nasdaq-listed XRP treasury company.

Summary

Evernorth’s latest SEC filing includes a $44 million equity award for CEO Asheesh Birla. The amended filing advances Evernorth’s merger with Armada Acquisition Corp II and planned XRPN listing. Evernorth also launched a Japanese-language XRP information channel without announcing local operations. According to Evernorth Holdings’ fourth amended Form S-4 registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company updated executive and director compensation arrangements while advancing the paperwork required for its proposed business combination with Armada Acquisition Corp II, a special purpose acquisition company backed by Arrington Capital.

🚨SCOOP: Ripple-backed Evernorth Holdings files S-4 Amendment with the US SEC
🔸Evernorth moves closer to its merger with Armada Acquisition Corp II and to launch the largest Nasdaq-listed public XRP treasury

🔸Filing announces CEO Ashish Birla’s base salary and a $44 million… pic.twitter.com/wStNBFZ23q

— Rednirav (@CryptoRednirav) July 14, 2026 The filing sets CEO Asheesh Birla’s base salary and grants him an initial equity award valued at about $44 million, together with vesting terms. Chief financial officer Matt Frymier would receive a base salary, annual bonus eligibility and an equity award worth about $5.6 million.

Evernorth also disclosed restricted stock unit awards valued at $750,000 for executives, subject to approval by the board’s compensation committee and the company’s shareholders.

Merger filing moves XRP treasury listing closer Beyond executive compensation, the amended filing moves Evernorth another step toward completing its merger with Armada Acquisition Corp II. If the transaction receives regulatory and shareholder approval, the combined company is expected to trade on Nasdaq under the ticker XRPN while operating what Evernorth has described in its SEC filings as the largest publicly listed XRP treasury company.

According to the filing, Evernorth has secured more than $1 billion in gross proceeds from investors including Ripple, Arrington Capital, SBI Holdings, Pantera Capital and Kraken.

Board appointments were also updated. Ripple chief legal officer Stuart Alderoty is expected to join the board alongside CEO Asheesh Birla and Ted Janus. The proposed board would also include OpenAI Foundation chief financial officer Robert Kaiden and Antalpha chief operating officer Derar Islim.

Separately, Evernorth has expanded its public communications by launching a Japanese-language social media account focused on XRP-related updates and market education. In its introductory message, the company stated that Japan had supported XRP early and that it would continue building from there. However, Evernorth did not announce a new office, regulatory license, investment, product launch, or local operating business in Japan.

The company added that the Japanese account would explain market developments in simple terms and provide professional information without discussing XRP price movements or forecasts. Evernorth has not disclosed local staffing, partnerships or services connected to the initiative, while its website continues to list San Francisco as its primary headquarters.

XRPN stock holds steady as XRP activity grows While the merger still awaits regulatory approval, Armada Acquisition Corp II shares have largely held their gains. The stock is up about 2.25% since the beginning of the year and has gained nearly 0.5% over the past month, although it closed 0.10% lower on Monday. Its 52-week high stands at $10.91.

Source: Yahoo Finance Evernorth has also pointed to rising XRP adoption across several areas. According to the company, tokenized real-world assets on the XRP Ledger increased from roughly $150 million to $4 billion over the past year, supported by growth in spot XRP ETF inflows and an increase in newly created XRP wallets.

Meanwhile, XRP (XRP) traded at about $1.10 after rising 2.3% over the previous 24 hours. The token fluctuated between $1.06 and $1.11 during the session, while trading volume rose nearly 16% ahead of the release of U.S. consumer price index inflation data.

In This Article The Van Rossem Upgrade Is One Vote AwayHoskinson Defends EMURGO But the SBI Miss StingsThe Cardano DRep Governance Standoff Has Already Drawn Blood Cardano is experiencing one of its most significant weeks in months, and not all of the news is positive. The van Rossem upgrade is progressing through Cardano’s governance process.

Meanwhile, Charles Hoskinson has defended EMURGO after Solana announced a high-profile partnership with SBI Holdings, which the Cardano community believes should have belonged to them.

UPDATE

CARDANO'S NEXT HARD FORK COULD GO LIVE THIS MONTH 😱😱😱

Cardano's Van Rossem hard fork is currently in on-chain governance voting and could activate in July 2026.

The upgrade cuts smart contract costs, introduces ZK-ready cryptography, and marks Cardano's first hard… pic.twitter.com/lAlfY5DtJX

— Mintern (@MinswapIntern) July 12, 2026

Additionally, the ecosystem’s DRep governance system is engaged in an increasingly contentious standoff with founding entities, resulting in the cancellation of the Cardano Summit 2026.

The central issue in all three situations is the same: Cardano’s new decentralized governance infrastructure is functioning exactly as intended, and that is part of the problem.

The Van Rossem Upgrade Is One Vote Away van Rossem hard fork update 🍴

The hard fork initiation action was ratified at the epoch boundary on July 13, 2026 at 21:45 UTC.

Voting Result:
✅️ DReps: 77.63% / 60%
✅️ SPOs: 52.7% / 51%
✅️ CC: 6 constitutional, 1 did not vote

Following ratification, enactment will now… pic.twitter.com/GGcQSajRjm

— Intersect (@IntersectMBO) July 13, 2026

The van Rossem upgrade is being ratified through Cardano’s on-chain governance. Think of it as the difference between a landlord deciding to renovate and tenants voting on it themselves.

The on-chain vote is close to securing the required approvals from DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee, and Intersect’s Hard Fork Working Group has recommended proceeding with the upgrade.

Protocol Version 11 delivers improvements to Plutus smart contract performance and lower execution costs for DeFi/stablecoin scripts.

It also includes pairing-based cryptographic primitives that enable native zero-knowledge proof verification, enhancements to node security, VRF key uniqueness, and stake pool hardening, as well as improved ledger consistency and updated reference input rules. It also lays groundwork for later scaling and governance-era changes.

DISCOVER: Best Meme Coin ICOs to Invest in 2026

Hoskinson Defends EMURGO But the SBI Miss Stings This week, SBI Holdings announced a partnership with Solana to develop on-chain financial markets in Japan, prompting questions about why Cardano missed the opportunity.

Cardano’s founder, Charles Hoskinson, refuted claims of failure, stating that historical ties don’t guarantee commercial deals and that neither EMURGO nor the Cardano Foundation is contractually bound to negotiate. He suggested using the Cardano treasury to fund a dedicated business development organization to pursue strategic partnerships.

Cardano also missed out on the OpenUSD stablecoin initiative, which includes companies like Ripple and Coinbase. EMURGO’s reduced activity is due to a focus on recovery after the SecondFi wallet security incident.

The situation is ironic, as Hoskinson is advocating for treasury-funded expansion amid difficulties in getting large proposals approved, despite ongoing engagement in the ecosystem.

EXCLUSIVE: Join 99Bitcoin’s $1000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit

The Cardano DRep Governance Standoff Has Already Drawn Blood

(SOURCE: TradingView)

The DRep system for Voltaire governance has rejected several key proposals, including a 14 million ADA request for the Cardano Summit 2026 and a revised 7.8 million ADA proposal that fell short of the required supermajority, leading to the summit’s cancellation.

Additionally, a 32.9 million ADA research fund proposal faced 86.72% opposition due to concerns about bundling, overlap with IOG’s responsibilities, and lack of detailed milestones. While IOG secured approval for six out of nine treasury proposals totaling 131.5 million ADA, the largest asks faced friction.

Hoskinson has warned that rejecting research funding could deter engineers, prompting the Cardano Foundation to encourage active voting among stake pool operators.

The governance framework established by CIP-1694 is functioning as intended, but the ongoing deadlock raises concerns about Cardano’s competitiveness.

The upcoming ratification of the van Rossem upgrade could enhance the credibility of on-chain governance, but persistent governance issues could lead to significant setbacks for Cardano.

EXPLORE: Best Crypto Presales With Asymmetric Upside in the Current Market

#Altcoin News Today

Why you can trust 99Bitcoins

10+ Years

Established in 2013, 99Bitcoin’s team members have been crypto experts since Bitcoin’s Early days.

90hr+

Weekly Research

100k+

Monthly readers

50+

Expert contributors

2000+

Crypto Projects Reviewed

Follow 99Bitcoins on your Google News Feed

Get the latest updates, trends, and insights delivered straight to your fingertips. Subscribe now!

Subscribe now

Alex Ioannou

On-Chain Journalist

Alex is a seasoned cryptocurrency trader and market analyst with over seven years of active experience in the digital asset space. Since entering the markets in 2017, Alex has specialized in identifying emerging "meta" trends and high-volatility narratives. Notably, Alex... Read More

Free Bitcoin Crash Course Enjoyed by over 100,000 students. One email a day, 7 days in a row. Short and educational, guaranteed!

BNB marked its ninth anniversary since launching on July 14, 2017, evolving from an Ethereum-based utility token into a key asset driving one of the crypto industry’s largest blockchain networks.

Progression from utility token to core network assetWhen BNB debuted in 2017, it entered the market as an ERC-20 token on Ethereum, priced at $0.15 with a total supply of 200 million. It initially functioned primarily to reduce trading fees and facilitate activities on the then-emerging Binance exchange, now one of the world’s largest digital asset platforms.

In 2019, BNB transitioned to its own proprietary blockchain, becoming a native asset. This migration allowed BNB to serve as the backbone for its own network infrastructure and opened the door for new on-chain use cases beyond its original exchange utility.

BNB Chain acknowledged that BNB entered the industry as a utility token for a new exchange, and has since become central to one of the most active decentralized ecosystems in crypto after nine years of development.

With the launch of Binance Smart Chain in 2020, the network gained compatibility with Ethereum-based smart contracts, allowing developers to build decentralized applications while using BNB for transaction fees and network operations. This move positioned the chain as an emerging hub for decentralized finance (DeFi) and gaming projects.

DeFi expansion and technology upgradesBNB Chain gained significant traction during the 2021 DeFi boom, with its on-chain activity pushing BNB’s price to $690 at its peak. The surge in applications and trading volume established the network as one of the more active blockchains alongside giants like Ethereum.

A major rebranding came in 2022 when Binance Smart Chain became BNB Chain, with BNB reimagined as “Build N Build.” This shift emphasized the chain’s focus on supporting developers and network expansion.

In 2023, the ecosystem incorporated the opBNB scaling solution, designed to increase transaction throughput, and BNB Greenfield, which delivered decentralized storage capabilities. These upgrades reflected the network’s strategy to expand beyond simple financial transactions.

Mini dictionary: opBNB, a Layer 2 scaling solution for BNB Chain, is designed to handle more transactions per second and lower network fees by processing transactions off-chain before settling them on the main BNB blockchain.

Token burns, block speed, and 2026 roadmapEfforts to streamline BNB Chain continued with the 2024 Beacon Chain fusion, which unified staking and governance functions under one chain for improved user and developer experience.

By 2025, BNB Chain had reduced block times to 0.75 seconds through upgrades named Pascal, Lorentz, and Maxwell. That year also saw BNB reach a new all-time high of $1,370, and the network logged a new record for decentralized exchange (DEX) trading volumes.

YearBlock TimeBNB Price HighTotal BNB Burned20240.75 secondsNot specifiedNot specified20250.75 seconds$1,370Not specified20260.45 secondsNot specified65 millionCumulatively, more than 65 million BNB tokens have been burned out of the original 200 million. The burn mechanism aims to reduce the total supply to 100 million, a process intended to increase scarcity and potentially add value to the remaining tokens.

Currently, BNB Chain processes blocks in 450 milliseconds and achieves a final settlement time of 650 milliseconds—double the efficiency compared to early 2026 figures. The 2026 second-half roadmap outlines plans to double mainnet throughput and introduce a Layer 1 solution capable of processing more than 100,000 transactions per second (TPS).

The updated roadmap sets out to improve speed and throughput, targeting a Layer 1 network with over 100,000 TPS and even faster finality for transaction settlement.

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.

Jul 14, 2026, 2:57 p.m.

2 min read

Jeremy Allaire Circle CEO. (The Washington Post / Getty Images) Summary

JPMorgan said a new arrangement with Hyperliquid is a near-term revenue headwind for Circle and Coinbase, with a greater long-term threat to Circle's USDC economics. The bank argued the deal exposes a "prisoner's dilemma," encouraging Circle and Coinbase to compete for USDC distribution at the expense of each other's economics. The Wall Street firm lowered earnings estimates for both firms, citing the Hyperliquid changes alongside weaker crypto trading volumes and asset prices.JPMorgan (JPM) lowered its forecasts for Circle Internet (CRCL) and Coinbase (COIN), saying their revamped agreement with Hyperliquid weakens the economics of Circle's USDC and posed a bigger long-term threat to the stablecoin issuer.

The bank said the deal created a "prisoner's dilemma," incentivizing stablecoin issuer Circle and crypto exchange Coinbase to compete for distribution of the dollar-pegged token at the expense of each other's economics.

Hyperliquid, now one of the largest crypto trading venues, holds about $6 billion of USDC, or roughly 8% of the circulating supply, JPMorgan estimated.

"We think the change in the Hyperliquid relationship showcases the challenge for Circle and Coinbase partnership agreements because it can create 'a prisoner’s dilemma' that drive Coinbase and Circle to compete with each other when promoting USDC distribution," analysts led by Kenneth Worthington said in the Tuesday report.

Hyperliquid is one of crypto's fastest-growing trading venues and the leading decentralized perpetual futures exchange. The platform processed more than $150 billion in trading volume in July alone, while its volume relative to Binance climbed to 11.5%, underscoring its growing share of the derivatives market. USDC balances on Hyperliquid have swelled to roughly $6 billion, making it an increasingly important distribution channel for the stablecoin.

Under the new arrangement, Coinbase will classify USDC on Hyperliquid as "on-platform," collecting the income generated by reserves and paying 90% of it to Hyperliquid. JPMorgan estimated Coinbase previously split nearly all of the revenue evenly with Circle.

The bank cut earnings estimates for both companies, citing the Hyperliquid agreement and weaker crypto markets, though it expects higher interest rates to provide some support for USDC-related revenue over the longer term.

USDC has also lost momentum in recent months. Its circulating supply has fallen to about $73 billion from nearly $80 billion in March, part of a broader $10 billion contraction in the stablecoin market since May as crypto trading activity cooled and new regulated rivals chipped away at the dominance of USDC and Tether's USDT.

Japanese investment bank Mizuho said in a report last week that Circle's final approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to establish First National Digital Currency Bank is a positive milestone, but investors may be overestimating its significance.

AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our standards. For more information, see CoinDesk's full AI Policy.

12345678910

The two largest retail-facing trading platforms in the US are now competing for your idle stablecoins, and they’ve both picked the same DeFi protocol to do it. Coinbase and Robinhood have each built yield products on top of Morpho, the decentralized lending infrastructure that has quietly amassed over $11B in total value locked.

Two platforms, two philosophies Coinbase launched its onchain USDC lending product via Morpho back on September 18, 2025. The yields are variable, meaning they fluctuate with supply and demand in the lending markets, and the platform has advertised rates reaching as high as 10.8%.

On top of the base lending rate, Coinbase participants can earn MORPHO token rewards. These are claimable periodically, with Coinbase One subscribers reportedly getting enhanced access.

Coinbase has also introduced two risk-tiered vault options curated by Steakhouse Financial: “Prime” and “Higher Yield.” The Prime vault carries lower risk and lower returns, while Higher Yield does what the name suggests, with commensurately more exposure.

Advertisement

Robinhood took a different path entirely. Its “Robinhood Earn” product started rolling out around July 1, 2026, and it targets an estimated 7% APY on USDG, its own stablecoin. Rather than letting rates float, Robinhood is fixing the yield for a year.

The Robinhood vault operates on the Robinhood Chain and is backed by insurance from Lloyd’s of London.

Why Morpho is the quiet winner Neither platform built its own lending protocol from scratch. Both chose Morpho, which functions as permissionless lending infrastructure that lets anyone create isolated lending markets, or “vaults,” with customizable risk parameters.

Neither platform requires lockup periods. Users can deposit and withdraw based on vault liquidity, with interest accruing instantly.

What this means for investors Coinbase’s variable model rewards active participants who understand DeFi mechanics and are comfortable with rate fluctuations. When lending demand is high, you could earn well above 7%. The MORPHO token rewards add upside, but tokens are inherently volatile.

Robinhood’s fixed 7% is designed for people who want to set it and forget it. The Lloyd’s insurance backing adds a layer of confidence that’s unusual in crypto yield products. But fixed rates carry their own risk for the platform: if market rates drop below 7%, Robinhood is subsidizing the difference. If rates spike well above 7%, users miss out on the upside.

Both Coinbase and Robinhood are publicly traded, SEC-reporting companies offering yield products built on decentralized infrastructure. The fact that regulators haven’t blocked these products, at least so far, suggests a growing tolerance for DeFi integrations when wrapped in compliant, insured, consumer-friendly packaging.

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

Nobody hacked anything. No smart contract failed, no private key leaked, no phishing link fired. On July 6, the treasury of BonkDAO, the community organization behind one of Solana’s flagship memecoins, transferred roughly $20 million worth of BONK to a wallet controlled by an attacker, and every step of the transfer was a valid transaction executed exactly as the DAO’s own rules prescribed.

Summary

An attacker spent about $4.4 million to gain enough BONK voting power and passed a proposal that transferred nearly $20 million from the BonkDAO treasury. The incident exposed how low voter participation, no timelock, and automatic proposal execution left the DAO vulnerable to governance capture. The treasury drain has renewed calls for stronger DAO safeguards as exchanges, investigators, and the broader crypto industry assess the aftermath. The attacker did not break the governance system. They bought it, for about $4.4 million, at an implied return of nearly five to one, in a vote where seven wallets participated and more than 18,000 members did not. The episode is the cleanest proof to date of an uncomfortable truth the industry has spent years politely ignoring: a treasury governed by token-weighted voting is worth exactly the cost of assembling a temporary majority, and for most DAOs, that cost is a fraction of the prize.

The mechanics deserve a careful walkthrough because the details are what turn a crime story into a design lesson. And the aftermath, exchanges freezing deposits, law enforcement notified, a philosophical fight over whether this was theft at all, will shape how every treasury-holding DAO on every chain rewrites its rules over the next year.

Six days in the open The attack was not fast, and it was not hidden. On June 30, an anonymous wallet submitted a proposal to BonkDAO’s governance system, which runs on Realms, Solana’s standard DAO tooling. The proposal carried the title BIP #76, styled itself as a governance renewal plan, and dressed the theft in the language of turnaround management: install new leadership, restructure the council, monetize treasury holdings, stop the bleeding. It even included a line noting that yes-voters would be eligible to receive tokens, a detail that reads in hindsight like a dark joke about incentive design. Beneath the rhetoric sat the only clause that mattered: an instruction to transfer 4.43 trillion BONK, the bulk of the treasury, to a wallet the proposer controlled.

The proposal stayed live for six days. During that window, the attacker methodically accumulated voting power, spending approximately $4.4 million buying BONK through exchange wallets, an amount equal to just over 1% of total supply but decisive against the DAO’s quorum arithmetic. On-chain researchers, including Yu Xian of security firm SlowMist and the analyst Yu Jin, later reconstructed the accumulation pattern: purchases sized to clear the quorum threshold with minimal excess, executed while the proposal sat in plain sight and no meaningful opposition organized. On July 6, the attacker cast the assembled stake. The final tally showed 882.38 billion BONK in favor against a quorum threshold of 879.95 billion, a margin so narrow it amounts to the attacker buying the exact number of votes required and almost nothing more.

Turnout was 2.9%. The yes share was 99.9%, which is what unanimity looks like when a single voter agrees with itself.

Then the system worked as designed, which is the entire problem. Realms-based governance executes passed proposals automatically. No human signed off, no council reviewed the transfer, no delay separated approval from execution. The treasury moved to an address ending in JHvQ, which investigators traced to funding from a Bybit account, and portions began flowing toward exchanges within hours.

The anatomy of the failure Three missing safeguards converted a bad proposal into an executed one, and each is a standard control the DAO simply did not have. The first is a timelock: a mandatory delay between a proposal passing and its instructions executing. Even a 48-hour window would have given the community, or the core team, time to see a treasury-draining transfer queued and organize a response. The second is a multisig or council veto: an emergency brake allowing designated signers to freeze anomalous executions. The third is quorum and participation design: a system where 1% of supply can constitute a passing majority against 2.9% turnout has set its security budget equal to the apathy of its members.

The deeper failure sits above all three: the treasury’s size bore no relationship to the cost of controlling it. BonkDAO held roughly 15% of all circulating BONK, a war chest accumulated through the token’s boom years, governed by a mechanism whose capture cost floated with the token’s price and its holders’ attention. The attacker’s arithmetic was public information. Anyone could compute that quorum, multiplied by market price, cost about $4 million to satisfy, against a treasury worth five times that. The only surprising thing about the attack is that it took until 2026.

The pattern has a canonical ancestor. In 2022, an attacker used a flash loan to seize voting control of Beanstalk, a DeFi protocol, and drained about $180 million in the same block. The industry’s response then was to treat flash-loan governance as the flaw: protocols added voting delays that made borrowed tokens useless for instant capture. BonkDAO’s attacker needed no flash loan. They used patient capital, real purchases held across days, which defeats the flash-loan defenses entirely and shows that the vulnerability was never the loan. It was the market for votes itself.

The market for votes was always there The uncomfortable context is that vote buying in DAO governance is not a fringe exploit; it is an industry with infrastructure. Bribe markets, where protocols openly pay token holders to vote for emissions and incentives, have operated for years around the largest DeFi governance systems and are treated as legitimate yield. Vote-lending and delegation markets let holders rent their governance power without selling their tokens. The line between that accepted economy and what happened to BonkDAO is intent, not mechanism: the machinery for converting money into votes was built, normalized, and liquid long before someone aimed it at a treasury instead of an emissions gauge.

That normalization is why the security framing has to be economic instead of technical. Auditors evaluate smart contracts against code exploits and can certify a system bug-free while it remains trivially capturable, because capture is not a bug. The relevant metric, which security researchers have urged for years under the name cost of corruption, compares the expense of acquiring decisive voting power against the value extractable by wielding it. For a healthy system, the first number exceeds the second with a wide margin. BonkDAO’s ratio, roughly $4.4 million against $20 million, was not marginal. It was an arbitrage with a six-day settlement period, advertised on a public governance forum. Any DAO that has never computed its own ratio should assume an attacker has.

The turnout side of the ratio deserves equal weight, because the attacker’s capital did not defeat 18,000 members; it defeated their absence. Governance participation across the industry has decayed for years, from the double-digit turnout of early experiments to the low single digits typical today, as token holders rationally conclude that reading proposals is unpaid labor with diluted influence. Every percentage point of apathy directly lowers the capture price. In that sense, the $4.4 million was not the cost of beating BonkDAO’s community. It was the market-clearing price of its indifference, and comparable prices are computable for hundreds of treasuries right now.

The tooling default problem A quieter thread of the postmortem concerns Realms, the standard governance stack on Solana, and by extension the defaults every DAO platform ships. Nothing in the incident involved a flaw in the tooling: Realms executed a validly passed proposal, which is its job. But defaults are policy, and the configuration this DAO ran, automatic execution, no timelock, a static quorum set long ago, is the path of least resistance the tooling made easy. The same critique applies across ecosystems, where governance frameworks expose timelocks and councils as optional modules that busy launch teams skip. The predictable industry response is already forming: platforms moving protective defaults from opt-in to opt-out, warning surfaces that flag treasury-moving instructions in plain language, and simulation tools that show voters exactly what a proposal executes before they approve it. None of that required new research. It required a $20 million proof that someone would actually pull the trigger.

Theft, or the rules working The philosophical fight broke out immediately and is more consequential than it sounds. One camp, including a notable contingent of on-chain observers, argues that nothing was stolen: the attacker followed every rule, won a vote the rules recognized, and executed a transfer the rules authorized. Code was law, the law was bad, and the losses are tuition. The proposal was public for six days; 18,000 members who could not be bothered to vote against their own treasury made a governance decision by omission. On this reading, the term “attack” launders negligence into victimhood, and law enforcement involvement sets a precedent that undermines the entire premise of on-chain governance: if valid votes can be criminal, then governance outcomes are subject to off-chain veto, and the system’s guarantees mean nothing.

The opposing camp, which includes BonkDAO itself, the analytics firms tracking the funds, and figures like Ripple’s chief technology officer emeritus David Schwartz, who compared the maneuver to corporate fraud, argues that legality is not defined by protocol validity. A proposal that misrepresents its purpose, transfers assets to its author, and relies on engineered low turnout is fraud in any legal system humans have built, regardless of how faithfully the machinery executed it. Corporate law developed exactly these doctrines for exactly these reasons: shareholder votes procured through deception are voidable, and control acquired to loot a treasury is a breach the courts unwind. The wrapper being a DAO does not repeal centuries of fiduciary reasoning.

The debate matters practically because it decides where defense happens. If this is theft, then exchanges freezing funds, as Upbit did when it suspended BONK deposits and withdrawals, and law enforcement tracing the Bybit-funded wallet are the immune system working. If this is the rules working, then every defense must live on-chain, in timelocks and vetoes and quorum design, and off-chain recovery is itself the attack on the system. The industry visibly believes both things at once, which is why the response has been both a law enforcement referral and a wave of emergency governance reviews at other DAOs.

What BONK was, and what the treasury was for The scale of the loss only registers against what the DAO had built. BONK launched in December 2022 as Solana’s answer to its darkest hour, airdropping half its supply to the ecosystem’s users, developers, and artists in the weeks after the FTX collapse had cratered confidence in the chain. The distribution strategy worked beyond any reasonable expectation: the token became the community flag of Solana’s recovery, integrated across hundreds of applications, listed on every major venue, and eventually the anchor of an ecosystem spanning launchpads, exchanges, and grant programs. The treasury at the center of this month’s attack was the accumulated war chest of that run, holding roughly 15% of supply and funding the buybacks, integrations, and community programs that separated BONK from the thousands of memecoins that mint, spike, and vanish.

That history is why the governance failure stings beyond the dollar figure. The DAO structure was not decoration; it was the mechanism by which a token with no product and no cash flows coordinated thousands of contributors for three years. The treasury was the proof that memecoin communities could accumulate and steward real resources. Its draining through a seven-wallet vote is therefore an attack on the category’s best argument for itself, and every project that pitched community treasuries as the moat now answers for the moat’s price tag.

The damage, priced The market’s verdict was swift but contained. BONK fell between 8 and 10% on the disclosure, trading around levels that left its market capitalization near $400 million, and stabilized within days. Several factors capped the damage. The stolen tokens, more than 4.4 trillion BONK, represent supply that was already outside the market in a treasury, so the theft’s mechanical effect is a transfer of overhang rather than new emission, though overhang in hostile hands is worth less than overhang in friendly ones. Exchange coordination raised the realistic prospect of partial recovery or at least slowed liquidation. And the token’s price had already absorbed a brutal year alongside the whole memecoin complex, whose aggregate value sits more than 50% below its level of twelve months ago even after a July bounce, leaving less speculative premium to destroy.

No user wallets were touched, and the BONK token contract itself was never at issue, distinctions that matter for the asset’s survival. The loss is concentrated in the commons: the treasury that funded ecosystem grants, marketing, and the buyback programs that gave the DAO its purpose. For a memecoin, whose entire value proposition is community coordination, draining the coordination budget through the coordination mechanism is a uniquely poetic wound, as crypto.news noted in its report on the treasury raid. The token survives; the question is whether the institution does.

The recovery race Recovery, if it happens, will happen at the choke points, and the first week showed both their power and their limits. Stolen tokens moving toward centralized exchanges triggered the standard playbook: BonkDAO identified the exchange wallets used to accumulate BONK before the vote, notified law enforcement, and coordinated with exchanges, bridges, and the Solana Foundation. Upbit’s suspension of BONK deposits and withdrawals closed one of the deepest liquidity venues to the attacker, and the wallet trail through a Bybit-funded account gives investigators a potential identity thread, since major exchanges hold verified customer records behind funded accounts.

The limits are equally real. On-chain funds that stay on-chain remain beyond freezing, and an attacker with $20 million of patience can wait out attention, launder through decentralized venues, or drip supply into liquidity over months. Security analysts examining the movement patterns flagged infrastructure choices that complicate tracing, and the history of comparable incidents suggests recoveries are partial when they happen at all, often arriving through negotiated returns, the white-hat conversion, where an attacker keeps a bounty-sized fraction, more often than through seizure. The realistic best case is not restoration but attrition: enough friction at every exit that liquidation becomes slow, discounted, and legally dangerous, which changes the attacker’s arithmetic retroactively and, more importantly, changes it prospectively for the next one running the same computation against another treasury.

The regulatory shadow The episode also lands in the middle of a live legislative fight, and lawmakers hostile to DeFi could not have commissioned a better exhibit. The CLARITY Act’s most contested sections concern exactly this territory: what obligations attach to decentralized systems, who bears responsibility when autonomous code moves other people’s money, and whether governance token holders or developers stand behind the structures they launch. A $20 million treasury vanishing through a valid vote, followed by an appeal to the very law enforcement the system was designed to route around, hands skeptics their argument in a single anecdote: the industry wants code to be law until code loses, at which point it wants law to be law. Advocates will answer that the failure was one badly configured DAO, not the model, and that the response, exchanges, analytics firms, and police cooperating within hours, shows the accountability layer functioning. Both arguments will be quoted in committee, and the regulation debate will price the incident long after the market has forgotten it.

There is a subtler legal exposure inside the DAO structure itself. If courts or regulators conclude that governance token voting constitutes control, then large holders who do vote may carry duties toward the treasury they direct, an outcome that would make participation more dangerous than apathy and invert the incentive problem the industry is trying to fix. The unresolved status of DAO legal personhood, patched in a few jurisdictions through wrapper statutes and ignored in most, means every treasury of size is now a test case waiting for its plaintiff.

What every other DAO does now The practical legacy of BIP #76 is a checklist already circulating through governance forums across Solana and every other ecosystem. Timelocks on treasury-affecting proposals move from best practice to table stakes, with delays scaled to transfer size. Emergency veto councils, unfashionable for years because they reintroduce trusted parties into trustless systems, return to favor with sunset clauses and narrow mandates as the compromise. Quorum design gets rethought around adversarial math: thresholds set as a function of treasury value and float cost, not as static%ages chosen at launch when nobody imagined the treasury would be worth stealing. Proposal screening adds friction, deposit requirements, and mandatory review windows for any instruction that moves funds. And delegation programs attempt to fix the underlying disease, the 2.9% turnout, by concentrating voting power in accountable delegates who show up.

Each fix carries its own cost, and the honest version of the checklist admits it. Timelocks slow legitimate operations and give markets time to front-run treasury actions. Vetoes recreate the trusted committee that DAOs were invented to remove, and committees can be captured too, or become liability magnets under exactly the legal theories the theft camp invoked. High quorums can freeze governance entirely in low-attention projects, converting treasuries into unspendable monuments. The design space has no free choices, only tradeoffs between capture resistance and operational capacity, and every DAO is now pricing those tradeoffs under deadline.

The DeFi sector’s broader security picture sharpens the urgency. The same week brought a $9 million oracle exploit on a Hedera lending protocol and an active drain at a yield platform flagged mid-attack by security monitors, part of a first half that set records for incident count. Governance capture now joins oracle manipulation and bridge compromise on the standing threat list, with one distinction that makes it worse: it scales with legitimacy. The more valuable and decentralized a DAO becomes, the more its governance token trades freely, and the more liquid the market for its own capture.

The watchlist for holders and builders For anyone holding BONK or tokens governed by similar structures, the incident reduces to observable signals. On the recovery track: movement from the JHvQ-linked wallets, exchange announcements about frozen or returned funds, and any communication suggesting a negotiated settlement, each of which reprices both the treasury and the overhang. On the reform track: the text of the DAO’s emergency proposals, whether they include timelocks and a veto council, and crucially the turnout they attract, since a reform vote that passes with the same 2.9% participation has fixed the paperwork and not the disease. On the contagion track: whether other large-treasury DAOs disclose their own capture math and patch it publicly, or wait for their own BIP #76.

Builders face a starker version of the same list. Compute the cost of corruption for your own system today: quorum threshold times token price against extractable treasury value, adjusted for realistic turnout. If the ratio is unfavorable, every day it stays public is a day the trade is live for someone else. The defenses are neither novel nor expensive, which is exactly why their absence will stop being forgivable. Before July 6, an unprotected treasury was a theoretical risk that governance forums debated in the abstract. After it, the exploit is documented, the playbook is public, the return profile is proven, and the next attacker does not need to innovate. They need to search.

There is also a quieter question for the Solana ecosystem specifically, which had, by most measures, its strongest institutional month on record even as the attack unfolded: whether the maturity narrative absorbs the incident or gets dented by it. The honest answer is that the two stories are about different layers. The chain performed flawlessly throughout; the failure lived entirely in one organization’s configuration of one governance application. Institutions doing diligence understand that distinction. Retail sentiment, which still drives the memecoin complex that BONK anchors, often does not, and the gap between those two readings will be visible in the relative performance of governance-token projects for quarters.

The bill for cheap governance comes due For BONK itself, the path from here runs through three questions. Whether exchange and law enforcement coordination claws back a meaningful share of the 4.4 trillion tokens, where each recovered tranche is both treasury restoration and supply certainty. Whether the DAO can pass its own emergency reforms through the very mechanism that just failed, a live experiment in whether a captured system can vote itself better armor. And whether the community that made BONK one of the defining tokens of the meme coin era treats the episode as a death knell or a founding trauma; communities have rallied around less. The token has survived worse markets than this news.

For everyone else, the lesson costs nothing and is therefore priceless. Every DAO treasury on every chain now has a public quote for what its governance is worth: the market price of its quorum. If that number is smaller than the treasury, the treasury is not owned, it is rented, and the rent is whatever an attacker pays for the votes.

BonkDAO’s members learned the rent on a Monday in July. The rest of the industry gets to learn it from the outside, which is the only cheap way the lesson is ever taught.

Disclaimer: This article is information, not investment advice. Figures, on-chain attributions, and recovery prospects reflect reporting available as of July 14, 2026, and can change as investigations proceed. Characterizations of the incident as theft or as valid governance are contested. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell BONK or any other asset. Verify current developments from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

Injective is spearheading a new area for agentic finance to thrive.

Today we are introducing the Injective AI Agent SDK to give builders one package with the tools needed to create novel agents onchain. It connects documentation, chain commands, agent skills, and onchain execution in one setup.

AI development has changed. Builders direct agents. They give context. They set the goal. Then the agent reads, writes, checks, and executes.

However, financial agents need more than generic coding help. They need market data, transaction flows, current docs, balances, markets, bridges, wallets, and chain state.

Injective gives agents those rails with seamless accessibility for developers everywhere.

npm install -g @injectivelabs/ainj

One Install for the Injective AI StackThe SDK brings together the pieces developers usually assemble by hand.

Injective CLI
The injectived command gives agents direct access to core chain functions. Agents can query state, manage wallet flows, prepare transactions, and interact with Injective from the same command line interface used across the network.

Injective agent skills
Agent skills teach AI coding tools how Injective workflows actually work. The agent gets chain specific context across docs, commands, and examples.

Injective documentation MCP server
The documentation server connects agents to Injective source material while they build. That keeps answers grounded in the current developer stack.

Injective main MCP server
The main server gives agents a path to query, transact, and trade across Injective Mainnet and Testnet.

The result is simple. Builders spend less time wiring tools together and more time building the actual application.

Why AI Agents Need Purpose-Built Financial RailsAgents act constantly.

They check state. They compare markets. They rebalance portfolios. They test logic. They prepare transactions. They retry when conditions change.

That behavior breaks on expensive, slow infrastructure. It works on Injective.

Injective supports 650 millisecond block times, instant finality, and standard transaction fees around $0.0003. It also gives agents native financial modules, an onchain orderbook, and cross chain connectivity.

That performance gives agents room to operate. A trading agent can research a market and place an order inside the Injective environment. A treasury agent can read balances, inspect routes, and prepare actions onchain. A builder can ask for an application and give the agent the context to build against live Injective rails.

This is the chain doing what agents need.

From Prompt to Onchain ActionThe SDK is designed around the way developers already work with modern AI environments such as Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and other MCP compatible tools.

With the SDK installed, an agent can do the following.

Search the Injective docs for the right workflow.Query wallet balances and market data.Prepare and sign Injective transactions.Open and close perpetual futures positions.Bridge assets across supported networks.Write EVM or Injective native applications with chain specific context.Reason about staking, token metadata, and onchain activity.The point is simple. Injective should be available wherever builders already direct agents to work.

Part of the Larger Injective RoadmapThe SDK fits directly into the Injective roadmap.

The Injective MCP Server brought natural language execution to perpetual futures. Injective agent skills made those workflows reusable. dAppBuilder lets users generate financial applications from prompts. The Injective Agents platform points toward autonomous agents with onchain identities and direct economic activity.

The SDK pulls that direction into a cleaner builder flow.

AI native finance needs a chain where agents can read, reason, and execute. Injective has the financial modules, settlement speed, and cross chain reach to make that real.

This reaches beyond trading. Agents can support stablecoin payments, real world asset workflows, treasury management, portfolio automation, institutional dashboards, and new financial applications that static interfaces struggle to handle.

Injective is turning finance into software agents can use.

What to Know Before You BuildThe SDK plugs into the AI development environments builders already use.

It works alongside tools such as Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and MCP compatible agent setups. It gives those tools Injective context and execution paths.

User control stays at the center. Any action that writes to the chain still needs a funded wallet, signing approval, and thoughtful key management. Good agent design keeps keys local, exposes only the right context, and asks for approval before state changes.

Powerful agents need clear guardrails.

Get StartedThe Injective AI Agent SDK is live today.

npm install -g @injectivelabs/ainj

Read more in the Injective AI developer docs, explore the open source Injective agent skills, and follow Injective for what ships next.

About InjectiveInjective is a lightning fast interoperable layer one blockchain optimized for building premier Web3 finance applications. Injective provides developers with powerful plug-and-play modules for creating unmatched dApps. INJ is the native asset that powers Injective and its rapidly growing ecosystem. Injective is incubated by Binance and is backed by prominent investors such as Jump Crypto, Pantera and Mark Cuban.

Website | Telegram | Discord | Blog | Twitter | Youtube | Facebook | LinkedIn | Reddit | Instagram | Orbit Newsletter

Ondo launches 24/7 minting and redemption for tokenized stocks, closing a weekend gap that has cost traders up to 46 times more on other platforms.

Trading a tokenized stock at 2 a.m. on a Sunday used to mean one thing, moving an asset between wallets, not actually creating or redeeming it. Ondo just changed that.

Ondo has launched 24/7 instant minting and redemption for tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs, live now across Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Solana. 

The upgrade expands beyond Ondo's existing 24/5 minting window and applies to six of its most actively traded tokenized assets, SPYon, QQQon, CRCLon, NVDAon, TSLAon, and GOOGLon, with more expected to follow.

Why this is actually newSeveral platforms have advertised 24/7 trading for tokenized stocks before. 

But that claim has always come with an asterisk, the round-the-clock access has applied only to transferring an asset between wallets or exchanges, not to minting new tokens or redeeming existing ones for cash. 

Minting and redemption, the actual creation and settlement of these tokenized assets, has continued to follow traditional market hours, pausing over weekends just like the underlying stock exchanges.

Ondo Stocks already supported 24/7 permissionless transfers, letting users hold and move tokenized assets across supported wallets, exchanges, and protocols at any time.

What was missing was the ability to mint or redeem those same assets outside of standard trading hours. This update closes that gap, eligible users can now mint or redeem supported assets at the current prevailing price, any day, at any hour, including weekends and U.S. public holidays.

Why the price you pay depends on where you tradeThe practical impact of this shows up most clearly in execution costs. 

Ondo shared data comparing weekend trading costs on its platform against other tokenized stock venues.

Scroll to Continue

Recommended Articles

For a $100,000 trade in tokenized Circle stock (CRCLon), execution cost on Ondo averaged $33, compared to $835 on another platform, 25 times higher. Tokenized Google stock (GOOGLon) showed the widest gap, costing $43 on Ondo versus $1,644 elsewhere, 38 times higher. Tokenized Nvidia stock (NVDAon) showed the largest multiple of all, at $13 on Ondo versus $738 elsewhere, 57 times higher. Tesla showed a 25 times gap, the Invesco QQQ ETF showed a 7 times gap, and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF showed a 5 times gap.

Trending on TheStreet Roundtable:Cathie Wood's ARK issues bold prediction on U.S. digital dollarAnalysts stunned by Robinhood's $3.1 billion debut weekMicroStrategy sells shares to boost U.S. dollar reserveThis gap comes down to how liquidity is sourced. Ondo's tokenized stocks draw liquidity directly from public markets, where trading depth is substantial. 

Other platforms rely on onchain liquidity pools, which are limited in depth by design, meaning larger trades, especially over weekends when markets are thinner, can move prices significantly and cost traders far more.

Why this matters for tokenized markets broadlyDemand for always-on access to traditional financial assets has been growing steadily, as investors increasingly expect the same speed and flexibility from tokenized stocks that they already get trading crypto. 

By extending minting and redemption to a full 24/7 cycle, Ondo is positioning tokenized stocks to function with the same continuous liquidity and utility as the crypto markets they trade alongside.

Ondo Stocks has built a significant lead in this space already, listing more than 430 tokenized stocks and ETFs across Solana, Ethereum, and BNB Chain, and becoming the first platform in the category to surpass $1 billion in total value locked, more than every other tokenized stock platform combined. 

That infrastructure also allows tokenized stocks to be used as collateral across platforms including Ondo Perps, Morpho, and Euler.

Ondo says this 24/7 minting and redemption upgrade builds directly on that foundation, with further expansion of its always-on infrastructure planned as tokenized markets continue moving toward a fully continuous trading model.

Key Takeaways HYPE has declined more than 2% on Monday, with the token now challenging critical support near the $68.50 trendline Futures Open Interest contracted by over 2% across 24 hours to reach $2.72 billion, accompanied by $2.48 million in liquidated long positions Institutional investors poured $10.36 million into HYPE ETFs during the previous week, marking a ninth uninterrupted week of capital inflows Markets launched under HIP-3 have expanded their share of Hyperliquid perpetual trading volume from 2% to approximately 50% throughout 2026 Critical support rests at the 50-day EMA level of $63.13; a breakdown beneath this threshold may drive prices toward $53.71 Hyperliquid (HYPE) is currently exchanging hands near $65 on Monday, reflecting a decline exceeding 2% as widespread risk aversion across markets weighs on cryptocurrency valuations. This downturn continues the negative price movement observed during the previous week.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Price Escalating geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran centered around oil tanker navigation rights in the Strait of Hormuz have triggered a flight from risk-oriented assets, with cryptocurrencies caught in the selloff. Alternative tokens such as HYPE have experienced heightened selling pressure as a result.

Derivatives market intelligence from CoinGlass indicates that Open Interest decreased by more than 2% during the last 24-hour period, settling at $2.72 billion. Aggregate liquidation events reached $2.93 million, with positions betting on price increases accounting for $2.48 million of this figure.

The funding rate metric has experienced a pronounced decline to 0.0275%, signaling an increase in traders establishing short positions. This represents a notable departure from the optimistic market positioning observed in prior weeks.

Institutional Capital Continues Flowing In Notwithstanding near-term price weakness, HYPE exchange-traded funds attracted $10.36 million in net inflows throughout the past week. This achievement represents the ninth consecutive week that institutional investment vehicles focused on HYPE have recorded positive capital flows.

Source: SoSoValue Cryptocurrency analyst Michaël van de Poppe shared an optimistic assessment on July 12, stating that the HYPE chart “is ready to break out upwards” with a price objective of $100. His thesis rests on consistent revenue expansion, a pattern of ascending peaks and troughs, and the asset maintaining position above both its 21-day and 50-day moving average indicators.

The $HYPE chart is super strong.

It's ready to break out upwards, and the next target is going to be $100.

The reasons for the fact that this is the case:

– Constant revenue growth and value accrual to the token.
– Holding above the 21-Day and 50-Day MA's.
– Constant higher… pic.twitter.com/S6AZSY1Ecr

— Michaël van de Poppe (@CryptoMichNL) July 12, 2026

From a technical perspective, HYPE is currently challenging a breakout from an important ascending trendline situated around $68.50. The 50-day exponential moving average positioned at $63.13 now represents the nearest support zone requiring monitoring.

The Relative Strength Index has deteriorated below the neutral 50 mark to 48, while the MACD indicator is charting below its signal line. These technical readings collectively suggest diminishing bullish momentum.

A daily candle closure beneath the $63.13 threshold could establish conditions for a move toward the 50% Fibonacci retracement level located at $53.71. Conversely, a price recovery scenario would establish the previous swing high at $75.58 as the initial resistance target.

Permissionless Markets Drive Volume Growth Beyond immediate price dynamics, Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 infrastructure has demonstrated explosive adoption. HIP-3 enables developers to launch permissionless perpetual futures markets directly onchain.

The protocol’s contribution to aggregate Hyperliquid perpetual futures volume has surged from roughly 2% when 2026 commenced to approaching 50% presently. This expansion correlates with increasing retail trader appetite for onchain equity derivatives products.

TradeXYZ has emerged as the dominant participant within this category, operating markets including XYZ100 (which tracks the Nasdaq-100 index) alongside individual equity perpetuals on companies like Nvidia and Tesla, all settled using stablecoins.

The continuous 24/7 market availability represents a fundamental attraction point—participants can respond to breaking developments at any moment without restriction to traditional market hours.

HYPE exchange-traded funds documented their ninth consecutive week of institutional capital inflows totaling $10.36 million as of the most recent reporting period.

Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo, a registered investment advisor (RIA) based in Orlando, Florida, has disclosed that it holds shares of the Franklin XRP exchange-traded fund (ETF).

In its latest 13F filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company reported holding 964 shares of the ETF, valued at around $11,000 at press time. The firm boasts $1.35-$1.4 billion in assets under management (AUM) and is currently ranked among the top 500 RIAs in the US and named to the Best Financial Advisory Firms list.

Source: sec.gov

XRP ETFs attract institutional interestA similar Virginia-based firm, Main Street Group, also disclosed XRP exposure. According to its Q2 2026 regulatory filing, the firm holds 5,261 shares (valued at roughly $58,292 at the time of writing) in the Canary XRP ETF.

Additional firms with exposure in various XRP ETFs include Larson Financial Group ($1.8 million), Q3 Asset Management ($430,000), and Hurley Capital ($135,000). These firms join more prominent players like Flow Traders, whose XRP ETF is worth $1.93 million and makes up the largest institutional XRP ETF portfolio.

While the amount of funds invested varies, the above filings indicate increased institutional interest in XRP ETFs. According to MarketBeat, institutional investors purchased over 160,000 XRP ETF shares in the last 24 months. In the past year, inflows into these investment vehicles have totaled $2.50 million with zero outflows.

Source: MarketBeat

Token price is not reflective of ETF inflowsDespite rising institutional investment in XRP ETFs, the token itself is down 62.16% over the past year, trading at $1.06. Investor anticipation of US Fed interest hikes to curb inflation has also caused a recent market downturn, with XRP down over 3% in the past day.

Source: CoinMarketCap

That said, there just may be a silver lining, since the token has printed a chart similar to one from a time when it surged by 60,000%.

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

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has challenged claims that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission focused only on Ripple’s sales of XRP. 

Summary

David Schwartz says the SEC repeatedly portrayed XRP itself as a security during Ripple litigation. Marc Fagel argues the case ultimately tested whether Ripple sold XRP through unregistered securities offerings. The 2023 ruling separated XRP tokens from transactions, rejecting programmatic sales while penalizing institutional deals. He said the agency’s complaint and public statements repeatedly described XRP itself as a security before the court rejected parts of that broader position.

The exchange followed comments from former SEC attorney Marc Fagel, who said the case ultimately turned on whether Ripple sold XRP through unregistered securities offerings. Schwartz argued that this summary leaves out the regulator’s original language and the court’s response to it.

Schwartz disputes narrower reading of SEC case In a July 14 X exchange, Fagel said the SEC needed to prove that Ripple sold XRP as a security to establish a Section 5 violation. He added that the agency did not need to decide every secondary-market transaction in its case against Ripple.

Schwartz agreed that Ripple’s sales mattered but rejected the claim that this was the regulator’s only argument. He wrote, “The complaint itself frequently refers to XRP itself as the security.” He called the narrower retelling “an attempt at completely rewriting history.”

You are ignoring the entire thrust of their argument, their statements around it, and the pushback they got from the court. This is an attempt at completely rewriting history.

The complaint itself frequently refers to XRP itself as the security. The SEC's press release… pic.twitter.com/pjF6Ku0Jbf

— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) July 13, 2026 SEC complaint used broad language around XRP The SEC’s December 2020 complaint said Ripple and its executives sold more than 14.6 billion units of a “digital asset security called XRP.” The regulator alleged that the sales raised more than $1.38 billion without registration or an exemption.

The SEC’s public announcement focused on Ripple’s alleged unregistered offering and its executives’ personal sales. Fagel later acknowledged that the agency’s messaging lacked nuance and that its points appeared to change during the case. He maintained that the final legal question concerned Ripple’s XRP transactions.

Court separated the token from each transaction Judge Analisa Torres drew a distinction between XRP and the contracts or schemes used to sell it. Her July 2023 order said XRP, as a digital token, was not “in and of itself” a contract, transaction or scheme that met the Howey test.

The court then reviewed Ripple’s sales by category. It found that about $728.9 million in direct institutional sales constituted unregistered investment contracts. Programmatic exchange sales did not meet the same test because buyers did not know whether Ripple or another holder sold the tokens.

Ripple case ended with split ruling intact The SEC and Ripple dismissed their appeals in August 2025, formally ending the civil case. The final judgment kept a $125.04 million penalty and a permanent injunction tied to future unregistered institutional sales.

Notably, the XRP community marked July 13 as the third anniversary of the 2023 ruling. The decision protected Ripple’s programmatic exchange sales while leaving its institutional transactions subject to securities law.

Related reporting showed that Ripple considered closing after the SEC filed its complaint. The company continued the case and spent about $150 million on its legal defense, according to Ripple executives, as reported by crypto.news.

Schwartz said the court’s rejection of the SEC’s broader position formed a major part of Ripple’s victory. Fagel said the outcome still centered on whether Ripple’s sales qualified as securities transactions. Their exchange reflects a lasting dispute over the agency’s legal burden, public wording and the ruling that followed. That distinction still shapes how XRP’s legal history is described.

Getting crypto into your bank account has always felt like one too many steps. You sell on an exchange, wait for the withdrawal, pay a fee somewhere in the middle, and hope nothing breaks. Oobit just cut out most of that process for TRX holders.

The Tether-backed payments app announced on March 1, 2026 that users can now send TRX directly from self-custodial wallets to bank accounts via SEPA in Europe, ACH in the United States, and Faster Payments in the United Kingdom. Transfers settle in seconds, with no swaps required and no third-party intermediaries involved.

What Oobit actually built here The feature connects crypto wallets directly to traditional banking rails, three of them specifically, covering the major fiat corridors in Europe, the US, and the UK.

SEPA handles euro-denominated transfers across most of Europe. ACH is the backbone of US dollar bank payments. Faster Payments is the UK’s near-instant pound sterling network.

Advertisement

The architecture routes transactions through DTR and leverages a partnership with DePay for execution. The absence of an intermediate swap is the notable part. Most crypto-to-bank pathways require converting to a stablecoin or fiat on an exchange first, which adds time, fees, and counterparty exposure. Oobit’s approach removes that layer.

This TRX-specific announcement builds on a broader rollout Oobit made just days earlier. On February 24, 2026, the company launched wallet-to-bank transfers supporting multiple tokens including BTC, ETH, USDT, and TRX. The March 1 announcement zeroed in on TRX specifically, signaling a deliberate push to deepen the TRON ecosystem’s integration with traditional finance.

Why TRON and why now Oobit is not a new name in the TRON ecosystem. The two have worked together previously on Tap and Pay functionality and merchant spending features, meaning this wallet-to-bank integration is the next step in an existing relationship rather than a cold start.

Oobit operates across more than 80 countries and supports transactions in over 180 countries. A wallet-to-bank feature that spans SEPA, ACH, and Faster Payments simultaneously covers most of the world’s retail banking population.

What this means for TRX holders and the broader market For investors holding TRX, the practical upgrade is straightforward. Liquidity becomes easier to access. You no longer need an account on a centralized exchange to convert your position to spendable fiat.

The Tether connection also deserves a mention. Tether, the issuer of USDT and one of the most influential entities in crypto infrastructure, backing Oobit gives the company both credibility and a natural distribution channel. USDT is already the dominant stablecoin on TRON. Having Tether-backed tooling that makes TRX more spendable and more liquid reinforces the network’s position as a payments layer.

The risk worth watching is regulatory. Direct crypto-to-bank transfers sit at the intersection of two heavily regulated industries. Banking regulators in the EU, US, and UK all have views on how fiat exits from crypto should be structured, and those views are not always consistent. Oobit will need to maintain compliance across all three payment rail jurisdictions simultaneously.

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

Robinhood Chain has been live for barely a week, and USDG liquidity on Uniswap has already doubled. The Paxos-issued stablecoin’s total value locked on the protocol climbed past $8.5 million, up from roughly half that just seven days ago.

Robinhood Chain’s first week, by the numbers Robinhood Chain, an Arbitrum-based Layer 2 network, officially launched its public mainnet on July 1, 2026. Uniswap deployed as the primary automated market maker from day one, essentially serving as the chain’s liquidity backbone.

The entire chain’s TVL crossed $100 million within days of going live, and Uniswap alone has captured over $30 million of that liquidity.

Advertisement

Trading volume on Uniswap reportedly reached as high as $500 million during the first week.

USDG now represents around 65% of the total stablecoin supply on Robinhood Chain.

Why USDG is growing so fast Ethena made a $50 million deposit into a USDG vault curated by Steakhouse Financial.

Robinhood Earn, a yield product built around USDG, offers an estimated 7% APY through structured vaults managed by Steakhouse Financial.

What this means for investors When a single stablecoin accounts for 65% of a chain’s stablecoin supply, the ecosystem’s health becomes tightly coupled to that one asset. If USDG faces a de-peg event, regulatory challenge, or liquidity crisis, the ripple effects across Robinhood Chain would be disproportionately severe.

Uniswap’s position as the flagship AMM on Robinhood Chain gives it a first-mover advantage, with over $30 million in liquidity already captured and $500 million in first-week trading volume.

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

Circle, the company behind USD Coin (USDC), minted nearly $750 million worth of USDC on the Solana blockchain on July 13, bringing the total USDC issued on Solana in 2026 to approximately $68.26 billion, according to Onchain Lens. This significant activity highlights Solana’s growing role as a major platform for dollar-backed crypto liquidity.

USDC issuance and Solana’s positionUSDC serves a vital function in the digital asset ecosystem, facilitating trade settlement, acting as collateral in lending and derivatives, and powering tokenized real-world asset transactions. Increased minting volumes often signal shifts in capital allocation and investor sentiment across the market.

Onchain Lens reported that the latest batch of tokens was sent to the Solana address 7VHUFJHWu2CuExkJcJrzhQPJ2oygupTWkL2A2For4BmE. The growing trend of USDC issuance on Solana has been evident throughout 2026. For example, in April, Circle minted $3.25 billion of USDC on the network within a single week, executed across thirteen separate tranches of 250 million tokens each.

Circle, a global financial technology firm, is known for issuing stablecoins and providing blockchain-based payment solutions. Solana is a high-performance blockchain recognized for its speed and low-cost transactions, making it a preferred venue for both projects and traders seeking fast settlements.

Mini dictionary: Onchain Lens, a blockchain tracking and analytics platform that monitors major activity and trends in cryptocurrency networks.

Gross issuance, supply, and liquidity flowWhile $68.26 billion represents the total USDC minted on Solana this year, much of this amount does not remain on the network. According to DefiLlama, the current USDC supply on Solana is about $7.3 billion. Industry data shows that across all blockchains, total USDC supply stands near $73.5 billion.

MetricSolanaAll Blockchains2026 Gross USDC Issuance$68.26 billionn/aCurrent USDC Supply$7.3 billion$73.5 billionThis means only 10.7% of the USDC issued on Solana remains on the chain, with the remainder likely redeemed, burned, or moved to other blockchain networks as market participants adjust their strategies. Far from suggesting lost assets, these numbers indicate that liquidity is actively recycled, confirming that Solana operates as an efficient settlement layer for large-scale dollar flow.

Circle has consistently emphasized the importance of measuring USDC issuance alongside redemptions and circulating supply. The company’s transparency reports specifically distinguish between new minting, redemptions, and total supply, suggesting that issuance alone is not a complete indicator of market dynamics.

USDC is a digital dollar backed 100% by highly liquid cash and cash-equivalent assets and is always redeemable 1:1 for US dollars.

— Circle

As the ecosystem continues to evolve, these transparency measures are designed to provide greater clarity for market participants and institutional users.

Key drivers behind Solana’s USDC activitySolana remains a leading hub for digital asset trading activity, which helps explain Circle’s heavy USDC issuance on the network. Earlier this year, USDC accounted for 52% of all stablecoins held on Solana, reaching $14.7 billion in reserves. Major decentralized exchanges on Solana, including Raydium, Jupiter, and Orca, support high transaction volumes that rely on a robust stablecoin reserve for liquidity.

Circle’s expansion into institutional finance further drives USDC issuance on Solana. In June, BNY became the first institutional partner to offer direct custody and minting of USDC. The company also collaborates with global banks such as Standard Chartered, reinforcing its broader mission to integrate traditional finance with blockchain infrastructure.

The USDC reserve is primarily composed of cash and short-term US Treasury instruments, maintaining full backing and allowing users to redeem USDC 1:1 for U.S. dollars. This model has helped USDC retain its position as the world’s second-largest stablecoin by market capitalization, trailing only Tether’s USDT.

Going forward, observers are likely to focus on the speed and frequency with which newly minted USDC either stays on Solana or transitions off the chain. Solana’s prominence is increasingly measured by the scale of dollar volumes moving through its network, rather than any fixed snapshot of circulating supply.

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.

Spain has recorded the largest fan token burn of the FIFA World Cup 2026 after more than 1.16 million SPAIN Fan Tokens were permanently removed from circulation following the team’s quarter-final victory.

Summary

Spain burned 1.16 million SPAIN Fan Tokens after defeating Belgium in the World Cup quarter-finals. The Burn to Glory campaign has now removed nearly 3 million SPAIN tokens from circulation. Chiliz and LBank expanded fan token trading with new futures products and live trading competitions. According to Chiliz, Spain’s 2-1 win over Belgium triggered the destruction of 1,161,234 SPAIN Fan Tokens under its Burn to Glory campaign, reducing the token’s total supply to 27.25 million. The company said the burned tokens were worth about $649,050 and pushed Spain to the top of the tournament’s burn leaderboard with nearly three million tokens removed so far.

With Spain now through to the semi-finals as the first World Cup affiliate among Chiliz’s national team partners, another victory over France would take the cumulative burn above the three million token milestone, according to the campaign’s mechanics.

Spain extends its lead in Chiliz’s Burn to Glory campaign Burn to Glory ties token burns to on-field success, permanently removing part of a participating national team’s fan token supply after qualifying wins. Spain has benefited the most from the mechanism during this year’s tournament, while Belgium remains second on the leaderboard despite leaving the competition.

Chiliz said Belgium’s quarter-final defeat did not change its standing as the second-largest contributor to the campaign, with about 870,000 BELG Fan Tokens already burned during the World Cup.

Argentina has also continued climbing the rankings after beating Switzerland to reach the final four. According to Chiliz, a total of 160,000 ARG Fan Tokens have been burned across the tournament. The company added that Argentina’s treasury burn allocation will increase from 5% to 7.5% as a result of its semi-final qualification.

Portugal, which exited after losing to Spain in the Round of 16, also took part in the campaign. Chiliz reported that 208,000 POR Fan Tokens were permanently removed before the team’s elimination.

Fan token trading expands beyond tournament results Alongside the burn campaign, Chiliz has continued adding trading features around fan tokens as interest in the World Cup ecosystem grows.

Crypto exchange LBank has introduced perpetual futures for Argentina and Portugal fan tokens while announcing plans to list futures contracts for several major football club tokens. According to the exchange, upcoming additions include tokens linked to Atletico Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Paris Saint-Germain, Manchester City, Galatasaray and Arsenal.

Elsewhere, Chiliz has launched live weekly trader competitions through its Vibe Trading and Battle Trade products, allowing participants to compete while World Cup matches are being played.

Away from the tournament, the company is also preparing its next expansion for the Socios platform. Following regulatory approval in the United States, Chiliz said it is working toward launching college sports fan tokens on the app, with the rollout scheduled for the 2026 college sports season.

Earlier in the tournament, the Socios team also organized a Token Hunt promotion that allowed users to collect SPAIN and BELG Fan Tokens along with CHZ rewards before the latest Burn to Glory milestones were reached.

Together, those initiatives show that Chiliz has continued building activity around fan tokens beyond match-day price movements, while tying token supply changes directly to results on the pitch.

The launch of Robinhood Chain on an Ethereum layer-2 network is bullish for long-term value and network effects, argue analysts. 

Robinhood Chain has generated $816,000 in gross revenue since launching on July 1, with 89% captured by Robinhood, 10% by Arbitrum as middleware, and only 0.15%, or $1,538, paid to Ethereum for settlement, which doesn’t sound great.

Robinhood Chain is an EVM-compatible Arbitrum-based layer-2 network that uses ETH as its native gas token, but Ethereum is not seeing any revenue benefits yet.

Bullish or Bearish for Ethereum? Lorenzo Valente, director of research at Ark Invest, said, “If your thesis is ‘ETH is money,’ Robinhood building here is ultra bullish.” “More activity, more ETH collateral, more lindyness,” he added.

However, for those who believe ETH is a revenue-generating asset, “this is the ultra-bear case.” He added that Robinhood was never going to build on Solana, Sui, or any “monolithic layer-1” because it wants stack customization.

“They want to be landlords, not renters. Ethereum won this deal on merit. It’s just not pricing it right … Ethereum sells the most valuable settlement layer in crypto at marginal cost.”

Valente said that a healthier split would be 75% to Robinhood, 10% to Arbitrum, and 15% to Ethereum.

The Robinhood Chain is the cleanest case study of what happened to ETH’s economics over time.

Since inception, @RobinhoodApp Chain has grossed ~$816K in revenue.@Arbitrum, the middleware provider, takes 10%: ~$80K.

Arbitrum then pays Ethereum for settlement: $1,538.

The… pic.twitter.com/Jc8k4yi60M

— Lorenzo Valente (@LorenzoARK) July 13, 2026

Responding to the post, Consensys founder Joe Lubin said Ethereum layer-1 revenue fees should stay low to foster growth.

You may also like: Expert: Bitcoin Faces $8B Attack Risk, Ethereum More Secure Bitmine Snaps Up Over 30,500 ETH as Tom Lee Focuses on Crypto’s New Success Story AI Found a Real Ethereum Bug – But the Bigger Story Is What Comes Next “Tens of thousands of companies will set up shop over the next 2-3 years on some mix of Ethereum L1, L2s, and private permissioned EVMs.”

“Monetary premium will grow very large, fee revenue to L1 from so much activity,” he added before concluding that staking and other locking away of ETH will reduce supply, and “net burning of ETH under ultrasound conditions will further grow the value of ETH.”

Since its launch a fortnight ago, 82,895 ETH worth around $147.5 million has been bridged to Robinhood Chain, according to Defillama. Analysts say this has become another demand sink, along with staking, which has 33% of the supply locked, treasury companies, and ETFs.

No Love For ETH Prices Despite this bullish narrative, Ether prices remain at multi-year bear market lows with low volume and negative sentiment. ETH is trading flat on the day at around $1,780 following a dip to $1,750 during early Tuesday trading in Asia.

It has moved off its cycle low of just over $1,500 in late June, but has hit resistance at $1,800 six times over the past ten days. This remains the barrier to break for ETH to continue its slow climb higher.

The major catalysts for Ether are macro and likely to be inflation coming down and lower chances of a Fed rate hike.

Tags:

Jito DAO just put its money where its tokenomics are. The protocol has introduced JIP-38, a governance proposal that would channel 100% of Jito’s 80% revenue share from its upcoming JTX Trade platform directly into automated buybacks and burns of the JTO token, with a minimum commitment of one year.

What JIP-38 actually does The mechanics are straightforward, even if the implications are not. JTX Trade, Jito Labs’ forthcoming self-custodial trading terminal built on Solana, will generate trading fees. Under the current structure, Jito DAO receives an 80% cut of those fees.

JIP-38 proposes taking that entire 80% share and routing it into a programmatic mechanism called a Rev Splitter. The Rev Splitter would automatically purchase JTO tokens on the open market and then burn them, permanently removing them from circulation.

In English: every dollar of fee revenue Jito earns from JTX Trade gets used to buy JTO and destroy it. No treasury allocation debates, no discretionary spending. Just automated supply reduction, running for at least one year through Q4 2027.

Advertisement

The on-chain nature of the Rev Splitter means anyone can verify the buybacks in real time.

JTX Trade and Jito’s product evolution To understand why JIP-38 matters, you need to understand what JTX Trade represents for Jito’s broader strategy. The protocol built its reputation on Solana infrastructure: the Jito Block Engine handles MEV (maximal extractable value) optimization, and JitoSOL is one of the most widely adopted liquid staking tokens on the network, used by entities as large as Coinbase.

JTX Trade is a self-custodial trading terminal designed for what Jito describes as “pro-retail” users, essentially experienced individual traders who want institutional-grade tools without giving up custody of their funds. The platform was announced in May 2026, with a launch window targeting July 2026.

Initially, JTX Trade will focus on spot trading. The roadmap extends into perpetual futures and even prediction markets.

The buyback playbook in DeFi JIP-38 didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Jito’s community has been debating fee allocation strategies for months. A previous proposal, JIP-24, also centered on routing fees toward buybacks, suggesting this is a conversation the DAO has been iterating on rather than a sudden decision.

By locking in the policy for at least one year, Jito is essentially telling the market: we believe JTX Trade will generate enough fees to make this worthwhile, and we’re willing to stake our treasury allocation on that conviction.

What this means for JTO holders and the broader market For current JTO holders, if JTX Trade generates substantial trading volume, the automated buybacks create persistent buying pressure on JTO while simultaneously removing tokens from circulation.

There’s also a governance dimension worth watching. JIP-38 positions Jito as one of the most explicitly “shareholder-friendly” DAOs in crypto. By making every fee dollar traceable and every buyback verifiable on-chain, the protocol is creating a level of financial transparency that most traditional companies would struggle to match.

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

The Pump.fun business model is making profits at a much quicker pace than it is spending on narratives. According to the recent data, the platform’s annualized revenue has hit $344 million, with the network earning approximately $944,000 every day for the past three months. 

Meanwhile, more than $407 million worth of PUMP tokens have already been bought back and removed from circulation.

In simple terms, PUMP is no longer relying solely on speculation. The platform is generating enough cash flow to consistently return value to token holders.

Source: Pump.fun Approximately half of the revenue is returning According to AMBCrypto’s close analysis on the network data, over 50% of its revenue is allocated to token buybacks. This cements the network’s long-term project of reducing circulating supply while at the same time boosting its volatility.

Every day when the platform generates income, some part of the income is spent on buying PUMP coins from the market before destroying them.

The impact of the process has been significant. Up until now, 149 billion PUMP tokens have been destroyed, thereby covering almost 15 percent of the entire circulating supply.

The process does not guarantee higher prices. However, it creates a steady source of demand regardless of broader market conditions.

Source: Pump.fun How are network users reacting to the developments? Normally, buybacks are only effective if the underlying business continues generating revenue. At least for now, that does not seem to be the case.

The number of active addresses is still high. In most cases, it has exceeded 7,000 users per day throughout the past few months. The consistency matters since it suggests that the platform’s revenue is being supported by actual network activity rather than a short-lived spike in trading volume.

In other words, the allocation of a bigger proportion of revenue on buyback seems to bear some fruit. If the activity sustains, the current bullish momentum could be accelerated.

Source: Santiment Is $0.001698 next for PUMP? On the daily chart, the token’s price action has just broken past the 20-period Simple Moving Average (20 SMA). The Bollinger Band’s divergence is wide enough, suggesting that the market still has more volatility for a potential explosive move. But the direction is not clear.

However, with the token Stochastic RSI now dropping below 25, which often points to an oversold market, the current bullish push could be prolonged. At press time the token had recorded a 10% surge and was trading at around $0.001495.

The resistance level at $0.001698 stands as the next target for the market buyer if the current bullish run is sustained.

All in all, Pump.fun is already generating nearly $1 million per day. If that pace continues, buybacks will continue removing supply regardless of short-term market sentiment. When combined with positive technicals, the projected bullish run continuation nears certainty.

Source: TradingView Final Summary Pump.fun’s annualized revenue has surged to $344 million, with the platform generating nearly $944,000 per day over the past three months. More than $407 million has been allocated to buybacks, removing nearly 15% of PUMP’s total supply from circulation.