Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has weighed in on the future of Artificial Intelligence (AI), emphasizing that its development and governance should not be controlled by a small group of powerful organizations or governments.
In his latest post on X, Buterin stated that the path toward superintelligent AI should involve decentralized and transparent oversight, rather than centralized authority. He argued that such concentration of power would introduce new risks, warning against entrusting AI’s evolution to just a few dominant groups.
Buterin, widely recognized as one of the leading figures in blockchain technology and decentralized systems, expressed concern that excessive control by major tech firms or government agencies could undermine the benefits and safety of future AI systems.
Buterin highlighted that granting a handful of companies or governments the authority to determine who can pursue advanced AI research could pose its own dangers, suggesting that a more open and accessible model is essential for safe AI development.
He suggested that open-source principles should be foundational in AI governance. This, he believes, would allow broader participation, independent oversight, and more resilient safeguards against the misuse or monopolization of AI technology.
Mini dictionary: Vitalik Buterin is a Russian-Canadian programmer and one of the creators of Ethereum, a leading blockchain platform for decentralized applications.
Diverging views on superintelligent AIButerin categorized advocates of AI progress into two broad camps. One side pushes for rapid advancement, anticipating that superintelligent AI could arrive by 2040 or even earlier unless development is deliberately slowed. The other camp perceives AI as an inevitable and transformative technology but suggests its evolution can be safely managed without drastic intervention.
Despite the contrasting outlooks, Buterin reported that both groups share the fundamental question of when, rather than if, superintelligent AI will materialize. He stated that he remains unconvinced by either perspective, citing uncertainties around timelines and potential consequences.
Openness to safeguard discussionsWhile acknowledging the growing debate about possible risks from advanced AI, Buterin said that he is open to discussions about slowing or pausing AI development if credible threats are identified. However, he stressed that such decisions should not be made solely by a small, centralized authority; broad community engagement and transparent processes are essential for establishing legitimate guardrails.
Buterin emphasized his preference for solutions that protect society yet avoid concentrating power over AI’s trajectory into the hands of a select few institutions.
Buterin’s comments reinforce a growing call among technologists for decentralization not only in financial systems, like Ethereum, but also in the oversight and future direction of AI technologies.
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.
PANews reported on July 11, citing CoinDesk, that the Ethereum Foundation recently disclosed that its security team used AI agents to test the software running on Ethereum validator nodes and successfully discovered a vulnerability that could be triggered remotely, causing the node to crash. However, researchers stressed that among the large number of security reports generated by AI, human review remains the crucial step in distinguishing real vulnerabilities from false positives.
The vulnerability discovered this time exists in the Ethereum network’s message propagation protocol gossipsub. An attacker could remotely trigger the node software to enter an abnormal computing state, causing the program to crash and shut down, taking the validator node offline until the operator manually restarts it. The vulnerability was later fixed and registered as security vulnerability number “CVE-2026-34219”.
Nikos Baxevanis, a member of the Ethereum Foundation’s protocol security team, said that the truly surprising thing was not AI’s ability to discover vulnerabilities, but that the team spent a lot of time distinguishing which vulnerabilities were real and which were merely plausible “hallucinations.” Unlike traditional fuzzing tools (Fuzzer) that directly output the crash location, AI agents automatically generate a complete narrative, including the cause of the vulnerability, impact analysis, severity assessment, and attack demonstration code. However, whether the vulnerability actually exists or is purely fictitious, these reports are usually presented in a fluent and convincing manner.
The Ethereum Foundation summarized three most common types of false positives: first, crashes that can only be triggered in a test environment; second, attack paths that can only be realized by manually modifying program data; and third, during formal verification processes, proving only mathematically meaningless conclusions without verifying the security of the code itself.
Additionally, the researchers pointed out that AI is currently better at analyzing single events, but struggles to identify complex attack chains composed of multiple seemingly normal steps, which is a typical characteristic of many DeFi attacks this year. For example, this month’s Edel Finance attack exploited the wrapper layer to bypass the accurate Chainlink price oracle, and in the BONK governance attack, individual actions such as buying tokens, initiating votes, and executing proposals were all normal behaviors in themselves, but their combination ultimately led to a malicious result.
The Ethereum Foundation stated that it will continue to use AI agents to assist in discovering potential risks in the future, but for scenarios involving complex attack paths, it will still be necessary to manually design and execute tests to verify the hypotheses proposed by AI.
JPMorgan Chase is testing an AI investment agent that can autonomously adjust stock and bond allocations.
JPMorgan Chase is testing AI agents that can autonomously adjust the proportion of stock and bond investments to dynamically rebalance portfolios based on changes in market conditions. Test results show that in a 20-year historical backtest, the best-performing AI model delivered an annualized return 0.7 percentage points higher than the traditional "60/40" stock-bond portfolio, while also boasting lower volatility. All 8 AI agents tested by JPMorgan achieved higher risk-adjusted returns. However, the bank noted that the results are still based on simulated tests and do not represent actual investment performance. JPMorgan also warned that large-scale adoption of AI could lead to convergence of trading strategies, increase crowded trades, and amplify market volatility under stressed conditions.
21 minutes ago
Yangtze Memory Technologies announced its IPO advisory team, comprising a total of 31 members from CITIC Securities and China Securities Co., Ltd.
The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) official website updated the first-phase progress report on Changjiang Storage’s IPO counseling work on July 10. A total of 31 personnel from two securities firms, CITIC Securities and China Securities Construction Investment, form the counseling team. The current counseling period runs from May 19 to June 30, 2026, with work carried out via multiple methods including on-site due diligence, centralized training sessions, and targeted issue communications. The next phase of counseling will focus on two areas: First, for issues identified during the process, coordinate timely discussions between intermediaries and the company, develop standardization plans, and urge the counseled entity to fully implement rectification requirements. The working group will also continue to push the company to improve its corporate governance and internal control systems, enhancing its standardized operation level. Second, urge the company to thoroughly understand laws, regulations and rules related to issuance, listing and standardized operation, and clarify its responsibilities and obligations in areas such as information disclosure and fulfillment of commitments. (Jinshi)
21 minutes ago
Analyst: Bitcoin may be entering the final stage of a bear market, projected to rise to $250,000 over the next two to three years.
Real Vision’s chief crypto analyst Jamie Coutts has stated that Bitcoin may be entering the late stages of its current bear market. While the bear market is not yet over, downward momentum has begun to weaken. The current BTC price is roughly 50% lower than its all-time high of $126,100 set in October 2025. Coutts described the current trend as a “typical bear market,” pointing out that Bitcoin’s volatility has fallen by around 50% compared to the previous cycle, suggesting this downturn may not be as severe as prior bear markets. However, he cautioned that all current trend indicators remain clearly bearish, and markets do not mechanically replicate historical cycles. He noted that longer-term momentum indicators are starting to show bullish divergence, signaling that negative momentum is decelerating—but this does not mean Bitcoin has technically exited the bear market. Beyond tightening global liquidity, deteriorating on-chain demand was a key factor driving Bitcoin’s earlier decline. On long-term price projections, Coutts is cautious about Bitcoin reaching $1 million by 2030; instead, he forecasts BTC will rise to $200,000–$250,000 over the next two to three years. He also warned that the Bitcoin community needs to address the potential threat of quantum computing more definitively by 2027, as major protocol upgrades could take approximately five years to complete.
21 minutes ago
The probability that Bitcoin will rise to $70,000 this year has climbed to 79%.
Prediction market platform Polymarket now puts the probability of Bitcoin rising to $70,000 this year at 79%, up from 54% as of June 26. Additionally, the odds of Bitcoin hitting $80,000 stand at 32%, while the probability of it reaching $90,000 is 19%.
21 minutes ago
An alleged insider address of LAB has transferred $9.15 million worth of tokens to Aster again.
According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi (@ai_9684xtpa), a suspected insider address of LAB has transferred 10.5 million LAB tokens to Aster again. Calculated at the $0.872 price at the time of transfer, the move is worth roughly $9.15 million. This marks the address’s second transfer of LAB in the same fashion in about 22 hours. Over the past 24 hours, the address has moved a total of LAB worth approximately $18.69 million to Aster. Earlier, after the address completed the transfer last night, LAB’s price once plummeted sharply.
21 minutes ago
US-listed ETFs' assets under management climbed to $15.6 trillion, notching a new all-time high.
The Kobeissi Letter noted that the assets under management (AUM) of U.S.-listed ETFs have climbed to a record $15.6 trillion, doubling over the past 30 months. Year-to-date, investors have allocated more than $1 trillion to U.S.-listed ETFs, nearly double the year-to-date record set in 2025. At the current pace, full-year inflows are on track to top $2 trillion for the first time, roughly 33% higher than last year’s all-time high. In June alone, U.S. ETFs pulled in around $193 billion in inflows, marking the second-highest monthly inflow on record. Demand has been concentrated in U.S. large-cap, semiconductor, AI, and South Korea-focused ETFs, with the U.S. ETF market’s growth accelerating.
The sheer scale of Ethereum’s energy reduction after The Merge is no longer just a community talking point — it now has the weight of a Cambridge audit behind it. The latest figures from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) put annual electricity use at just 7.87 GWh, a decline of more than 99.9%. Emissions have followed a similarly dramatic path downward, settling around 2.37 ktCO₂e annually. For a network that once drew comparisons to medium-sized countries, the numbers represent a complete re‑write of the environmental script.
But the report, built from an infrastructure audit of roughly 8,522 nodes, doesn’t stop at the headline drop. It surfaces a structural reality that market participants and regulators will need to weigh carefully: how the network’s remaining footprint is distributed and who ultimately controls the hardware.
The numbers that reset the conversation Before The Merge, Ethereum’s proof‑of‑work consensus consumed power at a level that made institutional ESG committees uncomfortable. The 99.9% cut changes the calculus for any fund or corporate treasury that had dismissed ether exposure on environmental grounds. The CCAF’s estimate of 56.4% sustainable electricity sourcing further strengthens a story that is increasingly about grid mix rather than the consensus mechanism itself. That subtlety matters because it shifts the burden of scrutiny from the protocol to the geographies where validators operate.
The emissions figure — roughly 2.37 kilotonnes of CO₂‑equivalent — is so low that it practically invites comparisons to small‑scale data centre operations rather than global financial infrastructure. And yet, Ethereum’s developer activity remains among the highest in the industry, as recent ecosystem metrics continue to show. That gap between environmental cost and economic output is precisely the kind of metric that draws serious institutional capital over time.
Provider concentration and geographic clustering The audit’s infrastructure mapping is where the comfort zone narrows. The United States, Germany, Finland, and France host approximately 62% of Ethereum full nodes. Even more concentrated is the service provider layer: Hetzner, Amazon Web Services, and OVH together run roughly 40% of all nodes the researchers examined. For a network that prizes decentralisation as a security property, that level of physical co‑location on a small set of commercial cloud operators raises non‑trivial tail‑risk questions.
A coordinated outage or a regulatory intervention at one of those providers could temporarily reshape network participation. The Dencun upgrade cycle has already sharpened the focus on client diversity; node hosting geography now joins that conversation. The CCAF data makes it explicit that the environmental victory is partly built on layers that are not themselves permissionless.
What the shift means for institutional positioning ESG dynamics in crypto have often been reduced to a binary: Bitcoin’s energy hunger versus everything else. The Cambridge study gives asset allocators a concrete figure to slot into sustainability reports. It also arrives at a moment when on‑chain real‑world asset volumes are swelling beyond $20 billion, a trend documented in a recent tokenisation roundup. Most of that activity lives on Ethereum or its layer‑2 networks, meaning the updated energy footprint directly undercuts a longstanding objection to deploying regulated instruments on public rails.
Policymakers in Washington have been wrestling with crypto market structure legislation, and banking interests are pushing against a landmark Senate bill that could reshape the regulatory perimeter. In that context, verifiable environmental data is not decorative — it is ammunition. A network that can demonstrate a 99.9% energy reduction with audited, third‑party data is harder to dismiss on the basis of vague climate concerns.
What remains uncertain The CCAF report rightly emphasises that the remaining footprint is now a function of local grid carbon intensity. That implies energy‑mix volatility: a shift in the sourcing profile of a single large cloud region could measurably change Ethereum’s overall environmental scorecard. The research does not, however, model how liquid staking protocols or restaking layers might redistribute the validator set across providers and jurisdictions over the next 12 months. The interaction between infrastructure concentration and the rapid evolution of the staking industry is still poorly mapped.
Nor does the report address the energy footprint of layer‑2 rollups posting blobs to mainnet, an increasingly relevant variable as activity migrates off the base layer. For now, the headline is clear: Ethereum’s energy era has ended. The harder conversation about who runs the nodes and where they plug in is just beginning.
AUTHOR
With over five years of experience in crypto, blockchain, and tech content, Ishtiyaq makes complex topics easy to understand. He simplifies blockchain and digital currency concepts for a wide audience, ensuring that beginners and experts alike can grasp key ideas. His clear and engaging writing helps readers stay informed about the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the crypto space. Whether explaining blockchain technology, digital assets, or DeFi, Ishtiyaq breaks down complicated ideas into simple, digestible content. His goal is to help people navigate the fast-changing world of cryptocurrency with confidence, clarity, and a deeper understanding.
The new Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) Robinhood Chain has surpassed Hyperliquid and BNB Chain in speculative interest.
A week ago, Robinhood’s DEX volume (which tracks trading volume and broader speculative interest) was less than $10M.
As of writing, the daily DEX volume has hit a record level of $600M, making it the fourth dominant chain in speculative activity.
In the past two days, it has effectively surpassed BNB Chain and Hyperliquid on this front thanks to Robinhood’s CEO’s memecoin bet.
Source: DeFiLlama As Robinhood Chain-based memecoins like CashCat [CASHCAT] went viral and posted massive gains, the FOMO attracted users and capital inflows.
Robinhood’s memecoin frenzy sparks L2 debate If the memecoin mania persists, it could surpass Base in DEX volume to become the third-largest place for speculative trading.
Worth pointing out that Uniswap crossed $1B in volume on Robinhood Chain since launch, further underscoring how crazy the memecoin mania is on the new L2.
Source: DeFiLlama But critics have been opposing the memecoin push. Most questioned the need for another Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) if its use case is risky memecoin speculation. The debate has since evolved to whether L2 growth benefits ETH’s value.
For Bankless’ David Hoffman, L2s aren’t helpful to ETH.
By now it seems more clear that L2s are largely independent blockchains and the vast majority of economics is not captured by ETH (by design).
Uniswap CEO Hayden Adam countered that most of the pairs on the chain are denominated in ETH and will eventually help burn more ETH, especially if the RWA narrative picks up momentum.
Source: X Do Layer 2s actually help Ethereum? The L2 roadmap has been under heavy criticism. With corporate chains such as Stripe’s Tempo, SWIFT, and more, the criticism has deepened.
For lawyer Gabriel Shapiro, the entire roadmap was ‘poorly executed’ to benefit ETH value.
The roadmap was just very poorly executed so that it’s mostly negative to ETH & leaves the L2s with too much optionality to become L1s, no real lock-in.
Ethereum’s best shot at scaling was through L2s, and recent upgrades have made them cheaper and attracted more traffic.
But this has also reduced the number of ETH burned, making the asset inflationary and denting its ‘store of value’ narrative.
Source: Ultrasoundmoney Whether the renewed L2 debate will drag ETH’s market sentiment and price remains to be seen. As of writing, Ethereum [ETH] traded at $1.8K, a key inflection point that could trigger the next leg of price recovery or another pullback.
Final Summary Robinhood L2 has become the fourth largest on-chain place for speculative trading, flipping BNB Chain and Hyperliquid Amid the hype, Ethereum L2s are under scrutiny again for being non-beneficial to ETH’s value
The Ethereum network continues to evolve, but its geographical distribution remains a subject of monitoring for researchers. A new study from the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance shows that a significant share of nodes operates in North America and Europe. This snapshot of the network highlights several technical and legal issues. It also reminds us that the location of infrastructures can influence the protocol’s resilience. The updated data finally sheds new light on the network’s energy consumption after the merge.
In brief 31% of Ethereum nodes are hosted in the United States, compared to 39% in the European Union excluding the United Kingdom. The network can stop finalizing its transactions if more than a third of validators become simultaneously inactive. The concentration of infrastructures and client software remains a major issue for Ethereum’s resilience and decentralization. Ethereum’s energy consumption has dropped by about 99.98% since the merge, according to the new Cambridge study. Ethereum’s Geographic Distribution Is Dominated by the United States and Europe The new study indicates that 31% of Ethereum activity is now hosted in the United States. The European Union, excluding the United Kingdom, concentrates about 39% of this activity. In a statement attributed to the daily show The Starting Block, Alexander Neumuller, head of research at the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance, estimates that the distribution remains heavily oriented towards Western countries. However, it does not indicate excessive concentration in a single state.
Researchers also observe that nodes rely heavily on three major hosting providers: Hetzner, AWS, and OVH. Alexander Neumuller recalls that Hetzner’s terms of use previously prohibited operating blockchain services. However, he notes that this policy may have evolved. This concentration of infrastructures therefore deserves ongoing attention, even if the data do not show a unique national imbalance.
The study also emphasizes that the relationship between nodes and validators remains difficult to measure precisely. The same access point can indeed host several validators. Researchers explain that it is therefore impossible to know exactly the number of validators associated with each infrastructure.
The One-Third Threshold Remains a Key Concern for the Network The analysis conclusions remind us of an important characteristic of Ethereum’s operation. Contrary to some misconceptions, the network does not need to lose half of its validators to encounter a problem. As soon as more than a third of validators simultaneously cease their activity, checkpoint finalization may be interrupted.
This situation explains why the distribution of Ethereum nodes represents a strategic element for the network’s stability. An interruption affecting a widely used infrastructure could slow down overall operation. However, Alexander Neumuller specifies that the available data do not allow a direct link to be established between each node and the exact number of validators it hosts.
Concentration concerns not only physical infrastructures. According to the researcher, client software diversity also plays a crucial role. A technical defect affecting a dominant client could quickly spread to a large part of the network. The report thus presents detailed data on the distribution of consensus clients and execution clients to illustrate this other risk factor.
A New Energy Estimate and Ongoing Legal Challenges The location of nodes goes beyond the simple technical framework. In 2022, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) estimated that it could claim jurisdiction over Ethereum. The authority notably relied on the fact that a majority of the network’s infrastructure was then hosted on U.S. soil. This issue therefore continues to fuel reflections on the legal framework applicable to transactions.
Alexander Neumüller nonetheless presents the current geographical distribution as a balance he considers positive, while specifying that it is his personal assessment. According to him, better geographical distribution is an advantage for a decentralized network.
Geographical distribution is a real asset for the network’s resilience, even if the community must continue to monitor its evolution. At the same time, a strong concentration of client software could amplify the consequences of a bug affecting the most used client.
Alexander Neumuller, Head of Research at the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance, Source: The Block. He also believes that a strong concentration of client software risks quickly spreading the effects of a bug affecting the network’s main client. On this, the community must continue to closely follow this development.
The report also updates Ethereum’s energy estimates thanks to a new methodology. Researchers now use empirical data on node distribution between residential and commercial hosting, rather than theoretical assumptions. This approach takes into account software changes made after the merge, which can modify equipment consumption.
The new estimates assess the annual network consumption at about 7.9 gigawatt hours, equivalent to a continuous power of one megawatt. This corresponds to the consumption of about 2,000 British households. The study also estimates that this consumption remains about 99.98% lower than levels observed before the merge. Finally, the share of sustainable energy used by the network now exceeds 56%, compared to an estimated global average of 43%.
Researchers also estimate the theoretical cost of fully offsetting annual emissions through high-quality carbon credits. This would be between 25,000 and 55,000 pounds sterling, an amount Alexander Neumuller compares to the price of a car. He indicates that this estimate is the result that surprised him most. The Ethereum Foundation supported this study, while researchers specify that their analyses on decentralization reflect their own interpretation. Upcoming observations will measure whether this geographical distribution continues to evolve while preserving network resilience.
Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
Join the program
A
A
Lien copié
Ghiles A.
Journaliste et rédacteur web passionné par l’univers des cryptomonnaies et des technologies Web3. J’y traite les dernières tendances et actualités afin de proposer un contenu de haute qualité à un large public du secteur.
DISCLAIMER
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.
Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
A key Ethereum indicator that foreshadowed previous price bottoms has flashed again, prompting attention for the second-largest cryptocurrency.
According to Ali, a crypto analyst, Ethereum might be oversold. This is because on-chain data reveals the ETH MVRV ratio has officially dropped below 0.8, a level associated with a deep accumulation zone.
ETHEREUM IS OVERSOLD!
On-chain data reveals the ETH MVRV ratio has officially dipped below 0.8, putting it into deep accumulation territory.
Historically, falling below this 0.8 MVRV level signals seller exhaustion, as aggregate market value falls significantly below total… https://t.co/LNkygeXO5n pic.twitter.com/jGhaQlV8fp
— Ali Charts (@alicharts) July 10, 2026 Ali noted that historically, falling below the 0.8 MVRV level often signaled seller exhaustion for Ethereum, coinciding with aggregate market value falling significantly below total realized value. He noted that the last three times this setup occurred — December 2018, March 2020, and June 2022 — a particular trend was observed. Every single instance marked a bottom before a bullish reversal, Ali noted.
HOT Stories
You Might Also Like
Traders continue to watch whether this particular instance of Ethereum's MVRV entering grossly oversold levels will match previous instances when the price bottomed and subsequently recovered.
Ethereum short-term price actionAt the time of writing, ETH was up 1.18% in the last 24 hours to $1,802 and up 1.78% weekly. ETH is outperforming Bitcoin as it looks to snap a trend of sequential lower highs and lower lows.
Ethereum surpassed the daily MA 50 at $1,767 for the first time since mid-May as its recovery from the July 8 low of $1,710 progressed.
You Might Also Like
Ethereum saw a rise at the start of July, reaching a high of $1,831 on July 6, where bulls met resistance. An attempt to surpass the daily MA 50 was also cut short as bulls could not advance.
A sustained rise above the daily MA 50 will be beneficial for Ethereum's recovery in the short term, with the potential to surpass $2,000, reaching the daily MA 200 currently at $2,214.
The crypto derivatives market is showing signs of stabilization, with speculation easing and longer-term positioning increasing.
In separate news, a new report from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) stated that Ethereum now consumes about 7.87 GWh of electricity annually following The Merge, a decline of more than 99.9% from its pre-Merge level.
A recent analysis by researchers at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) has shed new light on the physical distribution of Ethereum’s infrastructure, revealing notable geographic clustering of its validator nodes. According to the findings, approximately 31% of the network’s beacon node activity is concentrated within the United States as of May 2026.
This level of regional focus raises important questions about the blockchain‘s resilience to localized disruptions, regulatory pressures, and potential single points of failure.
Ethereum operates on a proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus mechanism following the 2022 Merge, which dramatically reduced its energy demands.
Unlike the earlier proof-of-work era, the network now relies on staked capital for security, with nodes performing validation and attestation tasks.
These nodes form the backbone of the system, ensuring transaction finality and network integrity.
The CCAF report emphasizes that while the overall node population—estimated at around 8,522 full nodes—draws far less power than before (roughly 0.90 MW on average), their geographic placement remains critical for operational robustness.
The United States leads with 31% of discoverable node activity, followed by Germany at 16%, Finland at 8%, and France at 6%.
Together, these four countries account for about 62% of the network’s full nodes.
The European Union (excluding the UK) hosts roughly 39% of activity overall.
This distribution is described as concentrated yet not monolithic, offering some built-in redundancy but still exposing vulnerabilities.
For instance, Ethereum’s finality mechanism can stall if more than one-third of validators go offline simultaneously.
A significant outage affecting US-based nodes could therefore push the network close to or beyond that threshold, potentially halting checkpoint finalization and disrupting the chain’s progress.
Much of this activity is further centralized among major cloud and hosting providers, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Hetzner, and OVH. Such reliance on a handful of infrastructure giants introduces counterparty and jurisdictional risks.
Regulators in any single country could, in theory, exert influence over a substantial portion of the network through legal actions targeting data centers or service providers.
This setup contrasts with Ethereum’s decentralized ethos and underscores ongoing debates about true geographic and operational dispersion.
On the environmental front, the study provides updated post-Merge estimates. Ethereum‘s annual electricity consumption now stands at approximately 7.87 GWh, a reduction of about 99.98% from pre-Merge levels.
When mapped against the carbon intensity of host grids, the network’s climate footprint equates to roughly 2.37 kilotonnes of CO₂-equivalent per year.
Over 56% of the powering energy mix comes from sustainable sources like renewables and nuclear, thanks to the favorable grids in key hosting nations.
The research report also notes a bimodal hardware profile: many residential nodes operate at low power (around 18W), while enterprise or cloud setups draw more (around 153W).
Network-weighted averages sit near 105W per node. Looking ahead, protocol upgrades, improving hardware efficiency, and global grid decarbonization are expected to further refine this footprint.
While Ethereum has made strides in sustainability and scalability, the Cambridge research serves as a reminder that decentralization extends beyond software and economics to physical infrastructure.
Broader node distribution across more jurisdictions and diverse hosting options could strengthen the network against both technical failures and external interventions. As the ecosystem matures, stakeholders may increasingly prioritize geographic resilience alongside other performance metrics.
Dogecoin traded around $0.074, recording a modest daily increase amid renewed attention from market participants. The current price movement follows a prolonged phase of sideways and downward trends, with investors closely monitoring whether key support levels can sustain buyer interest.
Dogecoin at Critical SupportDOGE hovered just above the $0.072 support zone, an area many traders have identified as crucial for avoiding further declines. The price remains close to a recent low at $0.072, emphasizing the significance of this level for short-term sentiment.
Periods of reduced volatility are not unusual for meme-based cryptocurrencies such as Dogecoin. Historically, these stints have often preceded larger price movements, though a decisive breakout is required to signal a shift in momentum.
Market participants are focused on whether DOGE can remain within the $0.070 to $0.072 range. A sustained position above this area could lay the foundation for an advance to $0.078 and potentially $0.081 in the coming sessions.
Impact of Short Position ClosuresA chart from the trader CW8900 showed a substantial closure of short positions on the BitMEX exchange, which was followed by a drop in DOGE’s price. This reaction has been seen as evidence of lingering weakness on the spot market.
Rather than acting as a bullish boost, the short closings on BitMEX coincided with DOGE falling back, raising questions about the lack of strong spot demand and suggesting that heavier selling could persist above current levels.
Typically, closing short positions can push prices upward as traders buy to cover. However, DOGE’s muted response reflected limited underlying buying interest. Should short covering continue while the token holds support, some analysts anticipate that DOGE could stage a stronger rebound if volume returns and the price breaks above the $0.078 region.
Mini dictionary: BitMEX, a major cryptocurrency derivatives exchange, is widely used for leveraged trading and is influential in the digital asset futures and perpetual swaps markets.
Bullish Chart Patterns AppearTechnical analyst Crypto Yoda identified that DOGE’s price action had narrowed into a compression pattern, such as a small falling channel or wedge. This consolidation, where trading ranges get tighter, often precedes more substantial moves once a breakout happens.
According to Crypto Yoda, a break above $0.076 to $0.078 could prompt a swift move higher. Conversely, a fall below $0.070 would undermine bullish structures and open the door to deeper support retests.
Charts suggest that Dogecoin’s recent narrowing could lead to increased volatility, and a successful breakout above the current resistance could provide a stronger technical setup moving forward.
Oversold Levels and Accumulation ZonesAnalyst Cryptollica pointed out that DOGE’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) is near historically oversold levels, around the low 30s. Previous occasions when RSI dipped this low have marked major market reversals in DOGE’s history, suggesting that long-term holders may be accumulating again.
While an oversold RSI does not guarantee a near-term rally, it often reflects investor pessimism and could set the stage for a recovery. Should DOGE reclaim resistance near $0.081, this would signal a shift away from current downward pressures.
Potential for a Return to $1 in a Meme RallyA longer time-frame analysis from trader Symba speculated that if another robust meme-driven cycle develops, DOGE could potentially attempt a move toward $1. This thesis is built upon historical cycles, where extended consolidation was followed by rapid appreciation once positive sentiment returned.
Symba emphasized that initial steps would involve DOGE first maintaining support above $0.070 before challenging the $0.078 and $0.081 resistance, then targeting $0.09 and $0.10 on further momentum.
LevelRole$0.070–$0.072Immediate support$0.078–$0.081Key resistance to reclaim$0.09–$0.10Next upside targets$1.00Long-term bullish target (cycle scenario)Market Structure Remains TightDogecoin’s market is currently compressed in a narrow range, with support at $0.070 and visible resistance between $0.080 and $0.082. Price action has shown little direction, though periods of tight consolidation frequently give way to strong moves when a clear trend emerges.
If DOGE surpasses resistance on higher volume, traders may look for a move toward $0.09. Failure to break above could continue the current consolidation, while a drop below $0.070 risks sending DOGE lower, with $0.060 as the next support level.
Outlook and Next StepsWhile Dogecoin has not yet signaled a definitive bullish reversal, several technical conditions could favor a shift if the coin holds above the $0.070–$0.072 range. Continued short position closures and historical oversold readings have increased market attention, but buyers still need to confirm the move with a breakout above $0.081.
Until further confirmation, DOGE’s outlook remains cautiously optimistic, with the next upside milestones set at $0.09 and $0.10 should momentum build.
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.
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has expressed strong confidence in the network’s long-term outlook, arguing that Cardano will end 2026 in a much stronger position than it is today.
According to Hoskinson, Cardano is on track to regain a spot among the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization and could climb even higher. Looking further ahead, he projected that the network will become a “rocket ship” heading into 2027, reflecting his optimism about Cardano’s growth trajectory.
Cardano Continues Climbing the Crypto Rankings Although Cardano spent years among the top 10 cryptocurrencies, it currently sits outside that elite group. However, the token has recently regained momentum. Earlier this month, ADA ranked as the 18th-largest cryptocurrency by market cap. Since then, Cardano has steadily climbed the CoinMarketCap rankings.
At press time, ADA is the 14th-largest cryptocurrency with a market cap of $6.11 billion. The token briefly overtook Stellar to claim the 13th position before slipping back to 14th. Meanwhile, Monero poses an immediate challenge, with a market capitalization of approximately $6.09 billion.
To re-enter the top 10, Cardano must surpass Dogecoin, which currently holds a market capitalization of $11.49 billion. Based on current valuations, ADA would need to rally by roughly 88% to exceed Dogecoin’s market cap, potentially lifting its price from about $0.1678 to $0.3154.
While such a move may appear ambitious given ADA’s recent underperformance, Hoskinson believes the ecosystem’s ongoing technological progress provides a solid foundation for long-term growth.
Ecosystem Upgrades Fuel Hoskinson’s Optimism Hoskinson’s confidence largely stems from several major developments taking place across the Cardano ecosystem.
Last month, Cardano’s development team launched the testnet version of Ouroboros Leios, with the mainnet release expected later this year. According to Hoskinson, the upgrade could make Cardano up to 60 times faster by the end of 2026, significantly improving the network’s scalability and transaction throughput.
In addition, the team recently launched Phase 1 of the RealFi testnet. The initiative aims to expand financial services to underserved populations while attracting new users and developers to the Cardano ecosystem.
Together, these technological advancements underpin Hoskinson’s belief that Cardano will strengthen its competitive position, reclaim a place among the industry’s top cryptocurrencies, and enter 2027 with significant momentum.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
Kraken is rebuilding its app around agentic trading, a move the crypto exchange believes could redefine competition among digital asset platforms.
The technology uses AI agents to monitor markets, identify opportunities and provide portfolio guidance based on user goals and risk preferences, Kraken told CNBC, according to a Friday report.
AI Agents Guide Trades, Users Keep Final SayKamo Asatryan, Kraken’s chief data officer, said AI could help everyday investors access capabilities traditionally used by professional traders. "AI is going to help everyday people respond to market conditions the way our most active traders respond," Asatryan said. "We see even in down markets that our pro traders are highly active, they engage with the platform, they continue to trade."
Asatryan described the goal as making Kraken feel like talking to a “well-informed best friend” who understands a user’s goals and can guide them without requiring them to become expert traders themselves.
According to the report, Kraken’s redesigned app will use AI to understand users’ financial goals, risk tolerance and preferences before generating portfolio suggestions. The platform will offer AI-generated insights, portfolio updates, and recommendations, but customers will need to approve trades before they are executed.
Industry Rivals Deepen Their AI PushIn June, Coinbase also advanced the broader AI investing trend by introducing an AI investment advisor that analyzes portfolios and account history to provide personalized guidance and suggest potential investment ideas.
Kraken’s Parent Company Expands on Multiple FrontsKraken’s AI push comes as parent company Payward raises capital at a $20 billion valuation while expanding beyond crypto trading into payments, derivatives and stablecoin infrastructure, as it moves toward a planned IPO.
Kraken’s expansion also comes amid broader regulatory developments for the company, including an arbitration dispute with former auditor Mazars USA that resulted in a $22 million award in Kraken’s favor.
Founded in 2011, Kraken has historically served institutions, trading firms, professional traders and active leverage traders.
Benzinga’s Take: The developments show how crypto exchanges are expanding their use of AI beyond traditional trading services, as companies explore tools aimed at improving user engagement and financial decision-making.
Photo Courtesy: Shutterstock
Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
JPMorgan Chase is testing an AI investment agent that can autonomously adjust stock and bond allocations.
JPMorgan Chase is testing AI agents that can autonomously adjust the proportion of stock and bond investments to dynamically rebalance portfolios based on changes in market conditions. Test results show that in a 20-year historical backtest, the best-performing AI model delivered an annualized return 0.7 percentage points higher than the traditional "60/40" stock-bond portfolio, while also boasting lower volatility. All 8 AI agents tested by JPMorgan achieved higher risk-adjusted returns. However, the bank noted that the results are still based on simulated tests and do not represent actual investment performance. JPMorgan also warned that large-scale adoption of AI could lead to convergence of trading strategies, increase crowded trades, and amplify market volatility under stressed conditions.
1 seconds ago
Yangtze Memory Technologies announced its IPO advisory team, comprising a total of 31 members from CITIC Securities and China Securities Co., Ltd.
The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) official website updated the first-phase progress report on Changjiang Storage’s IPO counseling work on July 10. A total of 31 personnel from two securities firms, CITIC Securities and China Securities Construction Investment, form the counseling team. The current counseling period runs from May 19 to June 30, 2026, with work carried out via multiple methods including on-site due diligence, centralized training sessions, and targeted issue communications. The next phase of counseling will focus on two areas: First, for issues identified during the process, coordinate timely discussions between intermediaries and the company, develop standardization plans, and urge the counseled entity to fully implement rectification requirements. The working group will also continue to push the company to improve its corporate governance and internal control systems, enhancing its standardized operation level. Second, urge the company to thoroughly understand laws, regulations and rules related to issuance, listing and standardized operation, and clarify its responsibilities and obligations in areas such as information disclosure and fulfillment of commitments. (Jinshi)
1 seconds ago
Analyst: Bitcoin may be entering the final stage of a bear market, projected to rise to $250,000 over the next two to three years.
Real Vision’s chief crypto analyst Jamie Coutts has stated that Bitcoin may be entering the late stages of its current bear market. While the bear market is not yet over, downward momentum has begun to weaken. The current BTC price is roughly 50% lower than its all-time high of $126,100 set in October 2025. Coutts described the current trend as a “typical bear market,” pointing out that Bitcoin’s volatility has fallen by around 50% compared to the previous cycle, suggesting this downturn may not be as severe as prior bear markets. However, he cautioned that all current trend indicators remain clearly bearish, and markets do not mechanically replicate historical cycles. He noted that longer-term momentum indicators are starting to show bullish divergence, signaling that negative momentum is decelerating—but this does not mean Bitcoin has technically exited the bear market. Beyond tightening global liquidity, deteriorating on-chain demand was a key factor driving Bitcoin’s earlier decline. On long-term price projections, Coutts is cautious about Bitcoin reaching $1 million by 2030; instead, he forecasts BTC will rise to $200,000–$250,000 over the next two to three years. He also warned that the Bitcoin community needs to address the potential threat of quantum computing more definitively by 2027, as major protocol upgrades could take approximately five years to complete.
1 seconds ago
The probability that Bitcoin will rise to $70,000 this year has climbed to 79%.
Prediction market platform Polymarket now puts the probability of Bitcoin rising to $70,000 this year at 79%, up from 54% as of June 26. Additionally, the odds of Bitcoin hitting $80,000 stand at 32%, while the probability of it reaching $90,000 is 19%.
1 seconds ago
An alleged insider address of LAB has transferred $9.15 million worth of tokens to Aster again.
According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi (@ai_9684xtpa), a suspected insider address of LAB has transferred 10.5 million LAB tokens to Aster again. Calculated at the $0.872 price at the time of transfer, the move is worth roughly $9.15 million. This marks the address’s second transfer of LAB in the same fashion in about 22 hours. Over the past 24 hours, the address has moved a total of LAB worth approximately $18.69 million to Aster. Earlier, after the address completed the transfer last night, LAB’s price once plummeted sharply.
1 seconds ago
US-listed ETFs' assets under management climbed to $15.6 trillion, notching a new all-time high.
The Kobeissi Letter noted that the assets under management (AUM) of U.S.-listed ETFs have climbed to a record $15.6 trillion, doubling over the past 30 months. Year-to-date, investors have allocated more than $1 trillion to U.S.-listed ETFs, nearly double the year-to-date record set in 2025. At the current pace, full-year inflows are on track to top $2 trillion for the first time, roughly 33% higher than last year’s all-time high. In June alone, U.S. ETFs pulled in around $193 billion in inflows, marking the second-highest monthly inflow on record. Demand has been concentrated in U.S. large-cap, semiconductor, AI, and South Korea-focused ETFs, with the U.S. ETF market’s growth accelerating.
South Korean automaker Hyundai is doubling down on stablecoins for internal transfers between its subsidiaries.
During its testing stage, the automaker saw faster transfers between U.S and Mexico subsidiaries. Instead of the typical 4 hours or more for traditional interbank transfer methods, the firm said it took about 7 minutes to transfer Tether’s USDT between its two offices.
Commenting on the test, Hyundai hailed stablecoin transfers as offering “overwhelming speed and superior stability” to conventional methods. The pilot involved Hyundai Motors Group-owned credit card firm Hyundai Card, Avalanche, Tether and payment integrator Axiym.
Source: Hyundai For his part, Paolo Ardoino, Tether CEO, billed the move as an impressive “real world adoption of USDT.” Bo Hines, CEO of Tether U.S., scored the Hyundai move as “what the future of finance looks like.”
At the end of July, the automaker will conduct a similar test with Circle’s USDC and Visa for EU transfers.
For Hyundai, this was a foundation for utilizing and scaling stablecoins for remittances between overseas subsidiaries. But its credit card division plans to go beyond internal transfers. The firm noted,
Going forward, we will explore and continuously expand various businesses utilizing stablecoins, including international remittance and payment infrastructure.
This signals growing enterprise stablecoin adoption.
Stablecoin adoption wars: USDT vs. USDC Stablecoins have graduated from a crypto experiment to a tool that addresses real global pain points: US dollar accessibility and cheaper, faster cross-border transfers.
Although Euro-based stablecoins have also seen significant growth, they still have a smaller market share compared to US Dollar-based alternatives.
But the USD-based segment has become increasingly competitive. The recent activation of the MiCA regime saw USDC gain significant ground over Tether’s USDT.
In fact, USDC currently accounts for 63% of annual stablecoin transaction volume (about $6T out of the total $9T). That was more than double Tether’s USDT volume of $3.3T (36%).
Source: Visa Worth pointing out that this was the first time USDC has led in annual stablecoin transfer volume. Whether the MiCA will allow USDC to maintain its dominance by the end of the year remains to be seen.
Final Summary Hyundai plans to scale internal stablecoin transfers using USDC and USDT USDC dominates 2026 stablecoin transfer volume at 63%, underscoring significant usage
TL;DRThe fastest practical way to move USDC to Polygon is a route that settles in native USDC through Circle's CCTP, so what lands is the real Circle-issued token, not a wrapped placeholder.
Across routes USDC through CCTP automatically when that's the optimal path. No extra steps from you.
CCTP burns USDC on the source chain and mints native USDC on Polygon after Circle's attestation. No pooled liquidity to drain, and free at the protocol level.
Polygon (chain ID 137) is a supported destination on Across, and you can send USDC to Polygon from any supported chain.
Across has run billions in volume with a clean security record since 2021.
Bridge USDC to Polygon
Moving USDC to Polygon has a fast answer and a slow answer. The difference is what token shows up at the other end. Send it through a route that settles in native USDC and the Circle-issued token lands on Polygon ready to use in Aave, QuickSwap, or a Polymarket position. Send it through a route that wraps and you receive an IOU. Some chains and apps treat that as a second-class asset you then have to unwrap or swap.
Across takes the first path. When you bridge USDC to Polygon, Across routes the transfer through Circle's Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol whenever that's the optimal path, and native USDC is what arrives.
Native USDC Settles Through CCTP, Not a Wrapped IOUCCTP works by burning and minting. Your USDC is burned on the source chain, Circle issues an attestation that the burn happened, and an equivalent amount of native USDC is minted on Polygon. What you receive is canonical USDC issued by Circle, the same contract every major Polygon app already trusts. No pooled balance sits in a bridge contract waiting to be exploited, and the mechanism is free at the protocol level.
That matters more than it sounds. A wrapped bridge token is a claim against a pool. Drain the pool and the claim is worth nothing, and you find out at the worst possible moment. Native USDC carries no such dependency. It is the asset itself, minted fresh on the destination.
You don't pick the rail. The Swap API selects the optimal settlement pathway for the size and route you're moving, and for USDC into Polygon that's frequently CCTP. CCTP V2 Fast Transfer can mint ahead of source-chain finality for a small fee, which is how a large USDC transfer lands without the usual finality wait.
Bridging USDC to Polygon Takes Three StepsThe route is short because the protocol does the routing for you.
Open the Across bridge and connect your wallet on the chain your USDC is on today, whether that's Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, or another supported origin.
Select USDC as the token, set Polygon (chain ID 137) as the destination, and enter the amount. Across quotes the fee and the expected settlement path before you sign.
Approve and confirm. Across handles the rest, fronting funds on Polygon and reconciling in the background, so native USDC arrives in seconds rather than minutes.
You'll want a small amount of POL, the native gas token of Polygon, to transact once your USDC arrives. Bridging the USDC itself doesn't require holding POL first.
The USDC Lands in Seconds Because Across Runs on IntentsYou declare the outcome you want, native USDC on Polygon. A relayer advances the funds on the destination almost immediately, then gets reimbursed through a background settlement secured by UMA's Optimistic Oracle. On mainnet that produces fills in about two seconds. The CCTP burn-and-mint and the relayer fill work together. You get destination liquidity fast, and the canonical-USDC accounting settles underneath.
Across is built by Risk Labs, the foundation behind UMA, and is deployed across 20+ chains. It has processed billions in volume since 2021 with no protocol-level exploit.
USDC Is the Asset Polygon Runs OnUSDC is the dominant stablecoin on Polygon, and that's the practical reason native settlement matters here. The apps you're bridging into are denominated in and quote against native USDC: Aave, QuickSwap, Uniswap, Polymarket. Land wrapped and you add a conversion step before you can do anything. Land native and you're already in the asset the destination expects.
Polygon also connects to AggLayer, its cross-chain settlement layer, so native USDC on Polygon isn't a dead end. It's a starting position.
Move USDC to Polygon through Across and the token that shows up isn't a placeholder you have to translate. It's the same USDC the chain already runs on, minted on arrival, usable the second it lands.
In brief Nano Banana 2 Lite (gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image) generates images in four seconds at roughly $0.034 per image. This means it produces results at about half the cost of Nano Banana 2 at the same resolution and 2.7× faster. In head-to-head testing, the Lite model matched or beat Nano Banana 2 on many fields, but when details are important, the more expensive version may be the better option. Google last week launched Nano Banana 2 Lite—officially gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image—as the entry point in its image generation stack, sitting below Nano Banana 2 and well below Nano Banana Pro. It delivers text-to-image outputs in roughly four seconds, 2.7 times faster than Nano Banana 2, and is positioned as the direct replacement for the original Nano Banana (gemini-2.5-flash-image). The explicit pitch: same Google ecosystem, less money, less waiting.
The model is available through Google AI Studio, the Gemini API, and the Enterprise Agent Platform—and it's baked into consumer products including Search, the Gemini app, NotebookLM, and Google Photos. It works alongside Gemini Omni Flash, Google's new video generation model, through the Interactions API, which lets users stack up to three sequential edits within a single session. The Nano Banana family now reads as a clean three-tier structure: Lite for speed and cost, Nano Banana 2 for the quality-speed balance, Nano Banana Pro for complex professional work.
At roughly $0.034 per image at 1K resolution, Nano Banana 2 Lite is about half the price of Nano Banana 2, which runs $0.067 per image at the same resolution. That puts the Lite model in direct competition with Seedream 5.0 Lite, which comes in at $0.031–0.035 per image. Reve 2.0 undercuts both at around $0.0067 per image via API—though it lacks the deployment breadth that comes with Google's infrastructure. Qwen Image Edit is a good, free, open-source option for standard use cases.
So, is the quality drop from Nano Banana 2 concentrated enough to matter for your specific workflow? Is it distributed enough that most people won't notice?
We ran the same prompts through both models across five categories to find out. The answer is less predictable than you'd expect.
Realism
The realism test is where the gap between Nano Banana 2 and its Lite sibling is most visible. Both models received the same technically demanding portrait prompt: a cinematic image of a 32-year-old female architect on a rooftop at sunset, wearing a beige trench coat and round glasses, holding rolled blueprints specifically in her left hand, with a defocused city skyline behind her, golden hour lighting with a soft rim light, shallow depth of field simulating a 50mm lens, a vertical 4:5 aspect ratio, realistic skin texture, and subtle film grain.
The prompt explicitly frames each element as an independent constraint that can fail.
Nano Banana 2 Lite passed the basic test. The subject is correctly dressed and positioned, wears round glasses, holds blueprints, and stands on a rooftop with a blurred city behind her. But it is slightly, just slightly, less realistic in terms of details: The subject only has one hand, which is oversized in comparison to the rest of the body. The rim light is barely perceptible. Skin texture holds up at thumbnail scale but doesn't survive close inspection. The image, in the end, looks like a competent stock photo, not a cinematic portrait.
Nano Banana 2 produced something photographically different in kind. The subject stands against a fully realized New York City skyline at magic hour, bokeh city lights blooming across the background, a hint of a river visible in the distance. The depth of field is dramatic. The warm rim light clearly separates the subject from the background. The blueprints are in her left hand, not her right hand, as requested.
Both models struggle with symmetry. For example the holes for the buttons and some straps are not consistent, but again, those are details that are spotted upon closer inspection.
For social media content or rapid visual mockups, the Lite version is workable—it communicates the concept. For anything where the image is the final product—a hero image, a client deliverable, a portfolio piece—it will show its seams at any resolution above a thumbnail. Photographic quality is where the Lite model's architecture makes its largest single concession, and it makes it consistently.
Prompt Adherence
Prompt adherence testing used a different strategy: a dense, multi-element scene where each labeled detail functions as an independent failure point. The prompt described a steampunk cityscape viewed from a gargoyle's perch—complete with a hot air balloon labeled "Atlas & Sons Cartographers, Est. 1842," a cable car with a specific named route, a gear-driven clock tower, a gargoyle holding a document labeled "Sector 7 – Condemned," a foreground newspaper with a specific headline, and a detailed Victorian street scene below.
The logic: If a model can hold 10 specific simultaneous constraints, you can trust it on complex creative briefs.
Both models produced visually compelling steampunk scenes. Both correctly place the gargoyle in the foreground, the clock tower at center, the balloon in the sky, and a cable car crossing the frame. At a glance, the differences feel cosmetic—the Lite version is darker and moodier, the full model cleaner and brighter. But the specifics tell a different story. In the Lite version, the balloon reads "Est. 1942" instead of 1842—mostly due to AI grappling to properly render text. The cable car route label is partially garbled. The foreground newspaper headline blurs at the edges, losing legibility on the details that were specifically requested.
Overall, it focused more on visuals than text, which is ok for most use cases.
Nano Banana 2 gets almost everything right. The balloon clearly reads "Atlas & Sons Cartographers Est. 1842." The cable car sign says "Upper Vantis – 4 Stops." The gargoyle holds a document, but the text is illegible. The foreground newspaper reads "Clocktower Falls Silent – City Mourns" in clean, readable type. Every named element appears where it should, with the correct label, in legible form. The compositional decision to use brighter, more editorial lighting also pays off here—it keeps the labeled details readable rather than swallowed by atmosphere.
Casual prompt users won't catch a one-digit transposition on a fictional establishment date. But concept artists, worldbuilders, and narrative illustrators—the people using these models to communicate specific creative logic to clients or collaborators—will notice immediately.
The Lite model's tendency to blur or transpose specific in-image text labels isn't a catastrophic failure, but it introduces a manual correction step that compounds badly at scale.
Spatial Awareness
Spatial awareness testing evaluated how each model handles multi-depth scene composition: multiple objects at close range, a human subject in the middle distance, and atmospheric elements receding into background darkness.
The scene—a medieval alchemist at a cluttered wooden desk, surrounded by an armillary sphere, a lit candle, an hourglass, a skull, star charts, and a glowing green jar, with a black cat silhouetted in an arched window behind him—requires convincing three-dimensional layering to read as coherent rather than assembled.
Both models understood the basic spatial grammar of the scene. Foreground objects are rendered at appropriate scale and shadow detail, the scholar occupies the mid-ground with correct occlusion relationships to the objects around him, and the arched window with the moonlit night sky creates a convincing sense of recession behind the scene. Neither model misplaces objects, collapses depth planes, or introduces spatial contradictions. The scene architecture—front, middle, back—is correctly established in both outputs.
The differences are subtle and real. Nano Banana 2's version has a richer atmospheric depth gradient: The candlelight fades naturally as it reaches the stone walls, the background haziness reads as genuine atmospheric depth rather than digital softening, and the overall scene has a painterly warmth that suggests volumetric space. The Lite version's depth is structurally correct but slightly compressed—the background reads marginally more like a stage flat than a receding room with actual air in it.
At least in this text, the Nano Banana 2 image feels like the same Nano Banana 2 Lite image with a detailed LoRA (a sort of specialized fine tuning layer) applied during sampling.
This is the smallest gap across all five tests. For storyboards, game asset concepts, and most editorial illustration contexts, both models demonstrate adequate spatial reasoning. The Lite model's slightly flatter depth rendering becomes meaningful only in high-resolution output or detailed compositional analysis—and even then, the gap is arguable.
For this category, the Lite model is a viable substitute in the vast majority of practical workflows.
Text Generation
Text generation is where this review produces its most counterintuitive result.
The test prompt described a gritty nighttime hardware store with dozens of simultaneous text elements at different scales and styles: a hand-painted main sign with the store name, founding date, and product categories; a graffiti tag on the façade; window decals with hours and services; a concert poster with band name, venue, date, doors time, and specific ticket prices; a city council meeting notice; a lost cat notice with a phone number; political stickers on a phone booth; and a street parking restriction on the curb.
Text generation at this complexity is difficult because each element has to be correctly rendered while the overall image still reads as a coherent photograph.
Nano Banana 2 Lite actually delivered something genuinely impressive for how fast it is. "KELLERMAN'S HARDWARE & SUPPLY CO. – SINCE 1931 – TOOLS, ROPE, PAINT," graffiti reading "STILL HERE," window signs for "OPEN 7 DAYS / WE BUY SCRAP – ASK FOR RAY / CLOSED," a concert poster for "THE DREDGE PALE MOUTH / SUNDAY JUNE 4 / DOORS 9PM / THE ANCHOR CLUB / $12 ADV – $15 DOOR," stickers reading "THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS" and "JESUS SAVES," a lost cat notice with a specific and legible phone number—every single text element in the prompt is correctly rendered and readable simultaneously in one image.
If there’s something to note, it’s that the image is less realistic. Some posters seem rendered by an editor with poor photoshop skills rather than genuine elements of the scene. One example could be the posters pasted on the phone booth. To be more realistic they should have some natural imperfections, and even deterioration signs. That said, this is a legitimately strong result for any image model, let alone the cheaper, faster one.
Nano Banana 2's version is also strong. Most text is correctly placed and legible, and the overall image reads as a convincing nighttime scene. But the full model's darker, moodier atmospheric rendering—generally one of its assets—works against it here. Several smaller sticker texts fall into shadow and lose legibility. The Lite model's brighter, more neutral lighting, a quality that reads as a weakness in portrait work, becomes a clear advantage when the evaluation criterion is whether all the text in the scene is actually readable.
For text-heavy generation—signage mockups, editorial graphics, product concepts with labeled elements, infographic-style composed images—Nano Banana 2 Lite performs below Nano Banana 2. The model seems to either focus too much on visuals that text becomes garble, or focus so much on text that its placement in scene becomes unrealistic.
ConclusionsNano Banana 2 Lite is not a straight downgrade from Nano Banana 2. It's a focused tool with a specific ceiling, and that ceiling drops hardest in exactly the scenarios where photographic quality is the deliverable, and holds surprisingly steady everywhere else.
Cinematic portrait work, sophisticated lighting physics, fine material texture, close-inspection-quality skin rendering—all of these expose a clear difference between the two models. Style transfer also takes a meaningful hit, not in rendering quality but in contextual comprehension: the Lite model can execute a subject, but it struggles to capture the visual environment in which that subject lives. Prompt adherence degrades specifically on in-image labeled text accuracy—a narrow failure mode, but one that matters badly in worldbuilding, concept art, and any pipeline where specific in-image language carries meaning.
What holds up well—and in some cases holds up better—is specificity: if you require a lot of focus on something, it will make sure everything is there.
Spatial scene architecture, and basic compositional competence are also good. The text generation result warrants specific emphasis: If your workflow involves signage mockups, branded graphics, editorial composites with text-heavy elements, or any pipeline where multiple readable text strings need to coexist in a single image, the Lite model is worth reaching for first. Its brighter rendering defaults, a liability in portrait work, are an advantage when legibility is the metric. Spatially, it handles multi-depth scenes adequately for the vast majority of professional contexts.
On the cost math: at $0.034 per image, Nano Banana 2 Lite runs at roughly half the cost of Nano Banana 2 at 1K resolution ($0.067) and trades almost blow-for-blow with Seedream 5.0 Lite ($0.031–0.035). Reve 2.0 undercuts both dramatically at approximately $0.0067 per image via API, but doesn’t offer the deployment footprint that comes with the Nano Banana ecosystem: Search, NotebookLM, Google Photos, and the Gemini app running off the same model simultaneously.
For teams already inside Google's infrastructure, that integration removes a platform-switching cost that pure-API alternatives can't account for. If you know which use cases you're in—and you're not in the photographic quality bucket—Nano Banana 2 Lite earns its spot in the lineup, and might even be a better option than its more powerful brother.
Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
In brief Nano Banana 2 Lite (gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image) generates images in four seconds at roughly $0.034 per image. This means it produces results at about half the cost of Nano Banana 2 at the same resolution and 2.7× faster. In head-to-head testing, the Lite model matched or beat Nano Banana 2 on many fields, but when details are important, the more expensive version may be the better option. Google last week launched Nano Banana 2 Lite—officially gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image—as the entry point in its image generation stack, sitting below Nano Banana 2 and well below Nano Banana Pro. It delivers text-to-image outputs in roughly four seconds, 2.7 times faster than Nano Banana 2, and is positioned as the direct replacement for the original Nano Banana (gemini-2.5-flash-image). The explicit pitch: same Google ecosystem, less money, less waiting.
The model is available through Google AI Studio, the Gemini API, and the Enterprise Agent Platform—and it's baked into consumer products including Search, the Gemini app, NotebookLM, and Google Photos. It works alongside Gemini Omni Flash, Google's new video generation model, through the Interactions API, which lets users stack up to three sequential edits within a single session. The Nano Banana family now reads as a clean three-tier structure: Lite for speed and cost, Nano Banana 2 for the quality-speed balance, Nano Banana Pro for complex professional work.
At roughly $0.034 per image at 1K resolution, Nano Banana 2 Lite is about half the price of Nano Banana 2, which runs $0.067 per image at the same resolution. That puts the Lite model in direct competition with Seedream 5.0 Lite, which comes in at $0.031–0.035 per image. Reve 2.0 undercuts both at around $0.0067 per image via API—though it lacks the deployment breadth that comes with Google's infrastructure. Qwen Image Edit is a good, free, open-source option for standard use cases.
So, is the quality drop from Nano Banana 2 concentrated enough to matter for your specific workflow? Is it distributed enough that most people won't notice?
We ran the same prompts through both models across five categories to find out. The answer is less predictable than you'd expect.
Realism
The realism test is where the gap between Nano Banana 2 and its Lite sibling is most visible. Both models received the same technically demanding portrait prompt: a cinematic image of a 32-year-old female architect on a rooftop at sunset, wearing a beige trench coat and round glasses, holding rolled blueprints specifically in her left hand, with a defocused city skyline behind her, golden hour lighting with a soft rim light, shallow depth of field simulating a 50mm lens, a vertical 4:5 aspect ratio, realistic skin texture, and subtle film grain.
The prompt explicitly frames each element as an independent constraint that can fail.
Nano Banana 2 Lite passed the basic test. The subject is correctly dressed and positioned, wears round glasses, holds blueprints, and stands on a rooftop with a blurred city behind her. But it is slightly, just slightly, less realistic in terms of details: The subject only has one hand, which is oversized in comparison to the rest of the body. The rim light is barely perceptible. Skin texture holds up at thumbnail scale but doesn't survive close inspection. The image, in the end, looks like a competent stock photo, not a cinematic portrait.
Nano Banana 2 produced something photographically different in kind. The subject stands against a fully realized New York City skyline at magic hour, bokeh city lights blooming across the background, a hint of a river visible in the distance. The depth of field is dramatic. The warm rim light clearly separates the subject from the background. The blueprints are in her left hand, not her right hand, as requested.
Both models struggle with symmetry. For example the holes for the buttons and some straps are not consistent, but again, those are details that are spotted upon closer inspection.
For social media content or rapid visual mockups, the Lite version is workable—it communicates the concept. For anything where the image is the final product—a hero image, a client deliverable, a portfolio piece—it will show its seams at any resolution above a thumbnail. Photographic quality is where the Lite model's architecture makes its largest single concession, and it makes it consistently.
Prompt Adherence
Prompt adherence testing used a different strategy: a dense, multi-element scene where each labeled detail functions as an independent failure point. The prompt described a steampunk cityscape viewed from a gargoyle's perch—complete with a hot air balloon labeled "Atlas & Sons Cartographers, Est. 1842," a cable car with a specific named route, a gear-driven clock tower, a gargoyle holding a document labeled "Sector 7 – Condemned," a foreground newspaper with a specific headline, and a detailed Victorian street scene below.
The logic: If a model can hold 10 specific simultaneous constraints, you can trust it on complex creative briefs.
Both models produced visually compelling steampunk scenes. Both correctly place the gargoyle in the foreground, the clock tower at center, the balloon in the sky, and a cable car crossing the frame. At a glance, the differences feel cosmetic—the Lite version is darker and moodier, the full model cleaner and brighter. But the specifics tell a different story. In the Lite version, the balloon reads "Est. 1942" instead of 1842—mostly due to AI grappling to properly render text. The cable car route label is partially garbled. The foreground newspaper headline blurs at the edges, losing legibility on the details that were specifically requested.
Overall, it focused more on visuals than text, which is ok for most use cases.
Nano Banana 2 gets almost everything right. The balloon clearly reads "Atlas & Sons Cartographers Est. 1842." The cable car sign says "Upper Vantis – 4 Stops." The gargoyle holds a document, but the text is illegible. The foreground newspaper reads "Clocktower Falls Silent – City Mourns" in clean, readable type. Every named element appears where it should, with the correct label, in legible form. The compositional decision to use brighter, more editorial lighting also pays off here—it keeps the labeled details readable rather than swallowed by atmosphere.
Casual prompt users won't catch a one-digit transposition on a fictional establishment date. But concept artists, worldbuilders, and narrative illustrators—the people using these models to communicate specific creative logic to clients or collaborators—will notice immediately.
The Lite model's tendency to blur or transpose specific in-image text labels isn't a catastrophic failure, but it introduces a manual correction step that compounds badly at scale.
Spatial Awareness
Spatial awareness testing evaluated how each model handles multi-depth scene composition: multiple objects at close range, a human subject in the middle distance, and atmospheric elements receding into background darkness.
The scene—a medieval alchemist at a cluttered wooden desk, surrounded by an armillary sphere, a lit candle, an hourglass, a skull, star charts, and a glowing green jar, with a black cat silhouetted in an arched window behind him—requires convincing three-dimensional layering to read as coherent rather than assembled.
Both models understood the basic spatial grammar of the scene. Foreground objects are rendered at appropriate scale and shadow detail, the scholar occupies the mid-ground with correct occlusion relationships to the objects around him, and the arched window with the moonlit night sky creates a convincing sense of recession behind the scene. Neither model misplaces objects, collapses depth planes, or introduces spatial contradictions. The scene architecture—front, middle, back—is correctly established in both outputs.
The differences are subtle and real. Nano Banana 2's version has a richer atmospheric depth gradient: The candlelight fades naturally as it reaches the stone walls, the background haziness reads as genuine atmospheric depth rather than digital softening, and the overall scene has a painterly warmth that suggests volumetric space. The Lite version's depth is structurally correct but slightly compressed—the background reads marginally more like a stage flat than a receding room with actual air in it.
At least in this text, the Nano Banana 2 image feels like the same Nano Banana 2 Lite image with a detailed LoRA (a sort of specialized fine tuning layer) applied during sampling.
This is the smallest gap across all five tests. For storyboards, game asset concepts, and most editorial illustration contexts, both models demonstrate adequate spatial reasoning. The Lite model's slightly flatter depth rendering becomes meaningful only in high-resolution output or detailed compositional analysis—and even then, the gap is arguable.
For this category, the Lite model is a viable substitute in the vast majority of practical workflows.
Text Generation
Text generation is where this review produces its most counterintuitive result.
The test prompt described a gritty nighttime hardware store with dozens of simultaneous text elements at different scales and styles: a hand-painted main sign with the store name, founding date, and product categories; a graffiti tag on the façade; window decals with hours and services; a concert poster with band name, venue, date, doors time, and specific ticket prices; a city council meeting notice; a lost cat notice with a phone number; political stickers on a phone booth; and a street parking restriction on the curb.
Text generation at this complexity is difficult because each element has to be correctly rendered while the overall image still reads as a coherent photograph.
Nano Banana 2 Lite actually delivered something genuinely impressive for how fast it is. "KELLERMAN'S HARDWARE & SUPPLY CO. – SINCE 1931 – TOOLS, ROPE, PAINT," graffiti reading "STILL HERE," window signs for "OPEN 7 DAYS / WE BUY SCRAP – ASK FOR RAY / CLOSED," a concert poster for "THE DREDGE PALE MOUTH / SUNDAY JUNE 4 / DOORS 9PM / THE ANCHOR CLUB / $12 ADV – $15 DOOR," stickers reading "THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS" and "JESUS SAVES," a lost cat notice with a specific and legible phone number—every single text element in the prompt is correctly rendered and readable simultaneously in one image.
If there’s something to note, it’s that the image is less realistic. Some posters seem rendered by an editor with poor photoshop skills rather than genuine elements of the scene. One example could be the posters pasted on the phone booth. To be more realistic they should have some natural imperfections, and even deterioration signs. That said, this is a legitimately strong result for any image model, let alone the cheaper, faster one.
Nano Banana 2's version is also strong. Most text is correctly placed and legible, and the overall image reads as a convincing nighttime scene. But the full model's darker, moodier atmospheric rendering—generally one of its assets—works against it here. Several smaller sticker texts fall into shadow and lose legibility. The Lite model's brighter, more neutral lighting, a quality that reads as a weakness in portrait work, becomes a clear advantage when the evaluation criterion is whether all the text in the scene is actually readable.
For text-heavy generation—signage mockups, editorial graphics, product concepts with labeled elements, infographic-style composed images—Nano Banana 2 Lite performs below Nano Banana 2. The model seems to either focus too much on visuals that text becomes garble, or focus so much on text that its placement in scene becomes unrealistic.
ConclusionsNano Banana 2 Lite is not a straight downgrade from Nano Banana 2. It's a focused tool with a specific ceiling, and that ceiling drops hardest in exactly the scenarios where photographic quality is the deliverable, and holds surprisingly steady everywhere else.
Cinematic portrait work, sophisticated lighting physics, fine material texture, close-inspection-quality skin rendering—all of these expose a clear difference between the two models. Style transfer also takes a meaningful hit, not in rendering quality but in contextual comprehension: the Lite model can execute a subject, but it struggles to capture the visual environment in which that subject lives. Prompt adherence degrades specifically on in-image labeled text accuracy—a narrow failure mode, but one that matters badly in worldbuilding, concept art, and any pipeline where specific in-image language carries meaning.
What holds up well—and in some cases holds up better—is specificity: if you require a lot of focus on something, it will make sure everything is there.
Spatial scene architecture, and basic compositional competence are also good. The text generation result warrants specific emphasis: If your workflow involves signage mockups, branded graphics, editorial composites with text-heavy elements, or any pipeline where multiple readable text strings need to coexist in a single image, the Lite model is worth reaching for first. Its brighter rendering defaults, a liability in portrait work, are an advantage when legibility is the metric. Spatially, it handles multi-depth scenes adequately for the vast majority of professional contexts.
On the cost math: at $0.034 per image, Nano Banana 2 Lite runs at roughly half the cost of Nano Banana 2 at 1K resolution ($0.067) and trades almost blow-for-blow with Seedream 5.0 Lite ($0.031–0.035). Reve 2.0 undercuts both dramatically at approximately $0.0067 per image via API, but doesn’t offer the deployment footprint that comes with the Nano Banana ecosystem: Search, NotebookLM, Google Photos, and the Gemini app running off the same model simultaneously.
For teams already inside Google's infrastructure, that integration removes a platform-switching cost that pure-API alternatives can't account for. If you know which use cases you're in—and you're not in the photographic quality bucket—Nano Banana 2 Lite earns its spot in the lineup, and might even be a better option than its more powerful brother.
Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
The probability that Bitcoin will rise to $70,000 this year has climbed to 79%.
Prediction market platform Polymarket now puts the probability of Bitcoin rising to $70,000 this year at 79%, up from 54% as of June 26. Additionally, the odds of Bitcoin hitting $80,000 stand at 32%, while the probability of it reaching $90,000 is 19%.
1 minutes ago
An alleged insider address of LAB has transferred $9.15 million worth of tokens to Aster again.
According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi (@ai_9684xtpa), a suspected insider address of LAB has transferred 10.5 million LAB tokens to Aster again. Calculated at the $0.872 price at the time of transfer, the move is worth roughly $9.15 million. This marks the address’s second transfer of LAB in the same fashion in about 22 hours. Over the past 24 hours, the address has moved a total of LAB worth approximately $18.69 million to Aster. Earlier, after the address completed the transfer last night, LAB’s price once plummeted sharply.
1 minutes ago
US-listed ETFs' assets under management climbed to $15.6 trillion, notching a new all-time high.
The Kobeissi Letter noted that the assets under management (AUM) of U.S.-listed ETFs have climbed to a record $15.6 trillion, doubling over the past 30 months. Year-to-date, investors have allocated more than $1 trillion to U.S.-listed ETFs, nearly double the year-to-date record set in 2025. At the current pace, full-year inflows are on track to top $2 trillion for the first time, roughly 33% higher than last year’s all-time high. In June alone, U.S. ETFs pulled in around $193 billion in inflows, marking the second-highest monthly inflow on record. Demand has been concentrated in U.S. large-cap, semiconductor, AI, and South Korea-focused ETFs, with the U.S. ETF market’s growth accelerating.
1 minutes ago
Hyperliquid’s perpetual contracts open interest market share hits 9%, a new all-time high.
According to hypeflows data, Hyperliquid holds a 9% share of the global perpetual contract market (covering all centralized exchanges including Binance, Bybit, OKX) by open interest, marking the highest level since the platform’s inception. Per HTX market data, HYPE is currently priced at $66.69, down 2.83% over the past 24 hours.
1 minutes ago
Smart money nets $97.2 million in total profit from a 3x short position on 1.85 million CASHCAT tokens
According to Onchain Lens monitoring, a top-performing whale on Hyperliquid has just opened a 3x short position on 1.85 million CASHCAT tokens. The wallet has accumulated a total profit of $97.2 million to date, and its latest CASHCAT position currently boasts an unrealized profit of $17,900.
1 minutes ago
Ethereum Foundation leverages AI to mine vulnerabilities: Successfully identifies security flaws, notes that manual review remains irreplaceable.
The Ethereum Foundation has disclosed that its Protocol Security team is using AI agents to conduct vulnerability hunting of Ethereum client software to boost network security. During testing, the AI successfully identified a vulnerability in the Gossipsub message propagation protocol that allows remote attackers to trigger node crashes, leading to validator nodes going offline. The flaw has since been patched and assigned CVE ID CVE-2026-34219. However, the foundation notes that AI’s biggest challenge is not discovering vulnerabilities, but distinguishing actual flaws from false positives. AI can generate vulnerability descriptions, impact analyses, and exploit code, but may also produce seemingly plausible yet non-existent issues—requiring security researchers to conduct thorough verification. The foundation outlined three common types of false positives: crashes occurring only in test environments, exploit paths that cannot be leveraged in real-world scenarios, and invalid proofs in formal verification. Additionally, the Ethereum Foundation believes AI is currently better at analyzing individual code issues, but has limited ability to identify complex attack chains formed by multiple legitimate operations—an attack vector that has been the primary cause of breaches for multiple crypto protocols this year. Going forward, the foundation plans to have AI assist in generating potential attack paths, which will then be verified via manual and automated testing to further improve the efficiency and accuracy of vulnerability discovery.
Hedera’s native token HBAR has fallen more than 2% after blockchain security researchers reported that a suspected exploit had moved more than $5.8 million in assets from the Hedera network to Ethereum.
Summary
Suspected Hedera exploit moved more than $5.8 million in assets to Ethereum, according to blockchain security researchers. Specter and PeckShield said the attacker bridged funds through LayerZero before swapping WBTC for ETH. HBAR fell more than 2%, trading near $0.069 as the reported exploit unfolded. According to blockchain security researcher Specter, the suspected attacker had already bridged more than $3.7 million worth of assets from Hedera to Ethereum before continuing to move additional funds.
There appears to be an ongoing hack involving @hedera Network, with over $3.7M already bridged to Ethereum by the attacker.
The stolen funds are currently being swapped from WBTC for ETH after being bridged from the Hedera network via Layerzero.
Theft addresses:… pic.twitter.com/KSxd3K2vlu
— Specter (@SpecterAnalyst) July 11, 2026 Specter said the stolen assets were being swapped from Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) into Ether (ETH) after crossing chains through LayerZero. The researcher also published two wallet addresses believed to be linked to the incident.
At the time of writing, CryptoBull360 reported that the wallet’s estimated value had increased to roughly $5.8 million, indicating that more assets had reached Ethereum after the initial transfers. The shared wallet data showed holdings of about 3,203 ETH, representing nearly 80% of the portfolio, alongside roughly 20% in WBTC.
According to data from crypto.news, Hedera (HBAR) price traded around $0.069, down more than 2% following the reports of the suspected exploit.
Cross-chain transfers have continued after the initial breach As additional transactions appeared on-chain, blockchain security firm PeckShield said the suspected exploit had already transferred approximately $5.25 million from the Hedera mainnet to Ethereum. The firm added that the wallet held around 2,360 ETH, valued at roughly $4.25 million, and 15.58 WBTC, worth about $1 million, at the time of its analysis.
PeckShield also reported that the wallet had originally been funded with 1 ETH from Tornado Cash, citing on-chain transaction history. The observation identifies the source of the wallet’s initial funding but does not establish who controls the address or who carried out the alleged attack.
The wallet screenshots shared by both Specter and PeckShield showed a series of inbound transfers arriving within a short period before the assets were converted into ETH.
Investigation remains ongoing as official details are limited Neither Specter nor PeckShield identified the party responsible for the suspected exploit, and no official estimate of the total losses had been released at the time of writing. The reported value of the stolen assets continued to change as additional funds were observed moving through the wallet.
The incident is still developing, with blockchain security researchers continuing to monitor the addresses and publish updates as new transactions appear on-chain. Meanwhile, market participants are watching for an official statement from the Hedera team regarding the reported exploit and any measures taken to contain its impact.
The Hedera incident comes amid a series of security-related developments reported by crypto.news in recent weeks. Blockaid recently said it detected an active exploit targeting Summer.fi, estimating losses of about $6 million at the time of its alert.
Separately, Ctrl Wallet announced it will permanently shut down after a security exploit affecting some Cardano wallets, giving users until Aug. 3 to withdraw their assets. Meanwhile, crypto.news also reported that Secret Network has proposed migrating SCRT from Cosmos to Arbitrum, with the team citing security risks, weaker liquidity, and an aging codebase in its July 7 governance proposal.
More than $5 million has been stolen from the Hedera Network after hackers exploited the DeFi lending platform Sauce Protocol. The attack caused the HBAR coin price to fall by nearly 3% as the stolen crypto was quickly moved to Ethereum.
So far, the attacker has not been identified, and the Hedera Network team has not released an official statement.
Sauce Protocol Exploit Drains Over $5 MillionAccording to PeckShield, the attacker exploited the Sauce Protocol by manipulating its price oracle after depositing collateral into the lending platform.
By changing asset prices, the hacker borrowed nearly 6.6 million USDC and 35 million HBAR before swapping the stolen tokens on SaucerSwap.
The attacker then used LayerZero to bridge the stolen funds from the Hedera Network to Ethereum, making it more difficult to recover the assets.
The total loss is estimated at more than $5.25 million, with the funds already transferred off the Hedera Network.
Stolen Funds Moved to EthereumOn-chain investigator Specter said the hacker first stole the funds from Sauce Protocol on the Hedera network. After that, the attacker used LayerZero to transfer the stolen crypto from Hedera to Ethereum, where it is easier to swap and move the funds.
The hacker’s Ethereum wallet now holds around 2,068 ETH, worth nearly $3.7 million, along with 15.58 WBTC, bringing the total stolen assets to more than $5 million.
Blockchain records also show the attacker making several transactions, repeatedly moving Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) to another wallet, likely an attempt to hide the money trail.
More than $5 million has been stolen from Hedera’s DeFi ecosystem after hackers exploited Sauce Protocol in an oracle manipulation
Before carrying out the exploit, the hacker funded the wallet 0x9A4…6a494 with just 1 ETH from Tornado Cash. Attackers often use Tornado Cash to cover their tracks before launching an exploit.
HBAR Coin Price Falls After AttackFollowing the news, HBAR dropped around 3.5%, falling to nearly $0.0670 as investors feared a more serious breach.
Although the exploit targeted Sauce Protocol rather than the Hedera network itself, the incident has raised concerns across decentralized finance (DeFi) applications built on the blockchain.
The investigation is still ongoing, yet there is no official announcement or post from the Hedera network team.
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.
Hedera-based lending protocol Bonzo Lend lost about $9 million after an attacker manipulated the price of SAUCE used as collateral, allowing the account to borrow assets far beyond the value deposited.
In a preliminary incident report published Saturday, Bonzo said the attacker deposited 250 SAUCE, worth only a few dollars, before submitting a price update that inflated the token’s value by roughly 12 orders of magnitude. The wallet then borrowed 6.63 million USDC and 34.5 million wrapped HBAR from the lending pool.
The case illustrates how oracle failures can turn low-value collateral into a tool for draining large amounts of liquidity from lending protocols, even when the application and underlying network continue operating as designed.
Bonzo attributed the incident to a flaw in Supra’s on-chain oracle verifier, which accepted a manipulated SAUCE price carrying a zeroed signature. The protocol said Supra acknowledged the issue and deployed a fix, while stressing that the incident was not a vulnerability in Bonzo Lend’s contracts or Hedera’s core network.
Estimated economic impact of the incident. Source: Bonzo Finance
DeFi hacks continue to pressure the sector The incident adds to a growing number of exploits targeting decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols in 2026.
The second quarter had become the most-hacked quarter on record by incident count, with 83 exploits and about $755 million stolen. Cross-chain bridge exploits accounted for $351 million, while compromised administrator attacks and fake token price manipulation represented 37% of quarterly losses.
In 2026, DeFi’s total value locked (TVL) had fallen 39% to over $70 billion in June from about $115 billion in January. CryptoRank recorded 121 hacks and roughly $942 million in losses over the period, saying repeated security incidents likely weighed on user confidence and reinforced capital outflows.
The Bonzo incident also follows a similar collateral-pricing exploit on Stellar. In February, attackers drained roughly $10 million from a YieldBlox DAO-managed lending pool after manipulating the price path used to value USTRY collateral, allowing them to borrow assets beyond the token’s real worth.
Magazine: Will the crypto lobby's $189M campaign get CLARITY over the line?
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.
Hedera-based lending protocol Bonzo Lend lost about $9 million after an attacker manipulated the price of SAUCE used as collateral, allowing the account to borrow assets far beyond the value deposited.
In a preliminary incident report published Saturday, Bonzo said the attacker deposited 250 SAUCE, worth only a few dollars, before submitting a price update that inflated the token’s value by roughly 12 orders of magnitude. The wallet then borrowed 6.63 million USDC and 34.5 million wrapped HBAR from the lending pool.
The case illustrates how oracle failures can turn low-value collateral into a tool for draining large amounts of liquidity from lending protocols, even when the application and underlying network continue operating as designed.
Bonzo attributed the incident to a flaw in Supra’s on-chain oracle verifier, which accepted a manipulated SAUCE price carrying a zeroed signature. The protocol said Supra acknowledged the issue and deployed a fix, while stressing that the incident was not a vulnerability in Bonzo Lend’s contracts or Hedera’s core network.
Estimated economic impact of the incident. Source: Bonzo Finance
DeFi hacks continue to pressure the sector The incident adds to a growing number of exploits targeting decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols in 2026.
The second quarter had become the most-hacked quarter on record by incident count, with 83 exploits and about $755 million stolen. Cross-chain bridge exploits accounted for $351 million, while compromised administrator attacks and fake token price manipulation represented 37% of quarterly losses.
In 2026, DeFi’s total value locked (TVL) had fallen 39% to over $70 billion in June from about $115 billion in January. CryptoRank recorded 121 hacks and roughly $942 million in losses over the period, saying repeated security incidents likely weighed on user confidence and reinforced capital outflows.
The Bonzo incident also follows a similar collateral-pricing exploit on Stellar. In February, attackers drained roughly $10 million from a YieldBlox DAO-managed lending pool after manipulating the price path used to value USTRY collateral, allowing them to borrow assets beyond the token’s real worth.
Magazine: Will the crypto lobby's $189M campaign get CLARITY over the line?
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.
Someone just walked off with $5.25 million from the Hedera network, and they didn’t exactly try to be subtle about it. Blockchain security firms PeckShield and Specter flagged the suspicious activity on July 11, tracking a trail of funds that moved from Hedera’s mainnet to Ethereum through a cross-chain bridge powered by LayerZero technology.
The timing is particularly awkward for Hedera. Just weeks after the network celebrated the launch of the first US spot HBAR ETF, it’s now dealing with a significant security incident.
How the exploit unfolded The attacker funded an Ethereum wallet with 1 ETH routed through Tornado Cash, the privacy mixing service. From there, the attacker bridged assets from Hedera to Ethereum using LayerZero’s cross-chain infrastructure. Once the funds landed on Ethereum, the attacker swapped Wrapped Bitcoin for Ether, consolidating the stolen haul into more liquid assets.
Advertisement
At the time security researchers flagged the incident, the attacker’s Ethereum wallet held approximately 2,360 ETH, valued at about $4.25 million, along with 15.58 WBTC worth roughly $1 million. The wallet addresses involved have been identified as 0x9A4966152F6e10b33Cb7a37975e8619816d6a494 and 0xaf20D792A19fD42dCf697ceBa6100291D96dD93e.
Hedera itself has not confirmed the exploit. On-chain investigators are still picking through the transaction data to determine exactly what vulnerability was exploited and how the attacker gained access to the funds in the first place.
A pattern that should worry everyone This isn’t Hedera’s first brush with a security breach. Back in March 2023, the network experienced an exploit that affected decentralized exchange liquidity pools through a bug in Hedera Token Service transfers.
The 2026 landscape has been particularly brutal. A $6 million exploit hit Summer.fi, and a governance attack on BONK DAO resulted in $20 million in losses. The suspected Hedera incident slots neatly into this growing catalog of multi-million-dollar security failures.
What this means for HBAR and its new ETF In June 2026, Canary Capital launched the first US spot HBAR ETF, which debuted with $52.6 million in assets under management. Now, barely a month later, the network is associated with a multi-million-dollar theft.
The exploit appears to involve assets bridged off the Hedera network rather than a compromise of the network’s core consensus mechanism. The use of Tornado Cash to fund the initial wallet suggests the attacker was prepared for scrutiny, which typically makes fund recovery significantly more difficult.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Bonzo Finance Labs, the team behind Bonzo Finance, Hedera’s flagship DeFi lending and borrowing protocol, announced today that Bonzo Lend was exploited on July 11 after an attacker manipulated a third-party oracle price feed, allowing the protocol to vastly overvalue a small SAUCE deposit and enable excessive borrowing.
The team stressed that the issue originated in Supra’s oracle verification process rather than Bonzo Lend’s smart contracts, which it said functioned as designed by using the incorrect on-chain price supplied by the oracle.
Bonzo Lend and Bonzo Points have been paused, while Bonzo Vaults, Bonzo Bridge, and BONZO/XBONZO staking remain unaffected, according to the project.
Advertisement
According to the preliminary incident report, Wallet A submitted a forged price update that inflated SAUCE’s value by roughly 12 orders of magnitude above its actual market price. Bonzo said the manipulated update was accepted because a flaw in Supra’s verifier incorrectly treated a zeroed BLS signature as valid, allowing the false price to be written on-chain.
Once the manipulated price was live, the attacker deposited 250 SAUCE as collateral and borrowed millions of dollars worth of assets. Bonzo said its lending contracts simply read the oracle’s on-chain price and calculated borrowing limits as designed, adding that Supra has since acknowledged the vulnerability and deployed a fix for the affected verifier.
The report further stated that the exploit did not involve vulnerabilities in Bonzo Lend, abnormal market activity, or flash loans, noting SAUCE’s real trading price remained stable throughout the incident.
The report also highlighted the involvement of Wallet B, which borrowed roughly another $1 million while the inflated price remained active before identifying itself as a white-hat participant and offering to return the funds.
Bonzo said it is coordinating the recovery with Wallet B separately and will provide further updates on reimbursements, withdrawals, and remediation once investigations are complete.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Bonzo Lend, a decentralized lending protocol operating on the Hedera network, experienced a significant security breach resulting in a loss of approximately $9 million. The attack exploited a vulnerability in the protocol’s oracle mechanism, enabling the perpetrator to extract funds far exceeding the collateral’s real value.
Attacker exploits oracle to inflate collateral valueAccording to an initial investigation, the incident began when the attacker deposited just 250 units of SAUCE, a token representing only a few dollars. Shortly thereafter, the attacker submitted a manipulated price update that amplified SAUCE’s value by an estimated 12 orders of magnitude. Leveraging the inflated value, the attacker borrowed 6.63 million USDC and 34.5 million wrapped HBAR from Bonzo’s lending pool.
The manipulation targeted the protocol’s reliance on on-chain pricing data, transforming minor collateral into a tool for siphoning millions from its liquidity pool.
Mini dictionary: Oracle, in blockchain and DeFi, refers to a system that provides external data—such as asset prices—to smart contracts, enabling their automated functions.
Bonzo Finance attributed the breach to a flaw in Supra’s on-chain oracle verifier, which allowed a manipulated SAUCE price update with a zeroed signature. Supra, the company providing the affected oracle, has acknowledged the issue and implemented a fix.
Protocol, network not directly compromisedBonzo Finance stated that the exploit did not stem from vulnerabilities in its own smart contracts or the underlying Hedera network. Instead, the problem emerged from how the protocol’s oracle system verified external price data, ultimately making it susceptible to manipulation.
Bonzo is a decentralized finance (DeFi) lending protocol designed to enable users to supply assets as collateral and borrow against them on the Hedera blockchain. Hedera is a public distributed ledger platform focused on fast and secure decentralized applications.
DeFi protocols face rising security threatsThis exploit contributes to a growing number of attacks targeting DeFi protocols in 2026. The second quarter of the year saw a record 83 exploits, with total funds stolen reaching about $755 million. Cross-chain bridge exploits were responsible for $351 million, while attacks involving compromised administrators and manipulated token prices comprised 37% of the quarterly losses.
CategoryQ2 2026 LossesCross-chain bridge exploits$351 millionCompromised admin & price manipulation37% of total lossesTotal DeFi exploits$755 million (83 incidents)Overall, DeFi’s total value locked (TVL) fell by 39% in 2026, dropping from around $115 billion in January to over $70 billion by June, according to research firm CryptoRank. The firm reported 121 hacks during this timeframe, with estimated losses of $942 million, indicating that recurring security incidents continued to undermine user trust and drive capital outflows.
Similar incidents in the DeFi spaceThe Bonzo Lend exploit follows a comparable attack on the YieldBlox DAO lending pool on the Stellar network earlier this year. Attackers in that case manipulated the price path used to value USTRY collateral, draining roughly $10 million after borrowing assets beyond the token’s actual value.
These incidents highlight persistent challenges related to price oracles and external data feeds within decentralized finance systems, which remain targets for sophisticated exploits despite advances in smart contract security and blockchain infrastructure.
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.
PANews reported on July 11, citing Cointelegraph, that the Hedera-based lending protocol Bonzo Finance suffered an oracle attack, losing approximately $9 million. The attacker used collateral after the SAUCE token price was abnormally inflated to borrow assets far exceeding their actual value from the protocol.
Bonzo’s preliminary incident report shows that the attacker deposited only 250 SAUCE (worth just a few dollars), then submitted a price update that artificially inflated the token’s price by about 12 orders of magnitude. Subsequently, the address borrowed $6.63 million in USDC and 34.5 million wrapped HBAR (wHBAR) from the lending pool. It is reported that the incident originated from a vulnerability in the on-chain oracle validator of the oracle service provider Supra, which erroneously accepted a SAUCE price data with a zeroed-out signature. Supra has confirmed the issue and completed a fix. Bonzo emphasized that this attack did not stem from any vulnerability in Bonzo’s smart contracts or the underlying Hedera network.
Data shows that the second quarter of 2026 has become the quarter with the most attacks in crypto history, with a total of 83 security incidents resulting in cumulative losses of about $755 million. Among them, cross-chain bridge attacks caused approximately $351 million in losses, while admin key leaks and fake token price manipulation accounted for 37% of the quarterly losses.
Affected by ongoing security incidents, the DeFi sector’s total value locked (TVL) has fallen from around $115 billion in January this year to over $70 billion in June, a cumulative decline of 39%. CryptoRank data shows that the industry has experienced 121 security incidents so far this year, with cumulative losses of about $942 million. Persistent security issues may further weaken user confidence and accelerate capital outflows.
It is worth noting that in February this year, the Stellar-based lending protocol YieldBlox also experienced a similar incident. The attacker stole around $10 million in assets from its lending pool by manipulating the USTRY collateral price path.
Uniswap just crossed $1 billion in cumulative trading volume on Robinhood Chain. It took nine days.
To put that in perspective, the chain’s public mainnet launched around July 1, and by July 10 the leading decentralized exchange had already processed a billion dollars in trades. Daily active traders surpassed 220,000 during the same stretch.
The numbers behind the surge The trajectory was steep from the start. Uniswap racked up roughly $250 million in trading volume during its first week on Robinhood Chain, then saw a single-day explosion to approximately $500 million on July 8. That one-day spike ranked the chain’s Uniswap activity second only to Ethereum mainnet.
Advertisement
Uniswap’s total value locked on Robinhood Chain topped $30 million by July 10. The broader chain’s TVL cleared $106 million during the same window.
All four of Uniswap’s protocol versions, v2, v3, v4, and UniswapX, were live from day one as the primary public automated market maker.
The trading activity wasn’t driven by a single catalyst. Two categories dominated: tokenized stocks and memecoins.
Why Robinhood Chain matters for DeFi Robinhood Chain is built on Arbitrum’s Layer 2 technology, giving it 100-millisecond block times.
The UNI governance token responded accordingly, climbing as much as 14% during the volume surge.
What this means for investors The tokenized stocks angle deserves particular attention. If traders on Robinhood Chain can seamlessly swap between memecoins and tokenized equities using the same DEX interface, that blurs the line between traditional brokerage services and DeFi in ways regulators will almost certainly want to examine.
The $106 million in total chain TVL is still modest compared to established L2s like Arbitrum One or Base, which hold billions.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
A new platform called Solana Music is preparing to launch with an ambitious goal: take on Spotify’s dominance in music distribution and monetization. The project plans to leverage the Solana blockchain to let artists distribute and earn from their work, bypassing the traditional intermediaries that have defined, and frustrated, the music industry for decades.
The Nina Protocol cautionary tale Anyone evaluating Solana Music’s chances should study Nina Protocol carefully. Launched in 2021 on Solana, Nina was built on nearly identical principles: artist-first distribution, zero commission on sales, full revenue retention for creators. Co-founded by Jack Callahan, Mike Pollard, and Eric Farber, all from DIY music backgrounds, the platform earned the nickname “Bandcamp for the Discord generation.”
Advertisement
Nina did a lot of things right. It evolved meaningfully over time, adding fiat and USDC payment support in its version 2 update in late 2023. A mobile app followed in 2024. By late 2025, the platform had attracted roughly 40,000 monthly users and hosted over 20,000 music releases.
And yet, on May 28, 2026, the Nina team announced a phased shutdown beginning in mid-July 2026. Despite meaningful growth, the project couldn’t overcome the fundamental challenges of building a sustainable business at the intersection of blockchain and consumer music.
What Solana Music needs to get right Third, and this is the one that ultimately sank Nina, there’s the sustainability question. Platforms that take zero commission need alternative revenue models. Nina notably never launched a dedicated token, which may have limited both its fundraising options and its ability to bootstrap network effects through token incentives.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
TLDR: CASHCAT price moved toward $0.20 after an early trader sold 15.04 million tokens for 580 ETH, converting an initial $838 purchase into about $1.04 million. The completed sale produced an estimated 1,183x return, although the same holdings could have reached about $2.9 million at a later market valuation. CASHCAT has expanded from Robinhood Chain to Solana through Sunrise, giving the token access to new wallets, exchanges, and liquidity pools. Hyperliquid has introduced CASHCAT perpetual futures with up to 3x leverage, adding short exposure and greater liquidation risk during volatile sessions. The CASHCAT price climbed toward $0.20 on July 11 after an early trader recorded one of the token’s largest documented exits. The wallet turned a 0.49 ETH purchase, worth about $838, into 580 ETH valued near $1.04 million. The completed sale delivered an estimated 1,183x return.
Bitcoin held near $64,000, while Ethereum traded close to $1,800. The CASHCAT price gained about 15% over 24 hours, strongly outperforming the wider market.
The rally also comes as CASHCAT expands beyond Robinhood Chain. Solana access through Sunrise and a new Hyperliquid perpetual market have widened its trading routes.
Lookonchain reported that the wallet bought 15.04 million CASHCAT with 0.49 ETH. It later sold the full position for 580 ETH, securing more than $1 million in realized profit. The tracker estimated that holding longer could have lifted the position’s value near $2.9 million.
The full exit matters since many meme coin success stories rely on unsold balances. This wallet converted the entire position back into ETH. That move provides a clearer measure of realized gains during the CASHCAT price rally.
Lookonchain also suggested the wallet could belong to crypto creator Brian Jung. No public on-chain evidence confirms that link. Jung separately posted that he cashed out more than $1 million from CASHCAT and missed an additional seven-figure upside.
Other early traders show the timing risk around the Robinhood Chain token. One wallet reportedly turned an $86 purchase into about $1.6 million after selling part of its holdings. Another trader sold 20 million tokens for only $711 before the same balance later reached a multimillion-dollar estimated value.
Solana Expansion Adds New Liquidity and Trading Routes CASHCAT began as a community token linked to Robinhood’s earlier Cash Cat name. Its story gained traction after Robinhood Chain launched and attracted trading across new ecosystem assets. The Solana meme coin now trades across more than one venue and network.
Solana confirmed that CASHCAT went live through Sunrise. The platform brings external assets onto Solana through issuer-designated canonical tokens. The listing gives users access through Solana wallets, aggregators, and decentralized exchanges.
Hyperliquid added CASHCAT perpetual futures with leverage capped at 3x. Traders can now take long or short exposure without holding the spot token. Derivatives may lift turnover, although they also create faster liquidation risk during sharp price moves.
CASHCAT price traded near $0.199 during the latest DEX Screener check. The Robinhood Chain pair held about $11.5 million in liquidity and a market capitalization near $197.8 million. Its 24-hour volume reached roughly $31.9 million, split between $16.3 million in buys and $15.6 million in sells.
Source: Coingecko That liquidity remains small compared with the token’s market value. Large exits can therefore move the CASHCAT price quickly, especially after leveraged markets attract short-term traders. Copycat contracts on Solana also raise verification risks for buyers searching the ticker across different pools.
Key Takeaways Ethereum stands as the dominant smart contract platform with strong institutional backing and an established DeFi landscape Solana delivers thousands of transactions per second with minimal costs, attracting gaming and consumer-focused applications Ethereum represents a more conservative choice; Solana carries greater risk alongside potentially larger returns Developer activity continues to strengthen across both networks as their ecosystems evolve A growing number of investors maintain positions in both assets instead of choosing a single blockchain Ethereum holds the position as the premier smart contract platform globally. It supports countless decentralized applications, DeFi protocols, and NFT marketplaces. Additionally, it serves as the foundation for numerous tokenized real-world assets and corporate blockchain initiatives.
Ethereum (ETH) Price Ethereum transitioned to a Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanism, dramatically reducing energy consumption while enabling token holders to generate staking income. The platform boasts crypto’s most extensive developer base and maintains billions locked within DeFi protocols.
The primary challenges facing Ethereum include elevated transaction costs during network congestion and processing speeds that lag behind more recent blockchain platforms.
Solana emerged specifically to address these performance and affordability limitations. The network processes thousands of transactions every second while maintaining exceptionally low fees. This capability has positioned it as a preferred platform for gaming applications, payment systems, meme tokens, and consumer-oriented products.
Solana’s developer ecosystem has expanded rapidly. Institutional participation has increased significantly, with many industry observers considering it Ethereum’s primary long-term competitor.
Solana (SOL) Price The platform’s weaknesses include a comparatively smaller overall ecosystem and heavier reliance on sustained network expansion to support its valuation.
Evaluating Growth Trajectories and Risk Profiles Ethereum typically receives recognition as the more conservative option. It currently dominates in institutional acceptance, DeFi infrastructure, and asset tokenization. Should blockchain technology achieve deeper integration into worldwide financial systems, Ethereum stands well-positioned to capitalize.
Solana potentially offers greater appreciation prospects. The platform remains earlier along its development path. Should developers continue building applications and consumer adoption accelerate, potential gains could exceed Ethereum’s — though accompanying risks are similarly elevated.
These two blockchains address somewhat distinct market segments. Ethereum commands institutional finance and sophisticated decentralized applications. Solana has established dominance in rapid, cost-effective consumer transactions and decentralized exchange activity.
Certain investors perceive them as direct competitors for identical user bases. Others recognize them as fulfilling separate requirements and maintain exposure to both networks.
Single Position or Diversified Approach? Numerous long-term cryptocurrency investors maintain holdings in both Ethereum and Solana. The rationale centers on each ecosystem addressing different market areas. Dual ownership mitigates the risk associated with concentrating on a single blockchain while providing participation in each platform’s expansion.
For those preferring reduced volatility and proven infrastructure, Ethereum presents the more convincing case. For investors seeking elevated growth potential who can tolerate additional risk, Solana offers a persuasive proposition.
Both platforms will likely maintain prominent positions within digital assets. The optimal selection depends on individual objectives, risk capacity, and investment timeline.
Cryptocurrencies exhibit extreme price volatility. Conduct thorough independent research and invest only capital you can afford to lose completely.
Quick Summary Bitcoin receives the largest allocation at 40% thanks to institutional adoption and proven market stability Ethereum captures 25% of the portfolio for its dominance in decentralized finance and smart contracts Solana claims 15% based on superior transaction throughput and expanding ecosystem Chainlink secures 10% for providing critical oracle services across blockchain networks Near Protocol takes 5% offering exposure to AI integration and Layer 1 innovation A cryptocurrency expert has detailed a strategic approach for distributing $1,000 across five digital assets plus a stablecoin buffer, designed to optimize both security and upside potential in today’s market environment.
Core Holdings: Bitcoin and Ethereum Anchor the Strategy [[LINK_START_1]]Bitcoin[[LINK_END_1]] commands the dominant position with a 40% allocation, representing $400 of the total investment. As the cryptocurrency sector’s flagship asset by market capitalization, it benefits from continuous institutional capital inflows via spot exchange-traded funds and corporate balance sheet acquisitions. Its established history and deep liquidity position it as the portfolio’s most reliable component.
Bitcoin (BTC) Price [[LINK_START_3]]Ethereum[[LINK_END_3]] claims the second-largest position at 25%, equating to $250. As the fundamental infrastructure supporting decentralized finance and the primary platform for asset tokenization, it remains the preferred choice for financial institutions experimenting with distributed ledger technology.
Combined, these two market leaders comprise 65% of the entire allocation. This substantial weighting acknowledges their relatively reduced volatility when measured against smaller market cap alternatives.
Solana captures 15% of the portfolio at $150. The network challenges Ethereum through superior processing speed and minimal transaction costs while establishing significant traction in decentralized finance, payment systems, and user-facing applications. Though it introduces elevated risk, it simultaneously offers greater appreciation potential should mainstream adoption accelerate.
Chainlink occupies 10% of the allocation at $100. Its decentralized oracle infrastructure serves as the critical bridge connecting blockchain networks with external data sources, proving indispensable for smart contract functionality and enterprise blockchain implementations. As the tokenization of tangible assets gains momentum, dependency on this data infrastructure layer may intensify.
Near Protocol completes the active holdings at 5%, representing $50. The project emphasizes artificial intelligence infrastructure alongside its Layer 1 blockchain capabilities. While it represents the portfolio’s most speculative and smallest position, it provides valuable exposure to the convergence of AI and cryptocurrency sectors.
Strategic Stablecoin Buffer Explained The remaining 5%, totaling $50, stays allocated in stablecoins. This isn’t merely a defensive position—it equips investors with immediate purchasing power during market corrections without requiring the liquidation of current holdings.
Cryptocurrency valuations can experience dramatic swings within compressed timeframes. Maintaining a modest cash-equivalent reserve delivers tactical flexibility when valuations decline.
Rationale Behind Multi-Asset Diversification No individual cryptocurrency can be certain to deliver superior returns. Distributing capital across five distinct assets with varying utilities and risk profiles helps contain potential losses if any single position underperforms.
[[LINK_START_4]]Bitcoin[[LINK_END_4]] and Ethereum establish the portfolio’s stable foundation. [[LINK_START_5]]Solana[[LINK_END_5]], Chainlink, and Near Protocol introduce enhanced appreciation opportunities accompanied by proportionally increased risk.
The allocation strategy mirrors present market dynamics. Institutional participation continues expanding, artificial intelligence is intersecting with blockchain technology, and infrastructure protocols are becoming increasingly fundamental to network operations.
This approach doesn’t pursue rapid speculation. Instead, it presents a methodical entry framework for investors with $1,000 seeking diversified cryptocurrency exposure while avoiding concentration in any single digital asset.
Shiba Inu investors are questioning the project’s direction after the Shibtoken X account shifted its attention from SHIB to promoting other meme coins.
The broader cryptocurrency market has weighed heavily on Shiba Inu in recent weeks, pushing the token toward the bottom of the top 30 cryptocurrencies by market cap.
Amid this prolonged downturn, many investors expected major ecosystem accounts to intensify SHIB-focused updates and strengthen community confidence. Instead, the Shibtoken account is once again promoting rival projects.
Shibtoken Account Promotes Competing Meme Coins Recently, the Shibtoken X account interacted with a post from a relatively unknown meme coin. It congratulated the project on its progress while praising its commitment to preserving meme culture through consistent development and community engagement.
Shortly afterward, the account commented on another little-known frog-themed meme coin, claiming it was superior to Pepe, one of the largest frog-themed cryptocurrencies.
Since the original post prominently displayed the token’s contract address, many community members interpreted the interaction as an indirect endorsement that exposed Shibtoken’s 3.8 million followers to a competing asset.
Shiba Inu X Account Community Questions the Purpose Behind the Promotions The promotions quickly triggered backlash across the Shiba Inu community. Many holders openly questioned the account’s handler, asking why an account closely associated with Shiba Inu would promote rival meme coins while SHIB continues to struggle in the market.
Several community members argued that such promotions divert attention from SHIB at a time when the token needs stronger visibility and ecosystem support.
Although the Shiba Inu ecosystem has repeatedly stated that the Shibtoken X account is not the project’s official account, many investors still associate it closely with Shiba Inu.
When the account launched in February 2021, it focused almost exclusively on SHIB-related updates. That strategy helped it grow its audience to more than 3.8 million followers and established it as one of the largest accounts covering the Shiba Inu ecosystem.
However, as SHIB’s market performance has weakened, the account has gradually expanded its attention to other cryptocurrencies. It has promoted non-SHIB tokens on several previous occasions, drawing criticism from community members who believe the account should remain dedicated to the Shiba Inu ecosystem.
SHIB Remains Under Heavy Bearish Pressure The latest controversy comes as Shiba Inu continues to face significant selling pressure.
SHIB currently ranks as the 30th-largest cryptocurrency, with a $2.59 billion market cap. The token trades at $0.000004398, while its 24-hour trading volume has fallen 3.83% to $48.63 million.
Market performance has also remained weak over longer timeframes. SHIB has declined 7.45% over the past month and 1.4% during the past week. Overall, the token remains 95.03% below its all-time high of $0.00008845.
Investors Call for Greater Focus on SHIB Given SHIB’s prolonged downturn, many investors believe influential ecosystem accounts should concentrate on promoting Shiba Inu rather than other meme coins.
Critics argue that the Shibtoken account is directing the attention of its millions of followers toward rival projects at a time when SHIB needs stronger community support.
Meanwhile, some of Shiba Inu’s most prominent figures, including lead ambassador Shytoshi Kusama and marketing strategist Lucie, have remained inactive on X for several months. Their absence has left much of the ecosystem’s public engagement in the hands of the broader community, further fueling investor concerns about the project’s visibility and communication strategy.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Trading activity on Shibarium-based decentralized exchanges (DEXs) is showing signs of recovery after daily volume surged by more than 1,500% within 24 hours.
According to data from DeFiLlama, Shibarium’s DEX trading volume jumped 1,517%, rising from just $17 on July 9 to $275 on July 10. Notably, Shiba Inu’s native decentralized exchange, ShibaSwap, accounted for the entire $275 in trading volume.
Although the figure remains insignificant compared to rival blockchain ecosystems that process tens of millions of dollars in daily DEX volume, the increase represents a notable improvement from Shibarium’s recent performance.
Trading Volume Recovers After Weeks of Inactivity The latest spike follows an extended period of minimal trading activity on the network.
Notably, Shibarium recorded no DEX trading volume from June 23 through the end of the month. Activity resumed at the beginning of July, but only $3 worth of trades were executed. Trading volume then climbed to $17 on July 9 before surging to $275 the following day, representing a 1,517% day-over-day increase.
While trading activity remains modest in absolute terms, the latest figures suggest that liquidity is gradually returning to the Shibarium ecosystem.
Shibarium DEX Volume Shibarium TVL and Transactions Soar Meanwhile, Shibarium’s decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem has also expanded in recent weeks. At press time, the network’s total value locked (TVL) stood at $24,014, representing an 11.71% increase from its June 27 level.
Additionally, TVL has risen by 1.50% over the past 24 hours, indicating continued growth in assets deposited across Shibarium-based protocols. Beyond decentralized exchange activity, overall network usage has also strengthened.
Data from Shibariumscan shows that daily transactions, which had remained below 2,000 since July 5, surged to 5,170 on July 10. This represents a 361% increase from the 1,120 transactions recorded on July 9.
Despite the recent slowdown, Shibarium has continued to process substantial on-chain activity throughout its lifetime. The network has now recorded more than 1.56 billion total transactions across approximately 18.06 million blocks.
The simultaneous rise in DEX trading volume, TVL, and daily transactions suggests that activity across the Shibarium ecosystem is gradually recovering after a prolonged period of weak on-chain engagement.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
Shiba Inu community veteran Mazrael highlighted Japan's latest crypto push, which stands to benefit Shiba Inu.
According to Mazrael, Japan just took another major step toward becoming one of the world's most crypto-friendly economies.
🇯🇵 Japan just took another major step toward becoming one of the world's most crypto-friendly economies.
• Crypto is being recognized as regulated financial products.
• The government is moving toward legalizing crypto ETFs.
• SHIB is already on Japan's JVCEA Green List,… https://t.co/A05BOgkjdc pic.twitter.com/Gkxqam60kJ
— Mazrael.Shib (@Mazrael_shib) July 11, 2026 This comes as cryptocurrencies are recognized as regulated financial products in the country. Last month, Japan's House of Representatives passed a bill that moves crypto regulation from the Payment Services Act to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.
You Might Also Like
HOT Stories
The new rules, due to come into force next year, would treat crypto assets as financial instruments, subjecting them to lower taxes and stricter trading rules. They also open the door to new products such as exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
Mazrael also highlighted Japan's push toward legalizing crypto ETFs. Japan is getting closer to bringing cryptocurrency further into its mainstream financial system after indicating support for crypto exchange-traded funds. Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama stated the government is working on a legal framework to allow these investment products in the domestic market.
Big win for SHIB?Japan has over 14 million open cryptocurrency accounts, with low- to middle-income retail customers driving the growth.
You Might Also Like
Shiba Inu is positioned to benefit from this growing market as it is already on Japan's JVCEA Green List, which makes it easier for regulated platforms in the country to list. JVCEA said it had added Shiba Inu to the Green List last November. This is significant as being on the list is like getting a fast pass for Japanese exchanges.
SHIB is also available through Mercoin, a Tokyo-based subsidiary of Japan's massive e-commerce and marketplace app Mercari, thus expanding access across Japan.
Japan opened a major door for SHIB in April with its listing on Rakuten Wallet, a cryptocurrency trading platform owned by Japan's Rakuten Group. Shiba Inu is now utilized in the ecosystem, which includes Rakuten Pay with 44 million users, allowing SHIB to reach people who have never even thought about crypto.
Pendle just made cross-chain DeFi a whole lot less painful. The yield-trading protocol announced a full upgrade to BungeeExchange V3, bringing faster routing, lower fees, and a feature that sounds almost too convenient: single-click cross-chain token swaps that don’t require users to hold native gas tokens on the destination chain.
In English: you can now swap any token on any chain directly into Pendle’s principal tokens (PT) or yield tokens (YT) without first scrambling to acquire ETH, MATIC, or whatever gas currency the receiving network demands. The protocol picks up that tab automatically.
Advertisement
What the upgrade actually changes Bungee, powered by SOCKET infrastructure, functions as a bridge aggregator, scanning multiple bridges and DEX routes to find the cheapest and fastest path for a swap. Pendle describes it as “the most powerful bridge aggregator,” and the numbers offer some backing for that claim: Bungee has facilitated over $25 billion in cumulative transaction volume across its lifetime.
The V3 upgrade specifically improves three areas. Routing speed has been enhanced, meaning the protocol can find optimal swap paths more quickly. Transaction fees have been reduced, though Pendle hasn’t disclosed specific percentage improvements. And the gasless execution feature eliminates what has long been one of the most annoying onboarding hurdles in multi-chain DeFi.
Why Pendle is betting big on cross-chain Pendle’s core product lets users split yield-bearing assets into two components: principal tokens (PT) and yield tokens (YT). PT represents the underlying asset’s value at maturity, while YT captures the yield generated over a given period.
By embedding a bridge aggregator directly into the swap flow, Pendle removes the multi-step process that previously required users to leave the platform, bridge manually, and return. The entire journey from holding Token A on Chain X to holding PT or YT on Chain Y now happens in one click.
Prior to this upgrade, community-built tools had already started enabling PT token trading through Bungee’s SOCKET infrastructure. The V3 release formalizes and expands that functionality.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Robinhood Chain is gaining ground fast. Just 11 days after its July 1 mainnet launch, the Arbitrum-based Ethereum Layer 2 processed 7.6 million transactions in a single day. That puts it within striking distance of Coinbase’s Base, which logged 9.2 million transactions the same day. The pace of that climb has caught the attention of on-chain analysts and HOOD stock investors alike, as Robinhood’s blockchain ambitions move from launch hype to live metrics.
Gas Subsidy Drives Explosive Growth on Robinhood Chain The driver behind the numbers is deliberate. Robinhood is covering all network fees for users through the first 90 days of mainnet. That brings the cost of transacting to near zero, drawing in retail traders, DeFi participants, and memecoin activity that would otherwise stay on competing chains.
According to on-chain data made by MSBIntel and verified by Token Terminal, Robinhood Chain has 7.6M transactions per day, and its daily protocol fees were approximately $4,000. Base is still ahead with 9.2M. However, there is a convergence of the gap.
BREAKING: Robinhood Chain processed 7.6 million transactions yesterday, nearing Base’s 9.2 million, eleven days after mainnet, per Token Terminal.
Base users pay for every transaction; Robinhood covers gas on its chain through a 90-day subsidy, with daily fees near $4,000. pic.twitter.com/sWLM0yRV0z
— MSB Intel (@MSBIntel) July 10, 2026
BREAKING: Robinhood Chain has nearly matched Base's daily transaction count in just 1.5 weeks.
Yesterday, Robinhood Chain processed 7.6 million daily transactions, compared with 9.2 million on Base.@vladtenev vs. @brian_armstrong game is on! pic.twitter.com/m4GqyMXzwD
— Token Terminal 📊 (@tokenterminal) July 10, 2026
Additionally, Robinhood Chain’s Base single-day volume exceeded $500 million as it took over the number 2 position among Uniswap deployments. Ethereum mainnet was the only one higher. Robinhood earlier flipped Base to No. 2 Spot on Uniswap, Trails Only Ethereum, a milestone that signals real liquidity activity, not just speculative churn.
The growth curve is similar to that of Base, which had been subsidizing fees, built on an established user base, and integrated with DeFi apps on day one, like Uniswap and Chainlink. Robinhood Chain adds one variable that Base was missing in its launch: direct access of 23 million brokerage users and tokenized equities that are live in more than 120 countries.
HOOD Stock Watchers Track L2 Metrics as Tokenized Finance Race Heats Up Every meaningful step taken on the chain by Robinhood has had a bearing on HOOD stock prices. The first Layer 2 announcement has caused the stock price to rise 10%.
The Robinhood agentic trading launch drove a slight 7% spike in the HOOD stock price after transactions on Robinhood Chain surged, continuing the same point as the launch that Robinhood is shifting from a brokerage to an on-chain financial infrastructure company.
Chainlink’s 95 tokenized stocks, which currently include NVDA, AAPL, and GOOG, were powered by Uniswap’s liquidity, Morpho’s lending, and Chainlink’s oracle pricing. Earlier this week, Robinhood announced a Layer 2 blockchain on Arbitrum.
The price of HOOD stock surged ~10% after the initial Robinhood Chain L2 announcement, which brought significant early investor excitement and provides context for the market’s pricing of the buildout. As of the July 10, 2026 close, HOOD traded at $111.97, down 2.73% on the day.
Google Finance HOOD Price Sustainability questions remain. This 90-day gas subsidy will expire at the end of September 2026. In April 2026, FalconX estimated its Robinhood Chain would collect approximately $1.1 million in fees in six months, but the subsidy is stopping this.
Once free gas runs out, volume will reset again, and the long-term traction will depend on real-world asset flows being greater than the memecoin spike during the launch week.
Next is early August with its Q2 2026 earnings, which will be the first to include live mainnet activity. That report will be pivotal for investors in determining whether Robinhood Chain’s early buzz is reflective of the infrastructure revenue narrative of the market.
Track active ICOs and upcoming token sales in one place.
Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
Morgan Stanley has increased its Bitcoin holdings by nearly 1,000 BTC over the past two weeks, lifting its tracked balance above 5,700 BTC, according to on-chain data.
Summary
Morgan Stanley added nearly 1,000 BTC over the past two weeks, pushing its tracked holdings to 5,761 BTC. Arkham data shows the accumulation came through multiple large transfers from Coinbase Prime rather than a single purchase. The latest buying follows Morgan Stanley’s June crypto expansion with Galaxy Digital, allowing eligible clients to convert crypto into spot investment products. According to blockchain intelligence platform Arkham, the investment bank continued adding Bitcoin through its spot Bitcoin investment product during the recent market pullback. Arkham’s latest portfolio data shows Morgan Stanley now holds 5,761 BTC worth roughly $369.9 million, making it one of the larger institutional Bitcoin holders tracked on the platform.
Source: Arkham The latest increase follows a series of transfers recorded over the past two weeks instead of a single purchase. Arkham’s transaction history shows several large inflows from Coinbase Prime wallets, including transfers of 495.8 BTC, 171.9 BTC, 166.2 BTC, 154.8 BTC, 143.3 BTC, 126.1 BTC, 120.4 BTC, and another 34.4 BTC within the last 14 hours. The activity also includes minor operational transfers and a 1 BTC movement back to Coinbase Prime, leaving the firm’s net increase at roughly 1,000 BTC.
Source: Arkham Latest purchases have come through multiple large transfers Recent Arkham data indicates Morgan Stanley accumulated Bitcoin in stages rather than executing a single large transaction. Most of the recorded inflows originated from Coinbase Prime custody and deposit addresses, suggesting institutional settlement activity linked to its Bitcoin investment product.
At current market prices shown on Arkham, the firm’s Bitcoin holdings are valued at nearly $370 million. Arkham also classifies the entity as a fund, an exchange-traded product, and a Bitcoin whale, while linking the portfolio to 11 tracked wallet addresses.
The latest buying extends a pattern of adding exposure during price weakness. Although Arkham describes the activity as another instance of Morgan Stanley “buying the dip,” the platform does not disclose whether the transactions represent direct purchases, client subscriptions, or other operational inflows into the investment vehicle.
Crypto investment services have expanded for wealthy clients The recent accumulation follows Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s June announcement that it had expanded its digital asset offering through a referral arrangement with Galaxy Digital.
Under the program, eligible high-net-worth clients can lend cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana to Galaxy Digital and receive shares in spot crypto investment products, including the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust. According to the companies, the structure allows investors to move crypto exposure into regulated investment vehicles without first selling their digital assets.
Morgan Stanley and Galaxy Digital also said the arrangement can reduce in-kind crypto-to-exchange-traded product onboarding times by as much as 75%, making transfers into regulated investment products faster than conventional processes.
The expanded client offering and the latest on-chain accumulation come as institutional participation in spot Bitcoin investment products continues to grow. While Arkham’s wallet data tracks assets associated with Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin product, the platform does not identify the underlying investors or distinguish between firm-owned holdings and assets managed on behalf of clients.
Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.
Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.
Tom Lee: Traditional finance and cryptocurrency will eventually converge into a single market, and he holds a long-term bullish stance.
Tom Lee, chairman of BitMine — the largest Ethereum treasury — stated that traditional finance (TradFi) and the cryptocurrency market will eventually merge into a single market. He added that his strong bullish conviction in ETH and the Ethereum blockchain has remained consistent over the past six years, reaffirming his long-term bullish stance.
17 minutes ago
Since hostilities resumed, vessel transits through the Strait of Hormuz have plummeted, pushing transportation costs higher.
Since the resumption of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran this week, transit volumes through the Strait of Hormuz have dropped significantly. According to Kpler data, Thursday’s transit volume fell to 22 vessels from 30 the previous day. Local time on Tuesday, Iran targeted vessels in the strait (including a damaged Qatari LNG carrier), sparking renewed clashes between the two sides. Since the reciprocal attacks on Tuesday, only two LNG carriers have entered the strait, while one has exited. After the U.S. and Iran signed an agreement on June 17 to launch negotiations to end the conflict, transit volumes had risen briefly, peaking a few days later before the ceasefire was broken. Shipping brokerage Braemar LNG said in a client report on Friday that shipowners, acting with caution, have withdrawn available capacity from the region "until the geopolitical situation becomes clearer". This move has reduced the number of available vessels and pushed up transportation costs.
17 minutes ago
Robinhood to Expand Its AI Agent Feature to Crypto Trading
Robinhood has officially announced that its AI agent feature is expanding into the cryptocurrency trading space. Eligible U.S. users will be able to connect third-party AI agents to execute crypto asset trades, co-develop trading strategies with the AI agents, and set specific risk limits, eliminating the need for continuous account monitoring. The platform also disclosed that since launching the beta version of its AI agent feature for stock and options trading, more than 70,000 "agentic accounts" have been created to date, though it has not yet revealed an official launch timeline for the crypto-focused AI agent trading function.
17 minutes ago
Sources familiar with the matter on Tencent's acquisition negotiations for Manus: Tencent will retain its minority shareholder status
Recent reports say Tencent is in discussions to become the largest shareholder of Manus, a general-purpose AI agent company. According to the reports, a Chinese capital group led by Tencent will repurchase all of Manus’ equity from Meta at a valuation of around $2 billion. Reporters from Southern Metropolis Daily reached out to Tencent for confirmation, but the company had no response as of press time. Another insider familiar with the matter revealed that after the transaction, Tencent will remain a minority shareholder and will not hold a controlling stake.
17 minutes ago
The Hedera Network is suspected of being hacked, with attackers transferring $3.7 million cross-chain to Ethereum.
According to on-chain detective Specter’s monitoring, Hedera Network is suspected of having suffered a hack. Attackers have bridged over $3.7 million from Hedera Network to Ethereum via LayerZero, and the stolen funds are currently being converted from WBTC to ETH.
17 minutes ago
Data: Bitcoin treasury firms have seen their combined market capitalization drop by over $100 billion, while their total Bitcoin holdings have instead climbed to 1.14 million coins.
Analyst Darkfost noted that since October 2025, the total market value of global Bitcoin treasury companies’ holdings has shrunk from $396 billion to $272 billion, erasing over $100 billion in value. Over the same period, the total Bitcoin held by these firms rose from 953,000 to 1.14 million coins — the market value drop was driven entirely by falling Bitcoin prices, not sell-offs. However, it is worth noting that since May this year, when Bitcoin entered a significantly undervalued range, the pace of these firms’ Bitcoin purchases has slowed sharply and nearly stalled. The companies’ most concentrated buying period ran from November 2024 to October 2025, during which their holdings tripled in less than a year at purchase prices roughly between $75,000 and $125,000 — a zone right within Bitcoin’s all-time high territory. The pressing question now is: With these firms having built up large positions at the peak, will they sell off at low levels? Strategy recently became the first to initiate Bitcoin sales; whether other treasury companies will follow suit and become a new source of selling pressure for the market remains to be seen. Given their current total holdings of 1.14 million Bitcoin, if more firms are forced to cut positions amid the slumping market to ease financial strains, this could pose additional downside risks to Bitcoin’s price.
XRP Price has triggered one of its rarest technical signals, sparking fresh speculation about a potential price rally. The token’s weekly Relative Strength Index (RSI) has dropped below 30 for only the second time in its 12-year history.
The last time this happened, XRP went on to gain more than 1,100%. While past performance does not guarantee the same outcome, many traders are now watching closely to see if XRP could be preparing for another major move.
XRP Weekly RSI Drops Below 30 for Only the Second TimeEntrepreneur and popular crypto trader Lark Davis pointed out that XRP’s weekly RSI has fallen into oversold territory only twice since the token launched.
“In 12 years, XRP has hit oversold on the weekly RSI. Two times. Not five times, not three times—just two times in 12 years.”
According to Davis, the first time it happened was during the 2022 bear market, when XRP’s weekly RSI dropped to 28.09 after heavy selling pushed the price from $0.8519 to a June 2022 low of $0.2905.
The second time came in last month in June 2026, when the weekly RSI fell to 29.6, marking another historic low. At that time, the XRP price fell from a high of $1.34 to a low of $1.020.
Since this signal has appeared only twice in XRP’s history, many traders are treating it as an important development.
What Happened the Last Time XRP Became Oversold?The previous oversold signal in 2022 marked a major turning point for XRP.
After falling below $0.30, the token gradually recovered before entering a strong bull market. By July 2025, XRP had climbed above $3.66, delivering gains of more than 1,100% from its lows.
This historical move has drawn attention to the latest RSI signal. However, Davis warned that the indicator should not be viewed as a guarantee of another rally.
“That doesn’t guarantee the same outcome this time. There are no guarantees in markets. But when a signal this rare appears on an asset with this much institutional attention and retail participation, I think it deserves attention.”
In other words, the RSI suggests that selling pressure may be fading, but investors should still look for confirmation from price action before expecting a sustained recovery.
XRP Price Analysis: Is a Move Toward $4.50 Possible?The monthly XRP chart suggests that selling pressure may be easing.
According to Coinpedia’s analysis, XRP may have completed the fourth phase of its correction and could now be preparing for another upward move.
At the time of writing, XRP is trading near $1.10, while the lower Bollinger Band sits around $0.80. Meanwhile, the monthly RSI has recovered to around 47, bouncing back from oversold levels. This indicates that buying interest is slowly returning.
However, a key challenge remains. XRP must break above and hold the 20-month moving average near $2.01 before a long-term bullish trend can be confirmed.
In the short term, the first major resistance lies between $1.18 and $1.20, where sellers could become active again.
Will XRP Repeat Its Previous Bull Run?The weekly RSI falling below 30 is one of the rarest signals in XRP’s trading history, having occurred only twice in the past 12 years. The previous signal was followed by a massive rally, but there is no guarantee that history will repeat itself.
Still, improving momentum, recovering RSI levels, and growing market interest have made XRP one of the cryptocurrencies traders are watching closely. If buyers can push the price above key resistance levels, XRP could build the momentum needed for a stronger recovery and potentially challenge new highs in the months ahead.
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.
Solana has flashed a new bullish technical signal after its SuperTrend indicator flipped to a “buy.”
The signal suggests the broader trend may have shifted in favor of buyers. However, the rally still faces a major test. SOL must break through a key resistance zone before it can target higher levels around $100 and $127.
At press time, Solana is trading at $78, down 5.54% over the past week but still up an impressive 20% on the monthly chart.
SuperTrend Flips Bullish Above $78 Notably, the bullish signal appeared after Solana broke above $78 on June 30. That move triggered a buy signal from the SuperTrend indicator on the three-day chart, and Solana subsequently posted a 16% gain, reaching $83.98.
Solana Chart TradingView It is the first bullish flip since October 2025 and marks the end of a prolonged bearish trend. The previous SuperTrend sell signal came before a 74% decline in SOL’s price, making this reversal one that traders are watching closely.
The indicator now points to a broader bullish trend. If buying momentum continues, SOL could climb toward $100.
Solana Exchange Outflows and Network Growth Add Support On-chain data also supports the improving technical picture. Between June 24 and July 3, investors withdrew about 1.5 million SOL, worth roughly $120 million, from cryptocurrency exchanges.
The outflows suggest investors are moving tokens into self-custody instead of leaving them on exchanges for sale. That could reduce near-term selling pressure.
Meanwhile, Solana added around 1.6 million new addresses over the past three weeks. The increase points to growing network activity and steady user participation.
Together, the exchange outflows, rising address count, and bullish SuperTrend signal suggest market conditions are improving.
$79–$85 Remains the Key Resistance Zone Despite the stronger outlook, the $79–$85 range remains the biggest hurdle for bulls. According to UTXO Realized Price Distribution (URPD) data, around 105 million SOL changed hands within this range. That has created a dense supply zone where many holders may choose to sell once they break even.
A decisive move above $85 could clear this overhead resistance. It would also open the door to the next major target around $100, followed by $127.
If SOL fails to reclaim this zone, selling pressure could return as investors look to exit their positions.
A Drop Below $74 Would Weaken the Bullish Outlook Downside risks remain. If SOL falls below $74, the SuperTrend indicator could flip back to a sell signal, invalidating the current bullish setup.
In that scenario, the chances of a deeper correction would increase. URPD data shows the next major support level sits near $53 if sellers regain control.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
TLDR: Bitcoin ETF inflows reached $90.44 million on July 10, with BlackRock’s IBIT supplying nearly all the fresh capital entering U.S. spot funds. Spot Ethereum ETFs added $18.43 million during the same session, showing that regulated crypto demand extended beyond Bitcoin alone. Bitcoin traded above $64,000 and approached the key $65,000 resistance area as softer oil prices and a weaker dollar supported risk assets. Short-term holders remain underwater near higher cost bases, leaving the $71,000 to $77,500 region exposed to renewed selling pressure. U.S. spot funds attracted fresh capital as Bitcoin returned above $64,000. Bitcoin ETF inflows reached $90.44 million on July 10, Eastern Time, according to SoSoValue data. Spot Ethereum products added another $18.43 million during the same session.
The move marks another positive flow day after June delivered roughly $4 billion in Bitcoin ETF withdrawals. Bitcoin traded near $64,149, while Ethereum changed hands around $1,798.
Both assets gained support from softer oil prices and a weaker U.S. dollar. Still, Bitcoin faces firm resistance near $65,000 as traders assess whether institutional demand can extend the rebound.
Bitcoin ETF Inflows Rise as BlackRock Controls the Session BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust generated $86.83 million of the daily total. VanEck’s HODL fund added $3.61 million, bringing combined Bitcoin ETF inflows to $90.44 million. IBIT has now attracted about $60.29 billion since launch, while HODL’s cumulative inflows stand near $1.14 billion.
U.S. Spot Bitcoin ETFs See $90.44 Million in Net Inflows; Ethereum ETFs Add $18.43 Million
According to SoSoValue data, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded total net inflows of $90.44 million on July 10, Eastern Time, while U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs recorded total net inflows of… pic.twitter.com/sAEX5gmh1b
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) July 11, 2026
The U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF market holds about $77.42 billion in total net assets. That equals roughly 6.05% of Bitcoin’s market value. Cumulative net inflows across the products have reached approximately $51.28 billion since trading began in January 2024.
The latest reading follows a difficult June for regulated Bitcoin funds. Investors withdrew around $4 billion during the month, setting the weakest monthly result since the products launched. A 10-day outflow run also removed about $2.73 billion before positive flows returned in early July.
Bitcoin ETF inflows now show selective demand rather than a broad rush into every product. The July 10 total came almost entirely from IBIT, with VanEck supplying the balance. This concentration shows that large investors still favor liquid funds with deep trading activity and competitive fees.
Ethereum ETF inflows were smaller but moved in the same direction. The $18.43 million daily addition represented about 10,550 ETH at prevailing prices. BlackRock’s ETHA attracted $16.20 million, while Fidelity’s FETH added $2.23 million.
ETF Demand Returns While Bitcoin Tests the $65K Barrier Bitcoin climbed above $64,000 and approached a three-week high as the dollar weakened. Lower crude prices also eased immediate inflation concerns, giving risk assets more room to recover. However, the rebound still needs stronger spot demand to support a sustained break above $65,000.
Short-term holder data presents another challenge. Buyers holding Bitcoin for one to six months remain about 15% underwater on average. The newest buyers hold a realized price near $61,600. The three-to-six-month group sits near $74,900.
Source: Cryptoquant That gap may create selling pressure during a stronger advance. Holders who bought near $70,000 could use a recovery to reduce losses. A break above $71,000 would improve the structure. The $73,200 to $77,500 area could attract heavier supply.
Bitcoin ETF inflows offer a stronger demand signal than leveraged futures activity. Yet negative apparent demand and a weak Coinbase premium still point to caution among U.S. spot buyers. Rising leverage could also expose the market to sharp liquidations if Bitcoin loses momentum below $64,000.
Analyst Axel Adler Jr. says short-term holder buying pressure has recently exceeded selling pressure. Buying scores ranged from 37% to 46% during June and July, while selling pressure stayed near 16%. Those conditions support a possible bounce, although older holders remain positioned to sell into higher prices.
